UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020

OR

Commission File Number 001-38722

ORCHARD THERAPEUTICS PLC

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its Charter)

108 Cannon Street

London EC4N 6EU

United Kingdom

(Address of principal executive offices)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: +44 (0) 203 808-8286

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

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None

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

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

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant: (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the 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, 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.  ☐

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

As of the last business day of the Registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter, the aggregate market value of the Registrant’s ordinary shares, nominal value £0.10 per share, held by non-affiliates was approximately $508 million.

As of February 25, 2021, the Registrant had 123,695,336 ordinary shares, nominal value £0.10 per share, outstanding.  

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Summary of the Material Risks Associated with Our Business

Our business is subject to numerous risks and uncertainties that you should be aware of in evaluating our business. These risks include, but are not limited to, the following:

The summary risk factors described above should be read together with the text of the full risk factors below, in the section entitled “Risk Factors” in Part I, Item 1.A. and the other information set forth in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including our consolidated financial statements and the related notes, as well as in other documents that we file with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The risks summarized above or described in full below are not the only risks that we face. Additional risks and uncertainties not precisely known to us, or that we currently deem to be immaterial may also materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and future growth prospects.

Table of Contents

i

SPECIAL NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Annual Report on Form 10-K, or Annual Report, contains express or implied forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, that involve substantial risks and uncertainties. In some cases, forward-looking statements may be identified by the words “may,” “might,” “will,” “could,” “would,” “should,” “expect,” “intend,” “plan,” “objective,” “anticipate,” “believe,” “estimate,” “predict,” “potential,” “continue,” “ongoing,” or the negative of these terms, or other comparable terminology intended to identify statements about the future. These statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other important factors that may cause our actual results, levels of activity, performance or achievements to be materially different from the information expressed or implied by these forward-looking statements. The forward-looking statements and opinions contained in this Annual Report are based upon information available to our management as of the date of this Annual Report, and while we believe such information forms a reasonable basis for such statements, such information may be limited or incomplete, and our statements should not be read to indicate that we have conducted an exhaustive inquiry into, or review of, all potentially available relevant information. Forward-looking statements contained in this Annual Report include, but are not limited to, statements about:

2

You should refer to the section titled “Item 1A. Risk Factors” for a discussion of important factors that may cause our actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied by our forward-looking statements. As a result of these factors, we cannot be assured that the forward-looking statements in this Annual Report will prove to be accurate. Furthermore, if our forward-looking statements prove to be inaccurate, the inaccuracy may be material. In light of the significant uncertainties in these forward-looking statements, these statements should not be regarded as a representation or warranty by us or any other person that we will achieve our objectives and plans in any specified time frame, or at all. We undertake no obligation to publicly update any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by law.

You should read this Annual Report and the documents that we reference in this Annual Report and have filed as exhibits to this Annual Report completely and with the understanding that our actual future results may be materially different from what we expect. We qualify all of our forward-looking statements by these cautionary statements.

3

PART I

Item 1. Business.

We are a global gene therapy company dedicated to transforming the lives of people affected by rare diseases through the development of innovative, potentially curative gene therapies. Our ex vivo autologous hematopoietic stem cell, or HSC, gene therapy approach harnesses the power of genetically modified blood stem cells and seeks to correct the underlying cause of disease in a single administration. We seek to achieve this outcome by utilizing a lentiviral vector to introduce a functional copy of a missing or faulty gene into the patient’s own, or autologous, HSCs through an ex vivo process, resulting in a gene-modified cellular drug product that can then be administered to the patient at the bedside.

To date, over 160 patients have been treated with our product candidates across seven different diseases, with follow-up periods of more than 10 years following a single administration. We believe the data observed across these development programs, in combination with our expertise in the development, manufacturing and commercialization of gene and cell therapies, position us to provide potentially curative therapies to people suffering from a broad range of diseases.

We are currently focusing our ex vivo autologous HSC gene therapy approach on three therapeutic disease areas: neurodegenerative, immunological and blood disorders. Our portfolio includes two commercial-stage products approved in Europe, seven lentiviral-based product candidates in clinical-stage development and several other product candidates in preclinical development. Our two lead programs are OTL-200, which was approved in the European Union, or EU, United Kingdom, or UK, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway under the brand name Libmeldy for eligible patients with early-onset metachromatic leukodystrophy, or MLD, and OTL-103, which is being investigated for the treatment of Wiskott Aldrich syndrome, or WAS. For each of our lead product candidates, we are in ongoing discussions with regulatory authorities with respect to the clinical and other data required for future regulatory submissions.  In late 2020, for instance, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration, or FDA, cleared our investigational new drug, or IND, application for OTL-200, and we plan to complete interactions with the FDA to determine the path to file a biologics license application, or BLA, by mid-2021. We plan to file a marketing authorization application, or MAA, for OTL-103 in Europe by year-end 2021 and a BLA for OTL-103 in the U.S. in 2022.

We have a broad and advanced portfolio of commercial-stage products, and research and development-stage product candidates, and we believe our approach of using lentiviral vectors to genetically modify HSCs has wide-ranging applicability to a large number of indications. The ability of HSCs to differentiate into multiple cell types allows us to deliver gene-modified cells to multiple physiological systems, including the central nervous system, immune system and red blood cell and platelet lineage, thereby potentially enabling the correction of a wide range of diseases. By leveraging the innate self-renewing capability of HSCs that are engrafted in the bone marrow as well as the ability of lentiviral vectors to achieve stable integration of a modified gene into the chromosomes of HSCs, our gene therapies have the potential to provide a durable effect following a single administration.

4

The diseases we are targeting affect patients around the world, requiring an infrastructure to deliver gene therapies globally. In order to meet anticipated demand for our pipeline of approved products and product candidates still in development, we are utilizing our existing network of contract development and manufacturing organizations, or CDMOs, to manufacture lentiviral vectors and drug product. In addition, we have established process development capabilities in London, UK, and are leveraging technologies that will allow us to deliver our gene therapies globally.

Cryopreservation of our gene-modified HSCs is a key component of our commercialization strategy to deliver potentially curative gene therapies to patients worldwide, facilitating both local treatment and local or cross-border product reimbursement. In anticipation of commercialization, we developed cryopreserved formulations of Libmeldy (OTL-200) and OTL-103 and are collecting supportive clinical data from patients treated with cryopreserved formulations to support the analytical comparability to the fresh cell formulations used in our registrational clinical trials. The registrational trials for all our earlier stage product candidates are expected to be conducted using a cryopreserved formulation.

We have global commercial rights to all our clinical product candidates and plan to commercialize our gene therapies in key markets worldwide, including in Europe and the U.S. initially, subject to obtaining the necessary marketing approvals for these jurisdictions. We plan to deploy a focused commercial infrastructure to deliver Libmeldy and our product candidates, if approved, to patients and are focused on working closely with all relevant stakeholders, including patients, caregivers, specialist physicians and payors, to ensure the widest possible post-approval access for our product candidates. In addition, we may rely on third parties to assist with regulatory submissions, disease awareness, patient identification and reimbursement in countries where local expertise is required or where we do not have a direct presence.  For example, in January 2021, we announced partnerships with two regional specialty pharmaceutical companies with experience in rare genetic diseases to support us in the Middle East and Turkey.

As we continue to develop and expand our portfolio, we believe that the experience of our management team and our extensive academic relationships are key strategic strengths. Our management team has extensive experience in rare diseases and in the manufacturing, preclinical and clinical development and commercialization of gene and cell therapies. In addition, we partner with leading academic institutions around the world, which are pioneers in ex vivo autologous HSC-based gene therapy. We plan to leverage our internal expertise combined with our relationships with leading academic institutions to transition our lead clinical-stage product candidates to commercialization and continue to expand our portfolio of ex vivo autologous HSC gene therapy products.

Our ex vivo autologous HSC gene therapy approach

Our ex vivo autologous HSC gene therapy approach seeks to transform a patient’s autologous HSCs into a gene-modified cellular drug product to treat the patient’s disease. HSCs are self-renewing cells that are capable of differentiating into all types of blood cells, including white blood cells, red blood cells, platelets and tissue resident macrophages, which include the microglia of the central nervous system. HSCs can be obtained directly from the bone marrow, which requires administration of a general anesthetic, or from the patient’s peripheral blood with the use of mobilizing agents, which are agents that can move HSCs from the bone marrow into the peripheral blood for easier collection. The HSCs collected are then manufactured to insert a functional copy of the missing or faulty gene. By delivering gene-modified HSCs back to patients, we seek to take advantage of the self-renewing capability of HSCs to enable a durable effect following a single administration, as has been seen in our commercial and development programs. Since these cells are recognized by the body as the patient’s own cells, the risks associated with using donor cells may be reduced. In addition, the ability of HSCs to differentiate into multiple different cell types has the potential to enable the delivery of gene-modified cells to different physiological systems and allow the correction of a broad range of different diseases.

Clinical validation already exists for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, or HSCT, an approach of treating a patient with a genetic disease with HSCs contributed by a healthy donor individual, thereby using HSCs that contain a functioning copy of the gene of interest. However, this approach has significant limitations, including difficulties in finding appropriate genetically matched donors and the risk of graft-versus-host disease, transplant-related rejection and mortality from these and other complications, and is therefore typically only offered on a limited basis. Furthermore, genetically modified cells can be used to express enzyme activity at supra-physiological levels, which we believe has the potential to overcome the limitations of HSCT (where enzyme expression is generally limited to normal levels) to treat some neurometabolic disorders and improve the metabolic correction in neuronal cells before irreversible degeneration occurs. Our approach is intended to address these significant limitations of HSCT.

5

In a preclinical study conducted by one of our scientific advisors and published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, or PNAS, a subpopulation of gene-modified HSCs has evidenced the potential to cross the blood-brain barrier, engraft in the brain as microglia and express genes and proteins within the central nervous system, one of the important physiological systems targeted by our HSC gene therapy approach. As published in PNAS, images taken during the study show a cross-section of the brain of a mouse that was infused intravenously with HSCs, which had been genetically modified using a lentiviral vector carrying green fluorescent protein, or GFP. The GFP expression observed throughout the brain illustrates the potential of gene-modified HSCs to cross the blood-brain barrier, engraft in the brain and express the functional protein throughout the brain, thereby potentially addressing a range of diseases that affect the central nervous system. Libmeldy (OTL-200), for instance, leverages this same mechanism of action to deliver gene-modified HSCs that can cross the blood-brain barrier and deliver a therapeutic gene that can prevent neuronal degeneration. The study demonstrated widespread distribution and expression of GFP in the brain of a mouse model following intravenous administration of HSCs transduced with GFP encoding vector.

With respect to Libmeldy (OTL-200) and each of our product candidates, our ex vivo gene therapy approach utilizes a self-inactivating, or SIN, lentiviral vector to introduce a functional copy of the missing or faulty gene into the patient’s autologous HSCs through an ex vivo process called transduction, resulting in a cellular drug product that can then be re-introduced into the patient. Unlike some other viral vectors, such as adeno-associated viral, or AAV, vectors, lentiviral vectors integrate into the chromosomes of patients’ HSCs. We believe this allows us to achieve stable integration of the functional gene into the HSCs and can lead to durable expression of the target protein by the gene-modified HSCs and their progeny after a single administration of gene therapy. In contrast, because AAV vectors rarely integrate into the genome, the transgene is not passed on to all progeny when the cell divides, resulting in rapid dilution and loss of the transgene among frequently dividing cells such as HSCs. Regarding immunogenicity, because in vivo delivery of AAV places the vector into direct contact with the immune system and most individuals harbor some type of pre-existing immunity, including neutralizing antibodies, to one or more types of AAV vector, the incoming vector can be completely inactivated by the patient’s immune system.  Furthermore, there have been reports that certain high dose applications of AAV have resulted in acute and severe innate immune responses that have proved lethal.  With ex vivo delivery, however, the vector is not introduced directly into the body and vector elements are washed away in the laboratory such that there is little to no vector element left to present to the immune system. Our HSC gene therapies and product candidates are all manufactured ex vivo. Strimvelis is the only gammaretroviral vector-based gene therapy in our portfolio.

The image below illustrates the steps in our approach to transform a patient’s autologous HSCs ex vivo into therapeutic product.

Initial clinical trials conducted using our product candidates utilized a fresh product formulation, resulting in a limited drug product shelf life. We plan to market Libmeldy (OTL-200) and our current and any future product candidates, if approved, in a cryopreserved product formulation, which is designed to extend the drug product shelf life and enable the shipment of the drug product to specialized treatment centers, allowing patients to receive treatment closer to their home while leveraging more centralized manufacturing. Cryopreservation also allows us to conduct a number of quality control tests on the genetically modified HSCs prior to introducing them into the patient.

6

In addition, certain of our clinical-stage product candidates have been evaluated in registrational trials using drug product derived from HSCs extracted from the patients’ bone marrow. To optimize our potential product label and the number of patients that we may be able to treat, as part of any BLA or MAA submission for such product candidates, we plan to demonstrate comparability between drug product manufactured using HSCs derived from the patients’ peripheral blood and drug product manufactured using HSCs derived from the patients’ bone marrow. In cases where clinical trials were conducted using vector and/or drug product manufactured at academic centers, we plan to demonstrate comparability between vector and/or drug product manufactured by our third party commercial CDMOs with vector and drug product manufactured at such academic centers.

Initially, we are employing our ex vivo autologous HSC gene therapy approach in three therapeutic disease areas: neurodegenerative, immunological and blood disorders. Data from clinical trials suggest that ex vivo autologous HSC gene therapy has the potential to provide generally well-tolerated, sustainable and improved outcomes over existing standards of care for diseases in these areas. We believe that we can apply our approach beyond our initial target indications to treat an even broader range of diseases.

Our strategy

We are building a leading, global, fully-integrated gene therapy company focused on transforming the lives of people affected by severe diseases.  To achieve this, we are pursuing the following strategies:

Our pipeline

We have one of the deepest and most advanced gene therapy pipelines in the industry spanning multiple therapeutic areas where the disease burden on children, families and caregivers is immense and current treatment options are limited or do not exist. Our programs focused on neurodegenerative disorders consist of our commercial program approved in Europe, Libmeldy (OTL-200) for MLD, two clinical proof of concept-stage programs, OTL-203 for mucopolysaccharidosis type I, or MPS-I, and OTL-201 for mucopolysaccharidosis type IIIA, or MPS-IIIA, and three preclinical programs, OTL-202 for mucopolysaccharidosis type IIIB, or MPS-IIIB, OTL-204 for frontotemporal dementia with progranulin mutations, or GRN-FTD, and OTL-205 for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or ALS.  Our programs in immunological disorders consist of our commercial program approved in Europe, Strimvelis for adenosine deaminase severe combined immunodeficiency, or ADA-SCID, two advanced registrational clinical programs, OTL-101 for ADA-SCID and OTL-103 for WAS, one clinical proof of concept-stage program, OTL-102 for X-linked chronic granulomatous disease, or X-CGD, and one preclinical program, OTL-104 for Crohn’s disease with mutations in the nucleotide-binding oligomerization domain-containing protein 2, or NOD2-CD. Our clinical proof of concept-stage program, OTL-300 for transfusion-dependent beta-thalassemia, or TDT, is focused on a life-threatening blood disorder.

7

The nature of our autologous gene therapy product candidates precludes the conduct of Phase 1 safety studies in healthy volunteers. Moreover, considering the indications our product candidates are intended to treat, which are often fatal without treatment and which are rare indications with high unmet medical need, we believe our clinical programs will generally be eligible to proceed to registration based on a single pivotal study given the bioethical considerations regarding the conduct of randomized, double-blind and placebo-controlled clinical trials with gene therapies for such indications. For purposes of this Annual Report, we refer to an exploratory study, which is sometimes referred to as a Phase 1 or Phase 1/2 clinical trial, as a proof of concept trial, and a confirmatory efficacy and safety study to support submission of a potential marketing application with the applicable regulatory authorities, which is sometimes referred to as a Phase 2/3 or Phase 3 clinical trial or a pivotal trial, as a registrational trial.

The status of these programs is outlined below:

Neurodegenerative Disorders

Gene therapy for treatment of MLD

Disease overview

MLD is a rare and life-threatening inherited disease of the body’s metabolic system occurring in approximately one in every 100,000 live births in most regions of the world. Higher incidence rates are reported in geographies of higher consanguinity, such as Turkey and the Middle East. MLD is caused by a mutation in the arylsulfatase-A, or ARSA, gene that results in the accumulation of sulfatides in the brain and other areas of the body, including the liver, gallbladder, kidneys, and/or spleen. Over time, the nervous system is damaged, leading to neurological problems such as motor, behavioral and cognitive regression, severe spasticity and seizures. Patients with MLD gradually lose the ability to move, talk, swallow, eat and see. In its late infantile form, mortality at five years from onset is estimated at 50% and 44% at 10 years for juvenile patients.

8

Limitations of current therapies

Prior to the approval of Libmeldy (OTL-200) in Europe, there were no effective treatments or approved therapies for MLD. Palliative care options involve medications for seizures and pain, antibiotics and sedatives, on a case-by-case basis, as well as physiotherapy, hydrotherapy and tube feeding or gastrostomy when patients can no longer eat without assistance. Palliative care addresses the symptoms of MLD but does not slow or reverse the progression of the underlying disease. HSCT has limited and variable efficacy in arresting disease progression and, as a result, HSCT is not considered to be a standard of care for this disease. MLD patients, their caregivers and families, and the healthcare system have faced significant burdens given the severity of the disease and the lack of effective treatments.

Our solution, Libmeldy (OTL-200) for treatment of MLD

OTL-200 is designed as a one-time therapy that aims to correct the underlying genetic cause of MLD, offering eligible patients the potential for long-term positive effects on cognitive development and maintenance of motor function at ages at which untreated patients show severe motor and cognitive impairments. With OTL-200, a patient’s own HSCs are selected, and functional copies of the ARSA gene are inserted into the genome of the HSCs using a lentiviral vector before these genetically modified cells are infused back into the patient. The ability of the gene-corrected HSCs to migrate across the blood-brain barrier into the brain, engraft, and express the functional enzyme has the potential to persistently correct the underlying disease with a single treatment.

We obtained worldwide rights to this program through our asset purchase and license agreement with GSK, or the GSK Agreement. The clinical trials for this program have been conducted under a GSK-sponsored clinical trial authorization, which was transferred to us during the third quarter of 2018.

Libmeldy approval in Europe as Orphan Drug

In December 2020, the European Commission granted full, or standard, marketing authorization for Libmeldy (OTL-200) (autologous CD34+ cell enriched population that contains hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells transduced ex vivo using a lentiviral vector encoding the human arylsulfatase-A (ARSA) gene) for the treatment of early-onset MLD characterized by biallelic mutations in the ARSA gene leading to a reduction of the ARSA enzymatic activity in children with i) late infantile or early juvenile forms, without clinical manifestations of the disease, or ii) the early juvenile form, with early clinical manifestations of the disease, who still have the ability to walk independently and before the onset of cognitive decline.

Libmeldy has received orphan drug designation from the EMA for the treatment of MLD and orphan drug status was maintained at the time of approval. We are continuing to follow patients in the clinical development program for up to 15 years as a post-marketing commitment, and data will be presented to regulators at agreed points in order to further characterize the long-term efficacy and safety of Libmeldy, particularly in the early symptomatic early juvenile population.

Data Supporting the Clinical Profile of Libmeldy

The European Commission approval is supported by clinical studies of Libmeldy in both pre- and early- symptomatic, early-onset MLD patients. Early-onset MLD encompasses the disease variants traditionally referred to as late infantile, or LI, and early juvenile, or EJ.

Clinical efficacy was based on the integrated analysis of results from 29 patients with early-onset MLD who were all treated with Libmeldy prepared as a fresh formulation:

Clinical safety was evaluated in 35 patients with early-onset MLD:

9

Co-primary endpoints
The co-primary endpoints of the integrated efficacy analysis were Gross Motor Function Measure, or GMFM, total score and ARSA activity, both evaluated at 2 years post-treatment. Results of this analysis indicate that a single-dose intravenous administration of Libmeldy is effective in modifying the disease course of early-onset MLD in most patients.

Pre-symptomatic LI and EJ patients treated with Libmeldy experienced significantly less deterioration in motor function at 2 years and 3 years post-treatment, as measured by GMFM total score, compared to age and disease subtype-matched untreated patients (p≤0.008). The mean difference between treated pre-symptomatic LI patients and age-matched untreated LI patients was 71.0% at year 2 and 79.8% at year 3. Similarly, the mean difference between treated pre-symptomatic EJ patients and age-matched untreated EJ patients was 52.4% at year 2 and 74.9% at year 3. Although not statistically significant, a clear difference in GMFM total score was also noted between treated early-symptomatic EJ patients and age-matched untreated EJ patients (28.7% at year 2; p=0.350 and 43.9% at year 3; p=0.054).

A statistically significant increase in ARSA activity in peripheral blood mononuclear cells was observed at 2 years post-treatment compared to pre-treatment in both pre-symptomatic patients (20.0-fold increase; p<0.001) and early-symptomatic patients (4.2-fold increase; p=0.004).

At the time of the integrated data analysis, all treated LI patients were alive with a follow-up post-treatment up to 7.5 years and 10 out of 13 treated EJ patients were alive with a follow-up post-treatment of up to 6.5 years. No treatment-related mortality has been reported in patients treated with Libmeldy.

Key secondary endpoints
For EJ patients who were early-symptomatic when treated with Libmeldy, meaningful effects on motor development were demonstrated when these patients were treated before entering the rapidly progressive phase of the disease (IQ≥85 and Gross Motor Function Classification, or GMFC, ≤1). By 4 years post-disease onset, an estimated 62.5% of treated, early-symptomatic EJ MLD patients survived and maintained locomotion and ability to sit without support compared with 26.3% of untreated early-symptomatic EJ MLD patients, representing a delay in disease progression following treatment with Libmeldy.

A secondary efficacy endpoint that measured cognitive and language abilities as quantified by Intelligence Quotient/Development Quotient, or IQ/DQ, found in the treated LI subgroup, 12 out of 15 assessed patients had a fairly constant IQ/DQ, within the normal range (IQ/DQ score of 100 +/- SD of 15) throughout follow-up. All but two of these patients (i.e., one pre-symptomatic and one early-symptomatic) remained above the threshold of severe mental disability (IQ/DQ>55) at chronological ages at which all 14 untreated comparator LI patients showed evidence of severe cognitive impairment, which is defined as IQ/DQ below 55 and close to zero. Of the 10 surviving EJ patients, all 4 pre-symptomatic patients and 4 out of 6 early-symptomatic patients showed normal IQ/DQ throughout follow-up. In contrast, 11 out of 12 untreated EJ patients showed evidence of severe cognitive impairment during follow-up.

Clinical trial with cryopreserved drug formulation

The cryopreserved formulation of OTL-200 is being studied in a clinical trial of pediatric patients with pre-symptomatic LI , or pre- to early-symptomatic EJ in Milan, Italy.

The primary goal of this clinical trial is to assess the safety and efficacy of a cryopreserved formulation of OTL-200 in early-onset MLD patients, as measured by improvement in gross motor function and ARSA activity levels in the patients’ blood cells as well as overall survival. Secondary goals for this clinical trial include assessment of cognitive function through IQ.

Ten patients were treated in this trial between April 2017 and April 2020. All patients tolerated the administration well and for those with enough follow-up post-treatment, preliminary evidence of engraftment and restoration of ARSA activity in peripheral blood to supraphysiological levels and in cerebral spinal fluid, or CSF, to normal levels has been shown.

Data Supporting Safety Profile of Libmeldy

At the time of the integrated data analysis in December 2019, which data set consisted of 29 patients treated with the fresh (investigational) formulation, all treated LI patients were alive with a follow-up post-treatment up to 7.5 years, and 10 out of 13 treated EJ patients were alive with a follow-up post-treatment of up to 6.5 years. No treatment-related mortality has been reported in patients treated with Libmeldy.

10

The median duration of follow-up in the first nine patients treated with the cryopreserved (commercial) formulation was 15 months as of March 2020.

The most common adverse reaction attributed to Libmeldy was presence of anti-ARSA antibodies, or AAA. Five out of 35 patients tested positive for AAA at various post-treatment time points. Antibody titers were generally low and resolved either spontaneously or after a short course of rituximab. In all patients with positive AAA test results, no negative effects were observed in the post-treatment ARSA activity of peripheral blood or bone marrow cellular subpopulations nor in the ARSA activity within the cerebrospinal fluid. In addition to the risk associated with the gene therapy, treatment with Libmeldy is preceded by other medical interventions, namely bone marrow harvest or peripheral blood mobilization and apheresis, followed by myeloablative conditioning, which carry their own risks. During the clinical studies, the safety profiles of these interventions were consistent with their known safety and tolerability.

For more details, please see the Summary of Product Characteristics, or SmPC, for Libmeldy.

Additional clinical trial in Europe

A clinical trial in late juvenile patients with MLD is open for recruitment in Milan, Italy.

OTL-200 development in the U.S.

OTL-200 has received orphan drug designation for the treatment of MLD as well as Rare Pediatric Disease designation.   In late 2020, the FDA cleared our IND application for OTL-200 in the U.S., and in January 2021, FDA granted regenerative medicine advanced therapy, or RMAT, designation for OTL-200.  The IND includes a Phase 3b study with inclusion of early symptomatic early juvenile MLD patients and a prospective planned analysis of data from patients already treated in clinical studies in Italy. We plan to complete interactions with the FDA by mid-2021 to determine the path to file a biologics license application, or BLA, with the FDA. In parallel, we plan to initiate a Phase 3b clinical study in the early symptomatic early juvenile MLD patient population, which is planned to commence at a study site in the U.S. in mid-2021 and to be completed as post-BLA commitment.

Gene therapy for treatment of MPS-I

Disease overview

Mucopolysaccharidosis type I is a lysosomal storage disease caused by a deficiency of the lysosomal enzyme alpha-L-iduronidase, or IDUA. Inherited deficiency of IDUA is responsible for MPS-I. Without treatment, clinical manifestations of this severe disease include skeletal abnormalities with severe orthopedic manifestations, hepatosplenomegaly, neurodevelopmental decline, sight and hearing disturbances, cardiovascular and respiratory problems leading to death in early childhood. IDUA deficiency can result in a wide range of clinical severity, with 3 major recognized clinical entities: Hurler, or MPS-IH, Scheie, or MPS-IS, and Hurler-Scheie, or MPS-IH/S, syndromes. Hurler and Scheie syndromes represent phenotypes at the severe and attenuated ends of the MPS-I clinical spectrum, respectively.

The median age of diagnosis for MPS-IH is 12 months; most affected children are diagnosed before 18 months of age. Infants affected by MPS-IH usually appear normal at birth, but may develop inguinal or umbilical hernias in the first six months, and develop the characteristic somatic phenotype over the first few years of life.

The approximate incidence of MPS-I is of one in 100,000 live births.  Approximately 60 percent of children born with MPS-I have MPS-IH.

Limitations of current therapies

Allogeneic-HSCT with pre- and peri-transplant enzyme replacement therapy, or ERT, from diagnosis to engraftment has been established as the standard of care for MPS-IH patients diagnosed before the age of 30 months and with presumed MPS-IH (presence of family history and/or clinical signs and symptoms compatible with MPS-IH, i.e., phenotypic diagnosis based on clinical expertise), and/or homozygosity or compound heterozygosity for mutations associated with the severe phenotype. The recommendation that HSCT should be standard of care for MPS-IH patients is endorsed by the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy.

Despite its established position in treatment algorithms, allogeneic-HSCT can result in alloreactive complications, including potentially fatal graft versus host disease, or GvHD, particularly when the degree of matching between graft donor and

11

recipient is low. Additionally, although it may stabilize cognitive decline, life-threatening or severely debilitating cognitive, neurological, orthopedic, cardiac, respiratory and ophthalmic manifestations of MPS-IH have been reported during long-term post-HSCT follow-up.

Our solution, OTL-203 for treatment of MPS-I

Ex vivo autologous HSC gene therapy strategies aimed at correcting the genetic defect in patients could represent a significant improvement for the treatment of MPS-I, notably MPS-IH the most severe and prevalent phenotype with the highest unmet medical need, when compared to current treatments.  

OTL-203 is a single administration, gene therapy product candidate consisting of autologous CD34+ enriched HSPCs, derived from mobilized peripheral blood, genetically modified ex vivo with the lentiviral vector encoding for the IDUA complementary DNA, or cDNA. It is being developed as a cryopreserved formulation. Ex vivo autologous gene therapies, such as OTL-203, are designed to correct the genetic defect in patients’ own HSCs and their progeny by addition of corrective cDNA. The OTL-203 mechanism of action addresses the disease pathophysiology by restoring enzymatic IDUA expression in peripheral and central body compartments as well as restoring microglia homeostasis and its neuroprotective effects against the neurotoxic effects of glycosaminoglycan, or GAG, accumulation in affected cells. We have obtained worldwide development and commercialization rights to OTL-203 from Telethon Foundation and San Raffaele Hospital.

Autologous cells may be genetically modified to constitutively express supra-normal levels of the therapeutic enzyme and become a quantitatively more effective source of functional enzyme than wild-type cells, possibly also at the level of the nervous system and bone.

The therapeutic potential of this approach for addressing the extensive nervous system manifestations of MPS-IH is based on the contribution of HSCs to the turnover of CNS-resident microglia, demonstrated both in physiological and pathological conditions. Since microglia have been implicated in the pathogenesis of a number of neurodegenerative conditions, including LSDs. These cells should be considered a primary target cell type in therapeutic strategies for LSD with neurologic involvement such as MPS-IH. Moreover, compared to allogeneic transplantation, which is the current standard of care for MPS-IH treatment, the autologous nature of OTL-203 is associated with a significantly reduced transplant-related morbidity and mortality and avoids the risks of graft versus host disease.

OTL-203 has received orphan drug and PRIME designation from the EMA as well as orphan drug designation and rare pediatric disease designation from the FDA for the treatment of MPS-I.

Ongoing clinical trials

OTL-203 is currently being investigated in an ongoing, academic-sponsored clinical trial at the San Raffaele Hospital in Milan, Italy to establish proof of concept. The study is a prospective, single dose, single center, non-randomized, open label study involving a single administration of OTL-203 in eight patients with a confirmed diagnosis of MPS-IH. The study is fully enrolled using a cryopreserved formulation of OTL-203.

The patients evaluated in this trial include pediatric MPS-IH patients from 14 to 35 months of age at the time of treatment and will be followed for at least 2 years post-treatment in the context of the proof of concept study and then continue to be evaluated in a long-term follow-up study.

Interim results for all eight patients were presented at the WORLDSymposium in February 2021.  As of November 2020, follow-up in all patients reached at least 12 months and the interim data supporting clinical proof-of-concept illustrated that treatment with OTL-203 was generally well-tolerated with a safety profile consistent with the selected conditioning regimen. IDUA antibodies present prior to gene therapy as a result of ERT were not seen in any patient within two months following treatment. In addition, ERT was discontinued at least three weeks prior to any patient receiving gene therapy treatment, and no patients had re-started ERT post-treatment.

In terms of biomarker data, treatment demonstrated rapid and sustained metabolic correction with all patients achieving supra-physiological IDUA expression in dried blood spot samples at 12 months (a primary efficacy endpoint). Associated with this, the results demonstrated increased IDUA expression in the CSF, with reduction of GAGs in CSF and normalization of GAG levels in urine.

All eight patients treated with OTL-203 showed stable cognitive function, motor function and growth within the normal range at multiple data points post-treatment. For instance, stable cognitive performance, as evaluated by cognitive age-

12

equivalence using the Bayley scale, was shown in all patients post-treatment, with follow-up ranging from 6 months to 2 years. Longitudinal growth that was within age-appropriate reference ranges was seen in all patients post-treatment, with follow-up ranging from 9 months to 2 years. Furthermore, stable motor function was seen in all patients compared to pre-treatment, with follow-up ranging from 9 months to 1.5 years, and improved range of motion (less joint stiffness) was also shown in all patients compared to pre-treatment, with follow-up ranging from 9 months to 1.5 years.

We have been granted parallel scientific advice by the FDA and EMA on this program. We intend to seek feedback from the regulatory agencies, including on the study design and CMC development, in advance of initiating an international multi-center registrational study for OTL-203 by year-end 2021, subject to filing an IND in the U.S. and necessary clinical trial applications, or CTAs, in Europe.

Gene therapy for treatment of MPS-IIIA and MPS-IIIB

Disease overview

MPS-IIIA, also known as Sanfilippo syndrome type A, and MPS-IIIB, also known as Sanfilippo syndrome type B, are life-threatening metabolic diseases that cause accumulation of glycosaminoglycan in cells, tissues and organs, particularly in the brain. Within one to two years after birth, MPS-IIIA and MPS-IIIB patients begin to experience progressive neurodevelopmental decline, including speech delay and eventual loss of language, behavioral disturbances, and potentially severe dementia. Ultimately, most patients with MPS-IIIA progress to a vegetative state. Life expectancy for patients with MPS-IIIA and MPS-IIIB is between 10 to 25 years and 15 to 30 years, respectively.

The incidence of MPS-IIIA and MPS-IIIB are currently estimated to be one in 100,000 and one in 200,000 live births per year, respectively.

Limitations of current therapies

Currently, there are no effective treatments or approved therapies for MPS-IIIA and MPS-IIIB. Palliative care options involve medications for seizures and pain, antibiotics and sedatives, on a case-by-case basis, as well as physiotherapy, hydrotherapy and tube feeding or gastrostomy when patients can no longer eat without assistance. Palliative care addresses the symptoms of MPS-IIIA and MPS-IIIB but does not slow or reverse the progression of the underlying disease. Systemic ERT is not an approved treatment option and HSCT is not considered to be an effective treatment option for these diseases. The severity of symptoms and lack of an effective treatment option to manage these symptoms is a significant burden to MPS-IIIA and MPS-IIIB patients, their caregivers and families and healthcare systems.

Our solutions, OTL-201 for treatment of MPS-IIIA and OTL-202 for treatment of MPS-IIIB

We are developing OTL-201 and OTL-202 as ex vivo autologous HSC gene therapies for treatment of patients with MPS-IIIA and MPS-IIIB, respectively. In both indications we believe preclinical studies in mice have shown that ex vivo autologous gene therapy has the potential to address the neurological manifestations of MPS-IIIA and MPS-IIIB. We have obtained worldwide development and commercialization rights to OTL-201 and OTL-202 from The University of Manchester.

OTL-201 has received orphan drug designation from the EMA and FDA for the treatment of MPS-IIIA and has received rare pediatric disease designation from the FDA.

Proof of concept trial in MPS-IIIA

We are supporting a proof of concept trial for the treatment of MPS-IIIA, which started enrollment in January 2020. The trial, which is being conducted by the Royal Manchester Children’s Hospital and sponsored by the Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, is expected to enroll up to five patients. As of February 2021, four patients were enrolled in the study and three patients had been treated with OTL-201 in the ongoing proof of concept trial.

Interim results were presented at the WORLDSymposium in February 2021 through an oral presentation.  As of February 2021, these preliminary results from the first three patients treated with OTL-201 showed promising tolerability, engraftment and biomarker data over the initial three-month follow-up period. For instance, the treatment has been generally well-tolerated in the first three patients with no treatment-related SAEs, and all transplant-related SAEs and adverse events have resolved. Data supported evidence of hematological engraftment, as illustrated by the rapid recovery of neutrophils, platelets

13

and hemoglobin levels post myeloablative conditioning in all three patients within three months of treatment. Enrollment is planned to be completed and the company intends to release additional interim results in 2021.

In terms of biomarker data, SGSH enzyme expression in leukocytes and CD15+ cells increased from undetectable levels at baseline to supra-physiological levels at three months in all three patients treated.  Furthermore, investigators reported a reduction of urinary GAG levels to within the normal range by three months in the first two patients treated with evaluable data.

Preclinical development of OTL-202

OTL-202 will use the same approach as OTL-201. Lentivirus vector optimization for OTL-202 for treatment of MPS-IIIB is ongoing, and we plan to continue to progress preclinical development of MPS-IIIB. We plan to leverage information gained from OTL-201 preclinical and clinical development to support the OTL-202 program.

Research program in FTD

Disease overview

Frontotemporal Dementia, or FTD, is the second most common cause of dementia after Alzheimer Disease in people under the age of 65. FTD is due to the atrophy of the frontal and temporal lobes of the brain. The disease manifests with progressive changes in behavior and personality, starting with symptoms such as decline in social and personal interactions, depression, apathy, emotional blunting, disinhibition and language disorders, and then progressing to general cognitive impairment at a later stage. In ~5% of patients, FTD is caused by mutations in one copy (haploinsufficiency) of the gene that codes for progranulin, or GRN. GRN is a neurotrophic, anti-inflammatory factor that is produced and secreted among others by specialized cells in the brain called microglia cells. GRN produced by microglia cells can be taken up by neighboring neurons, helping them to be healthy and functional. Since GRN-FTD patients’ cells do not produce enough GRN, brain inflammation develops with time and neurons become progressively dysfunctional until they eventually die, leading to brain atrophy and the aforementioned symptoms.

We believe there are currently up to 2,500 people affected by GRN-FTD in Europe/U.S., with approximately 800 new cases per year.

Limitations of current therapies

There are no treatments available for FTD and death occurs six to nine years after onset.

Our solution, OTL-204 for treatment of FTD

OTL-204 is an ex vivo autologous HSC gene therapy being developed to replace the defective microglia cells in the brain of GRN-FTD patients with genetically modified microglia cells that produce and secrete a corrective amount of GRN. These cells develop naturally from HSCs, which are collected from the patient and modified by using a viral vector that brings a functional copy of the GRN gene. When they are infused in the patient, the genetically modified HSCs naturally reach the brain and become resident microglia cells. OTL-204 is being developed in partnership with Professor Alessandra Biffi at the University of Padua in Italy. As part of the collaboration, we initiated a sponsored research agreement with the University of Padua and obtained an exclusive option with Boston Children’s Hospital to develop and exclusively license the program.

Preclinical development of OTL-204

In vitro data obtained in 2020 have demonstrated that human cell lines and mouse HSCs can be efficiently transduced to produce GRN. GRN is then secreted in the culture medium and can be taken up by other types of cells that do not produce GRN themselves.

Preclinical studies in a mouse model of FTD are currently under way, and we plan to announce new preclinical data from this research program in the second half of 2021.

14

Research program in ALS

Disease overview

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or ALS, is a progressive neurodegenerative disease of the motor neurons. People affected by ALS develop muscular weakness, twitching and atrophy that cause difficulties in speaking, swallowing and eventually breathing. Mutations in many different genes have been linked to ALS and these generally lead to the malfunctioning of neurons and their degeneration, causing a strong inflammation in the brain that further worsen neuronal death. Microglia cells are a type of brain cells that are heavily involved in inflammation and can contribute to neuronal loss by promoting oxidative stress. In particular, the Nox2 gene expressed by microglia cells induces the production of reactive oxygen radical species, which cause oxidative stress, damage to molecules and inflammation. It is important to note that ALS patients who have lower levels of Nox2 have a much better survival.

The incidence of ALS is currently estimated at 2.1 to 3.8 per 100,000 live births in the EU and UK and 1.0 to 2.6 per 100,000 live births in the U.S., for a total of up to 12,000 to 15,000 new patients per year.

Limitations of current therapies

There is no effective treatment for ALS and the average survival is between two and four years from the onset of symptoms.

Our solution, OTL-205 for treatment of ALS

OTL-205 is an ex vivo autologous gene therapy being developed to genetically modify microglia cells so that they have a much lower level of Nox2 and therefore produce less oxidative stress and less local inflammation. Microglia cells can be derived from HSCs. In our approach, HSCs are extracted from the patient, modified in the laboratory with the lentiviral vector and then infused back into the patient. These modified HSCs then migrate into the brain, where they become microglia cells replacing the diseased cells and reducing inflammation. This approach has the potential to improve symptoms and prolong survival in all ALS patients irrespective of their genetic mutations. OTL-205 is being developed in partnership with Professor Alessandra Biffi at the University of Padua in Italy. As part of the collaboration, we initiated a sponsored research agreement with the University of Padua and obtained an exclusive option with Boston Children’s Hospital to develop and exclusively license the program.

Preclinical development of OTL-205

Preliminary in vitro data have shown that reducing Nox2 levels by RNA interference in microglia cells efficiently reduces the inflammatory response in these cells and the production of oxygen radicals.

We plan to continue to progress in vitro and in vivo characterization of this therapeutic approach in relevant ALS mouse models.

Immunological Disorders

Gene therapy for treatment of WAS

Disease overview

WAS is a rare, life-threatening inherited disease affecting the patient’s immune system and platelets leading to recurrent, severe infections and uncontrollable bleeds, which are the leading causes of death in the disease. WAS is referred to as an “X-linked-recessive” disease as it is associated with a genetic defect on the X chromosome. Because it is an X-linked disease, it affects mainly males. Patients with WAS are born with a defect in the gene that produces the WAS protein, or WASP. As a result, they suffer from life-threatening thrombocytopenia and are at risk of severe bleeds, infections, autoimmunity, malignancies and severe eczema. These symptoms require increasingly frequent hospitalizations. The median survival for a patient with WAS without curative intervention is approximately 15 years. Patients with early onset WAS generally have a shorter life expectancy.

The incidence of WAS is currently estimated at approximately 0.4 in 100,000 live male births.

15

Limitations of current therapies

Treatment options for WAS include prophylactic anti-infective medicines, which are not always effective in preventing severe infections requiring antibiotics, antivirals, antifungals and intravenous immunoglobulin, as well as chronic platelet transfusions to prevent severe bleeding. WAS patients are often prescribed chronic oral medications or topical steroids and may require admission to hospital for intravenous antibiotic treatment. HSCT is an alternative treatment option for some patients for whom a sufficiently well-matched donor is identified. Although HSCT is potentially curative in patients with WAS, this approach can be associated with significant risks, especially when matched cell donors are not available. Approximately 75% of WAS patients treated with HSCT experience serious complications, such as severe infections requiring hospitalization, autoimmune manifestations, and GvHD within the first year of receiving the treatment. The risk of HSCT-related complications is greater in certain patients, including those that have had a previous splenectomy or are over five years old.

Our solution, OTL-103 for treatment of WAS

We are developing OTL-103 as an ex vivo autologous HSC gene therapy to treat patients with WAS through a single administration. OTL-103 is manufactured from HSCs isolated from the patient’s peripheral blood or bone marrow that are modified to add a functional WASP gene using a lentiviral vector. The autologous genetically modified cells are infused back into the patient in a single intravenous infusion following treatment with a conditioning regimen that is similar to that used in an allogeneic HSCT.

We obtained worldwide rights to this program through the GSK Agreement in 2018.

OTL-103 has received orphan drug designation from the FDA and the EMA for the treatment of WAS. OTL-103 has also received a Rare Pediatric Disease Designation from the FDA. RMAT designation was granted in 2019.

Clinical program

Eight patients have been treated with OTL-103 in an ongoing fresh formulation registrational trial at San Raffaele Hospital in Milan, Italy, and nine patients in an expanded access program, or EAP, at the same site, with a follow-up of up to approximately 10 years post-treatment for the first patient treated.  In addition, a phase 3, open-label, single arm clinical trial using the intended commercial cryopreserved formulation of OTL-103 was initiated in 2019 and has recruited and treated six patients as of January 2020. All patients have reached a minimum of 12-months follow-up. The co-primary endpoints of the study using the cryopreserved formulation include bleeding (0 to 12 months post-gene therapy) and infections (6 to 18 months post-gene therapy) compared with rates pre-gene therapy.

The primary goals of the registrational clinical trial are to assess the efficacy and safety of OTL-103 in WAS patients, as measured by, for example, improved T-cell function, improved platelet count and overall survival at 36 months after treatment. Other goals of this clinical trial include reduced bleeding episodes and reduced frequency of severe infections. The primary analysis for the registrational clinical trial was prospectively defined to be when all patients have completed at least 3 years’ follow-up, which was achieved in 2017.

The first interim analysis was generated in 2017, when 6 of the 8 subjects had completed at least 3 years follow up. The results of an interim analysis of this clinical trial were published in 2019 in Lancet Haematology and showed that WASP expression in lymphocytes and platelets was substantially improved compared to baseline by six months and remain constant thereafter. At one-year post-treatment with OTL-103, T-cell counts increased in seven evaluable patients, as compared to counts prior to treatment, reaching normal values. Because of the increase in T-cells, a reduction in infections was observed in patient's post-treatment compared to one year prior to treatment with OTL-103.

Mean platelet counts before treatment were low compared to normal, with a range of 6 x 10⁹ to 25 x 10⁹ per liter observed in eight patients. Platelet counts progressively improved in all patients. One-year post-treatment platelet counts increased in all patients to a range of 21 x 10⁹ to 74 x 10⁹ per liter, and further increases in platelet count were observed in six patients to a range of 27 x 10⁹ to 169 x 10⁹ per liter at three years post-treatment. In addition to the increase in platelet count, increased and sustained platelet volume in seven patients was also observed at three years post-treatment. These increases in platelet count and volume resulted in reduced frequency and severity of bleeding events as compared to those experienced by these patients prior to treatment with OTL-103.

16

An EAP was put in place after the study completed enrollment. The objective of this EAP was to provide treatment for patients affected by WAS with high unmet medical need in advance of the product being commercially available.

A second interim analysis of patients in the registrational clinical trial and EAP was done in March 2019. As reported at ASH 2019, in patients with at least one year of follow-up in the program (n=14), the absence of severe bleeding events and independence from platelet transfusions were observed in all subjects by 9 months of follow-up. Additionally, a reduction in severe infection rate was observed at multiple time points post-treatment.

Cumulatively, as of January 2021, a total of 23 subjects from clinical trials and an EAP have been treated with OTL-103. Seventeen of the subjects – eight from clinical trials and nine from the EAP – have been treated with the fresh formulation of OTL-103, and six subjects have been treated with the cryopreserved formulation of OTL-103.

From these two trials and the EAP, 18 SAEs were reported in a total of seven subjects during the reporting period. Nine of the 18 events occurred pre-gene therapy in the cryopreserved study of OTL-103. None of these SAEs were considered to be related to OTL-103, no antibodies against WASP were detected, and no allergic reactions related to OTL-103 have been reported in subjects treated with OTL-103. As of December 2020, no new safety information has changed the known safety profile of OTL-103.

Regulatory pathway for OTL-103

An IND for OTL-103 was opened in the U.S. in 2019, and an RMAT multi-disciplinary meeting was held with FDA in 2020.  The meeting was intended to discuss the development program completed to date and the path to a BLA filing in the U.S. for OTL-103. Based on feedback received during that meeting, we are currently working to compile the remaining data to support a BLA filing including additional clinical data, CMC comparability data and development of a specific functional potency assay requested by the FDA.

In 2020, we also received scientific advice from EMA to clarify the filing strategy and data required to file an MAA in the EU.  We plan to continue engaging with the FDA and EMA in 2021 concerning the manufacturing and clinical development of OTL-103.

We plan to submit an MAA with the EMA and a BLA with the FDA for OTL-103 for the treatment of WAS in 2021 and 2022, respectively.

We currently expect that our MAA and BLA submissions will be supported by a data package, including an adequate potency assay and clinical data from our trial with eight patients treated with the fresh formulation of OTL-103 and data from the second clinical trial using the intended commercial cryopreserved formulation as well as data collected from nine additional patients treated with OTL-103 under an EAP. We intend to seek approval of OTL-103 using mobilized peripheral blood as the cellular source and a cryopreserved product formulation.

17

Gene therapy for treatment of ADA-SCID

Disease overview

Severe combined immunodeficiency, or SCID, is a rare, life-threatening inherited disease of the immune system. ADA-SCID is a specific form of SCID, commonly known as “bubble-baby disease,” caused by mutations in the ADA gene, resulting in a lack of, or minimal, immune system development, which leaves the patient vulnerable to severe and recurrent bacterial, viral and fungal infections.

The prevalence of ADA-SCID in the United States is currently estimated to be between one in 200,000 and the incidence is estimated at one in 1 million live births. Higher prevalence and incidence rates are reported in geographies of higher consanguinity, such as Turkey and the Middle East.

Patients with ADA-SCID are most commonly diagnosed during the first six months of life based on recurrent bacterial, fungal, and viral infections, persistent lymphopenia, and ADA activity below 1%. Newborn screening for T-cell deficiencies, including ADA-SCID, has now been adopted in all 50 states in the United States, as well as in other jurisdictions, including several Canadian provinces, Israel, Taiwan, Germany, Switzerland, Norway and Sweden.

Limitations of current therapies

The primary treatment options for ADA-SCID are HSCT and enzyme replacement therapy, or ERT. Although HSCT is a potentially curative treatment for ADA-SCID patients, this procedure is associated with a high risk of complications and mortality, with one-year survival rates of 43%, 67% and 86% for transplants from haploidentical donors, human leukocyte antigen, or HLA,-matched unrelated donors and HLA-matched sibling donors, respectively.

Chronic ERT is a palliative treatment for ADA-SCID patients and involves weekly or bi-weekly intra-muscular infusions. ERT with pegylated adenosine deaminase has been approved by the FDA and is commercialized in the United States. It is only available on a named patient use basis in Europe. Although ERT can temporarily restore immune function by maintaining high ADA levels in the plasma, many patients receiving chronic ERT therapy continue to have abnormally low levels of lymphocytes in the blood after the first year of treatment, and 50% of patients therefore require supplementary immunoglobulin replacement therapy. Chronic ERT has been associated with a 78% survival rate at 20 years; however, significant morbidity or mortality may occur as early as one to three years after the first treatment.

Our solutions, OTL-101 and Strimvelis for treatment of ADA-SCID

Strimvelis is the only gammaretroviral vector mediated autologous HSC gene therapy in our portfolio. Each of our other pipeline therapies, including OTL-101 for ADA-SCID and OTL-200 for MLD, employ a self-inactivating, or SIN, lentiviral vector-based approach that has been specifically designed to minimize the risk of insertional oncogenesis after administration. No evidence of insertional oncogenesis related to lentiviral vector-based HSC gene therapy has been reported in any of our programs.

Strimvelis

In Europe, our commercial program Strimvelis, an ex vivo gammaretrovirus mediated autologous HSC gene therapy, is the only approved gene therapy option for patients with ADA-SCID.  The EMA approved Strimvelis in May 2016 for treatment of children with ADA-SCID with no suitable HLA-matched related stem cell donor. Strimvelis consists of HSCs transduced with a gammaretroviral vector encoding the human adenosine deaminase cDNA sequence. Strimvelis is available at a single site in a fresh product formulation at San Raffaele Hospital in Milan, Italy, and has a shelf-life of up to six hours.

Summary of the safety profile of Strimvelis

In October 2020, one case of lymphoid T cell leukemia was reported in a patient approximately five years after such patient was treated with Strimvelis as part of a compassionate use program. We notified the EMA and the relevant local European regulatory authorities of an emerging safety issue and paused treating new patients with Strimvelis pending the completion of the causality investigation. Subsequent findings confirmed that the patient’s leukemia was due to insertional oncogenesis attributable to treatment with Strimvelis. The EMA’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use, or CHMP, reviewed the updated risk-benefit assessment of Strimvelis as part of its ongoing MAA renewal procedure, concluded that the risk-benefit balance remains favorable and recommended in February 2021 that the marketing authorization for Strimvelis be renewed for five years, allowing marketing of Strimvelis to resume.

18

As of November 2020, the safety of Strimvelis was evaluated in 40 patients – 22 patients who were treated in the clinical development program, 16 patients treated in the commercial setting, and 2 patients treated with a medicinal product prepared from mobilized peripheral blood under hospital exemption – with a maximum follow-up of 19 years. The reported adverse reactions are in line with the expected safety profile of Strimvelis and the conditioning regime administered prior to treatment with the product. The most commonly reported adverse reaction was pyrexia.  For complete safety details, please see the Summary of Product Characteristics, or SmPC, for Strimvelis, available at the EMA website.

OTL-101 for treatment of ADA-SCID

We are developing OTL-101 as an ex vivo autologous lentiviral vector-based HSC gene therapy to treat patients with ADA-SCID through a single administration.

OTL-101 has been investigated in multiple clinical trials in the United States and Europe. As of January 2021, 67 patients have been treated with a drug product manufactured with the EFS-ADA lentiviral vector, with a maximum follow-up of approximately nine years post treatment. Our program comprises a registrational trial conducted at University of California Los Angeles, or UCLA, of 20 patients treated with a fresh product formulation of OTL-101, supportive data derived from a clinical trial of 10 patients treated with a cryopreserved formulation at UCLA and additional data derived from a clinical trial of 10 patients treated with a fresh product formulation at Great Ormond Street Hospital, or GOSH.  The remaining 27 patients treated as of January 2021 represent compassionate use patients or patients for whom we do not have adequate follow-up as of the date of this Annual Report but for which safety data is presented in the summary below. Among the 67 patients treated, four patients, including those treated under compassionate use and additional supportive studies, did not engraft or had to resume ERT and/or receive rescue bone marrow transplant.

We obtained worldwide rights to the OTL-101 program through our UCLB/UCLA license agreement and we obtained worldwide rights to the Strimvelis program through our asset purchase and license agreement with Glaxo Group Limited and GlaxoSmithKline Intellectual Property Development LTD, or, together, GSK.

OTL-101 has received orphan drug designation from the FDA and the EMA for the treatment of ADA-SCID and Breakthrough Therapy Designation from the FDA. OTL-101 has also received a Rare Pediatric Disease Designation from the FDA.

Registrational trial conducted by UCLA (“UCLA Fresh study”)

Production of the fresh OTL-101 drug product formulation (with bone marrow as the cellular source) used in this clinical trial was performed onsite at UCLA and at the National Institutes of Health, or NIH, for one patient. In this clinical trial, all 20 enrolled and treated patients were treated with ERT prior to enrollment and continued ERT until 30 days following their treatment with OTL-101. Two years follow-up was completed for all patients in August 2018.

The primary goals of this clinical trial were to assess the safety and efficacy of OTL-101 in ADA-SCID patients, as measured by overall survival and event-free survival at 12 months post-treatment. Secondary goals in this clinical trial included immune reconstitution, as measured by lymphocyte and immunoglobulin levels, and reduction in severe infection rates.

Overall survival and event-free survival of 100% was observed at 12 months post-treatment, the primary endpoint of the trial. None of the enrolled patients required rescue medication, HSCT, or resumption of ERT.

When comparing the overall survival for the OTL-101 treated patients with a historical control group who received allogeneic bone marrow transplant, or HSCT, between 2000 and 2016 (n=26), OTL-101 treated patients achieved a higher overall survival rate at 24 months (100%) versus the group that received allogeneic bone marrow transplant (88%)

Event-free survival is defined as survival without resumption of PEG-ADA ERT or need for rescue allogeneic HSCT. Event-free survival in the OTL-101 treatment group was 100% at 24 months. In comparison, event-free survival in the allogeneic HSCT group was 56%.

Importantly, patients in this trial showed immune cell reconstitution following treatment with OTL-101, which can lead to restoration of both cellular and humoral immune responses. As of the final study report, the severe infection rates across the full post treatment period were lower in the OTL-101 treatment group compared with the HSCT control group. Additionally, by 24 months post-treatment, a considerably higher proportion of subjects in the OTL-101 treatment group (90%) had stopped immunoglobulin replacement therapy compared with HSCT controls (55%).

19

Supportive clinical trial with UCLA (with cryopreserved formulation) (“UCLA Cryo study”)

A cryopreserved formulation of OTL-101 (with bone marrow as cellular source) has been evaluated in a supportive clinical trial at UCLA. Enrollment for this trial is complete and of 10 patients treated, 9 completed their final 24-month study visit as of September 2019. One patient treated in this trial, who did not engraft, restarted ERT, was withdrawn from the trial, and later received a rescue HSCT. The aim of this clinical trial was to provide clinical data supportive of the analytical chemistry, manufacturing, and controls, or CMC, comparison of the fresh and cryopreserved drug product formulations. As of February 2019, when 7 patients had reached 18 months of follow-up, key biological parameters of engraftment and efficacy (including medians of VCN in granulocytes and CD3+ T lymphocyte counts and ADA enzyme activity) were consistent when compared across the UCLA Fresh and UCLA Cryo studies and remained consistent throughout follow-up.

We believe this consistency between the UCLA Fresh and UCLA Cryo studies is supportive of analytical comparability data between the fresh and cryopreserved formulations of OTL-101.

Additional clinical data from GOSH

In a parallel investigator-sponsored trial conducted by GOSH, ten enrolled patients have been treated with fresh product formulation (with bone marrow and mobilized peripheral blood as the cellular source). The drug product used in this clinical trial was produced using the same vector as at UCLA, but with a manufacturing process with minor differences to that for OTL-101. Production of the fresh formulation of the drug product used in this clinical trial was performed onsite at GOSH. In this clinical trial, all patients were being treated with ERT prior to enrollment and all but one patient continued ERT until 30 days following initial treatment with ex vivo autologous HSC gene therapy.

The primary goals of this clinical trial were to assess the safety and efficacy of the investigational drug product in ADA-SCID patients, as measured by overall survival and event-free survival at 12 months post-treatment. Secondary goals in this clinical trial included immune reconstitution, as measured by lymphocyte and immunoglobulin levels, and reduction in severe infection rates.

As of August 2020, overall survival of 100% has been observed at 36 months post treatment in the 10 patients enrolled, and nine patients have achieved event-free survival, with only one patient resuming ERT after 12.2 months due to a failure to engraft. We believe this failure to engraft may, in part, be attributable to the patient’s early discontinuation of ERT prior to treatment in contravention of the trial protocol, but may also relate to other clinical factors.

There is a second investigator-sponsored trial being conducted by GOSH, which has now enrolled and treated 10 patients with the cryopreserved product formulation from mobilized peripheral blood. The drug product used in this clinical trial is produced using the same vector and same manufacturing process as the drug product being evaluated at UCLA. Production of the cryopreserved formulation of the drug product used in this clinical trial is performed onsite at GOSH. In this clinical trial, all patients are being treated with ERT prior to enrollment and continue ERT until 30 days following initial treatment with ex vivo autologous HSC gene therapy.

The primary goals of this clinical trial are to assess the safety and efficacy of the investigational drug product in ADA-SCID patients, as measured by overall survival and event-free survival at 12 months post-treatment. Secondary goals in this clinical trial include immune reconstitution, as measured by lymphocyte and immunoglobulin levels, and reduction in severe infection rates. As of January 2021, all ten patients are alive and no longer being treated with ERT.

OTL-101 clinical program safety

As of January 2021, there have been 41 SAEs reported from 16 out of 33 subjects exposed to OTL-101 in the EAP and UCLA Fresh and UCLA Cryo studies. Based on the safety data collected in the OTL-101 clinical development, expanded access and compassionate use programs, OTL-101 has so far demonstrated a favorable safety profile.

A global observational long-term follow-up study is now open. This study is designed to collect long team safety and efficacy data from ADA-SCID patients previously treated with autologous ex vivo gene therapy products based on the EFS-ADA lentiviral vector up to 15 years post gene therapy in compliance with current regulatory requirements.

We have completed final clinical study reports for our registrational trial using OTL-101 fresh formulation and the second clinical trial using OTL-101 cryopreserved formulation, which we believe supports the analytical comparability data between fresh and cryopreserved drug product formulations.

20

Gene therapy for treatment of X-CGD

Disease overview

X-CGD is a rare, life-threatening inherited disease of the immune system. X-CGD is an X-linked-recessive disease and therefore affects males. Because of the underlying genetic defect in the cytochrome B-245 beta chain, or CYBB, gene in patients with X-CGD, the patient’s white blood cells, specifically neutrophils/granulocytes, are unable to kill bacteria and fungi, leading to repeated chronic infections. The main clinical manifestations of X-CGD are pyoderma; pneumonia; colitis; lymphadenitis; brain, lung and liver abscesses; and osteomyelitis. Granuloma formation can also occur as a result of persistent inflammatory response to the pathogens and can result in recurrent obstructions of the gastro-intestinal and urinary tract. Patients with X-CGD typically start to develop infections in the first decade of life. Mortality in X-CGD has been estimated at approximately 40% by the age of 35 years.

The incidence of X-CGD is currently estimated to be one in 200,000 male live births.

Limitations of current therapies

Current treatment options for X-CGD include prophylactic antibiotics, antifungal medications and interferon-gamma, which are not always effective in preventing severe infections. Although HSCT is potentially curative in patients with X-CGD, this approach can be associated with significant risks, especially when well-matched cell donors are not available.

Our solution, OTL-102 for treatment of X-CGD

We are developing OTL-102 as an ex vivo autologous HSC gene therapy to treat patients with X-CGD through a single administration. OTL-102 is manufactured from HSCs isolated from the patient’s own mobilized peripheral blood or bone marrow, then modified to add a functional CYBB gene using a lentiviral vector. The gene-modified cells are infused back into the patient in a single intravenous infusion following treatment with a myeloablative conditioning regimen.

We obtained worldwide rights to the OTL-102 program through an option and license agreement with Généthon, pursuant to which we have exercised an option to certain intellectual property and clinical data associated with clinical trials at sites in the United States and the United Kingdom.

OTL-102 has received orphan drug designation from the EMA and FDA for the treatment of X-CGD.

Ongoing clinical trials

OTL-102, which has been studied in two investigator-sponsored proof of concept clinical trials in the United States and in Europe, with target enrollment of 10 patients in a clinical trial sponsored by UCLA in the United States and an initial target enrollment of five patients in a clinical trial conducted by GOSH in Europe. The clinical trial sites included Boston Children’s Hospital, the NIH, and UCLA in the United States, and GOSH and The Royal Free Hospital in London. Patients enrolled in these trials have advanced and severe stages of X-CGD. Manufacture of the drug product occurred at each of these sites using the same vector. As of January 2021, nine patients had been treated in the clinical trial in the United States, five of which were treated with a fresh product formulation and four of which were treated with a cryopreserved formulation. Further, three patients had been treated in the clinical trial in Europe, and one patient was treated in a compassionate use program in Europe with a cryopreserved product formulation. In the future, we may treat additional pediatric patients in this trial with a cryopreserved formulation of OTL-102.

OTL-102 has shown sustained CYBB expression for over two years in six patients to date, with a follow-up of three years post-treatment in patients as of January 2021.

21

In these clinical trials, the production of NADPH-oxidase activity in neutrophils, a biomarker that demonstrates restored granulocyte function, has been measured in patients for up to 24 months post-treatment. In a November 2019 publication in Nature Medicine, combined data from nine patients, including initial enrollees in both clinical trials and a compassionate use patient, showed NADPH-oxidase activity, as measured by dihydrorhodamine, or DHR, assay, above 10% in six patients with at least 24 months follow-up. Based on the scientific literature, levels of NADPH-oxidase activity above 10% was a clinically meaningful percentage for fighting infections successfully. One pediatric patient showed initial engraftment of DHR+ cells followed by a decrease to levels of 1% or less. The graphic below illustrates sustained NADPH-oxidase levels, as measured for up to 24 months post-treatment.

OTL-102 (X-CGD): NADPH-oxidase activity⁽¹⁾

(1) Excludes data from one patient treated with drug product deemed by the investigator to be a different form of OTL-102 drug product.

Since September 2018, four additional patients have been treated as part of the clinical trials, with one adult patient having sustained DHR+ neutrophils of 77.2% at 6 months and three pediatric patients displaying a similar response to the pediatric patient that did not respond to therapy. These observations specific to the pediatric patients were investigated and amendments to the clinical protocols were made in 2020 to modify the conditioning regimen used in studies with the aim of improving engraftment.  Factors that are considered important to address are the chronic inflammatory environment of the bone marrow in CGD patients, the potential for B and T cell immune responses, either as a result of the disease background or as newly generated due to the ‘novel’ expression of gp91phox and the quality of the drug product which may be influenced by the quality of the collected cells. Investigators plan to begin enrolling additional pediatric patients (n=6) in 2021 and 2022 to access outcomes in the specific patient's population. The primary goals of this extension clinical trial are to assess safety and efficacy, as measured by biochemical and functional reconstitution through increased nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate-oxidase, or NADPH oxidase, activity in progeny of engrafted cells and stability at 12 months post-treatment. Following institutional review board, or IRB, approvals, enrollment can commence. We intend to follow these pediatric patients in the proof of concept study and then progress OTL-102 into a registrational study.

Two patients treated with OTL-102 as part of the clinical trials died during the three months period following treatment as a result of pre-existing disease-related complications present at the time of treatment with OTL-102. One of these patients (from the UK trial) died of acute respiratory distress syndrome. This subject had a pre-existing lung condition. The other patient (from the U.S. trial) developed platelet antibodies due to sensitization after several granulocyte infusions the patient received prior to gene therapy. The learnings from this patient resulted in a protocol amendment to prevent patients with existing platelet antibodies from enrolling in the trial. Neither of these two fatalities was deemed by the investigator to be

22

related to the therapy. A third fatality was reported involving a patient treated under the compassionate use program at GOSH. Because of this patient’s advanced disease stage at the time of enrollment, the patient required a surgical procedure following treatment and died as a result of complications from this procedure. This fatality was deemed by the investigator not to be related to the product.

Safety

As of March 2020, the date of the most recent safety data available to us, patients treated in this clinical trial indicate OTL-102 was generally well-tolerated. There were 26 serious adverse events reported, one of which was assessed by the investigator as being possibly related to OTL-102 and was reported as Immune Reconstitution Inflammatory Syndrome (IRIS). As of December 2020, no new safety information received by us has changed the known safety profile of OTL-102.

Research program in NOD2-Crohn’s Disease

Disease overview

Crohn’s Disease, or CD, is a form of Irritable Bowel Disease, or IBD, a condition affecting the gastrointestinal tract caused by an uncontrolled and chronic inflammatory process directed against intestinal bacteria. Mutations in a number of genes are known to confer susceptibility to the risk of CD, and amongst these the NOD2 gene (nucleotide-binding oligomerization domain-containing protein 2) is known to be the most common genetic factor, with 20-40% of Crohn’s patients carrying mutations causing defective NOD2 activity.  NOD2 encodes a cell receptor which controls bacterial elimination by innate immune cells such as macrophages through recognition of bacterial peptide (MDP) and induction of a pro-inflammatory immune response. NOD2 deficiency results in an impaired detection and clearance of bacteria penetrating the gut during gastrointestinal infection, creating an unchecked and relapsing inflammation within the intestinal tissues characterized by intestinal granuloma formation. This leads to recurrent clinical symptoms of chronic abdominal pain, diarrhea, weight loss, fatigue, malnutrition and for some patients, more severe intestinal damage requiring surgical resection. NOD2-CD patients typically present with more severe symptoms and are reported to be more refractory to existing therapies.

The incidence of CD is high compared to our other indications, with estimates of 100 to 200 patients per million in Europe and North America.  Epidemiological studies suggest NOD2 genetic variants causing functional defects are associated with 7 to 10% of all cases of CD, with up to 200,000 patients in the U.S. and Europe with two NOD2 mutated alleles.

Limitations of current therapies

Current clinical management for Crohn’s disease includes use of immune-suppressive medications, biological agents such as anti-TNF, steroids and surgical resection. There is currently no cure for Crohn's disease, and long-term, effective treatment options are limited. Several clinical trials have evaluated autologous HSCT in Crohn’s disease, although with limited success. There remains a need for therapeutic modalities that target underlying causes of Crohn’s disease to achieve effective amelioration of symptoms and disease remission.

Our solution, OTL-104 for treatment of NOD2-CD

We are developing OTL-104 to evaluate its therapeutic efficacy as an ex vivo autologous HSC gene therapy to treat patients with NOD2-CD through a single administration. As the pathogenesis of NOD2-CD is associated with the function of cells of the hematopoietic system, ex vivo autologous HSC gene therapy may therefore be used restore NOD2 function to immune cells such as tissue resident macrophages within the gastrointestinal tract. Our OTL-104 program is being designed to introduce the NOD2 gene into cells of the hematopoietic system by lentiviral transduction of a patient’s own blood or bone marrow derived HSCs, and the gene-modified cells can then be infused back into the patient. We own pending patent applications in the United States and other jurisdictions and all other intellectual property rights associated with the OTL-104 program.

Preclinical development of OTL-104

OTL-104 preclinical work completed to date has shown that NOD2 defective human and NOD2 deficient murine macrophages and monocytes are refractory to bacterial MDP stimulation. We have demonstrated the successful restoration of NOD2 expression and functional correction of macrophage cellular responses to bacterial MDP stimulation, in NOD2

23

defective human cells and NOD2 deficient murine cells, achieved through lentiviral gene transfer of NOD2 to human CD34⁺ HSC and murine lineage negative cells, respectively.

We plan to continue to progress our preclinical proof of concept studies using an experimental mouse model of NOD2 deficiency to evaluate the use of gene modified HSC-derived cells to replace intestinal gut resident macrophages (monocyte-derived) and to correct inflammation and colitis associated with NOD2-CD. We plan to announce new preclinical data from this research program in the second half of 2021.

Blood disorders

Gene therapy for treatment of TDT

Disease overview

Beta-thalassemia is an inherited blood disorder caused by one of over 200 mutations in the hemoglobin beta, or HBB, gene. Patients with beta-thalassemia have low levels of hemoglobin, a protein in red blood cells that carries oxygen to cells throughout the body. TDT is the most severe form of beta-thalassemia and requires patients to receive eight or more blood transfusions per year, with the number of transfusions dependent upon the severity of the patient’s disease. Symptoms in TDT patients appear within the first two years of life and include failure to thrive, persistent infections and life-threatening anemia. Patients with TDT also suffer from other symptoms such as liver and spleen enlargement, bone deformities and osteopenia, and hypermetabolic state, resulting in chronic malnourishment. In the absence of regular blood transfusions, TDT is usually fatal in infancy.

TDT is one of the most common genetic diseases, with a global incidence estimated at approximately 25,000 symptomatic individuals born each year.

Limitations of current therapies

The symptoms experienced by most patients with TDT are severe and often require frequent, life-long blood transfusions to replenish the patient’s hemoglobin level. Because iron cannot be excreted by the body, these frequent blood transfusions can cause iron to accumulate in various organs, leading to risk of heart or liver failure. Therefore, patients who receive ongoing blood transfusions must also receive iron chelation therapy to remove the excess iron. These medicines also have side effects and can negatively impact a patient’s quality of life. Although HSCT is potentially curative in patients with TDT, this approach can be associated with significant risks, especially when matched stem cell donors are not available.

Our solution, OTL-300 for treatment of TDT

OTL-300 is an ex vivo autologous HSC gene therapy, manufactured from HSCs isolated from the patient’s own mobilized peripheral blood, then modified to add a functional HBB gene using a lentiviral vector. OTL-300 is designed to significantly reduce or eliminate the need for blood transfusions in patients with TDT.

We obtained worldwide rights to this program through the GSK Agreement. OTL-300 has received orphan drug designation from the EMA for the treatment of beta-thalassemia major and intermedia. In addition, OTL-300 has received PRIME designation from the EMA.

In May 2020, we announced that we would be reducing our investment in the future development of OTL-300.

Proof of concept trial (cryopreserved formulation)

OTL-300 has been investigated in an academic-sponsored clinical trial at the San Raffaele Hospital in Milan, Italy to establish proof of concept. The study and clinical follow-up completed in November 2019.  Nine patients with severe TDT received a single intra-osseous infusion of a cryopreserved formulation of OTL-300 and were followed up for 2 years. The patients evaluated in this trial included six pediatric patients aged three to 17 years, and three adult patients aged 18 years and over. On completion of the study, all patients enrolled in an Orchard-sponsored long-term follow-up clinical trial, which will continue assessments for an additional six-year period.

24

The primary goals of the clinical trial were to assess the safety and efficacy of a cryopreserved formulation of OTL-300 in TDT patients, as measured by, for example, reduction in required blood transfusions to manage the patients’ TDT and overall survival at 24 months post-treatment.

All patients have completed the 24-month study follow-up period. Transfusion independence or significant reductions in transfusion frequency and volume requirements were observed in six patients, with four of the six pediatric patients being transfusion-free since approximately one-month post-treatment. Following treatment, substantial reductions (in excess of 50%) in transfusion volume requirements were observed over a period of at least 3 years in two out of three adult patients, one of whom had a 9-month transfusion-free period during the first-year post-treatment.

As of July 2020, OTL-300 was generally well-tolerated. Six SAEs were reported in four subjects out of nine patients treated, and each such SAE was assessed as not related to treatment with OTL-300.  None of these SAEs were fatal, and all events resolved. As of December 2020, no new safety information received has changed the safety profile of OTL-300.

Future applications of our ex vivo autologous HSC gene therapy approach

We believe that our versatile ex vivo autologous HSC gene therapy approach has the potential to deliver promising gene therapies to patients across a broad range of diseases. Although our initial focus is on delivering our commercial and clinical-stage gene therapies to patients suffering from several rare diseases described above, we believe we can leverage our significant research and development experience and partnerships with academic institutions to identify other diseases in our target areas, including neurodegenerative, immunological, and blood disorders, where ex vivo gene therapy may have a comparably higher probability of success as compared to other approaches. In 2020, we introduced new programs in larger indications and our mid- to long-term strategy is to leverage our HSC gene therapy approach in additional larger indications, either on our own or with partners. We are building research capabilities to continue to explore additional indications in our laboratories.

Our regulatory strategy

The nature of our autologous gene therapy product candidates precludes the conduct of Phase 1 safety studies in healthy volunteers. Moreover, considering the indications our product candidates are intended to treat, which are often fatal without treatment and which are rare indications with high unmet medical need, we believe our clinical programs will generally be eligible to proceed to registration based on a single pivotal study given the bioethical considerations regarding the conduct of randomized, double-blind and placebo-controlled clinical trials with gene therapies for such indications. Both the FDA and EMA provide expedited pathways for the development of drug product candidates for the treatment of rare diseases, particularly life-threatening diseases with high unmet medical need. Such drug product candidates may be eligible to proceed to registration following one or more clinical trials in a limited patient population, following review of the trial’s design, endpoints and clinical data by the applicable regulatory agencies. These determinations are based on the applicable regulatory agency’s scientific judgement and these determinations may differ in the United States and the European Union.

In some cases applicable regulatory agency may require us to perform analytical studies or conduct additional clinical trials to support analytical comparability of drug product, for example by demonstrating comparability of drug product manufactured using HSCs derived from a patient’s mobilized peripheral blood and drug product manufactured using HSCs derived from a patient’s bone marrow and/or comparability of drug product that has been cryopreserved and fresh drug product. For purposes of this Annual Report we refer to these clinical trials as supportive clinical trials. In addition, certain of our product candidates may be evaluated in clinical trials for which clinical data is not intended to be pooled with data from our registrational trials for purposes of a regulatory submission, but will be submitted to the applicable regulatory agencies for informational purposes. For purposes of this Annual Report we refer to these trials as additional clinical trials. In addition, in some cases patients may be ineligible for participation in our clinical trials and may receive treatment under a compassionate use program or an expanded access program. We expect that the available safety and efficacy results from all these trials would be included in any regulatory submission we may submit, and the applicable regulatory agency with respect to each clinical program will make a determination as to whether the available data is sufficient to support a regulatory submission. See Item 1A. Risk Factors—“The results from our clinical trials for OTL-200 for MLD, OTL-103 for WAS, and for any of our other product candidates may not be sufficiently robust to support marketing approval or the submission of marketing approval,” “We may be unable to demonstrate comparability between drug product manufactured using HSCs derived from the patient’s mobilized peripheral blood and drug product manufactured using HSCs derived from the patient’s bone marrow and/or comparability between drug product that has been cryopreserved and fresh drug product and/or demonstrate comparability between the manufacturing process used at academic centers with the manufacturing

25

process used at CDMOs,” and “To date, most of the clinical trials for our product candidates were conducted as investigator-sponsored clinical trials using drug product manufactured at academic sites.”

Manufacturing

The diseases we are targeting affect patients across the world. Therefore, we are implementing our plans to enhance our partnerships with CDMOs and leverage technologies that will allow us to deliver our gene therapies globally.

Global supply network with experienced CDMOs

We currently partner with a network of experienced CDMOs, including AGC Biologics S.p.A. (formerly MolMed S.p.A.) and Oxford BioMedica, for the supply of our vectors and/or drug products, including Libmeldy. We have established relationships with commercial CDMO partners with the resources and capacity to meet our clinical and existing and expected initial commercial needs. Our CDMO partners also provide us with access to their state-of-the art manufacturing technologies.

Manufacturing efficiencies and scalability

We are investing in human capital and advancing manufacturing technologies for HSC-based autologous ex vivo gene therapies. We have licensed lentiviral vector stable cell line technologies from GSK, completed transduction enhancer screening processes, established a vector process development lab at a Catapult Network facility in the UK, and are in the process of building cell therapy and analytical development capabilities at our London, UK global headquarters.  We seek to enhance our product and process understanding while actively exploring and developing innovative technologies for vector and drug product manufacturing to improve the efficiency and scalability of manufacturing processes with an ultimate goal to reliably manufacture high quality products for rare diseases and larger indications at lower cost. For example, we have identified and validated several transduction enhancing compounds in order to facilitate lentiviral vector entry into HSCs, showing a greater than 50% reduction in vector requirements. We continue to invest in our people to support the commercialization and lifecycle management of our pipeline products.

Cryopreservation of our gene therapy programs

Cryopreservation of gene-modified cells is a key component of our strategy to deliver innovative, potentially curative gene therapies to patients worldwide. We have developed cryopreserved formulations of our OTL-200, OTL-103, and OTL-101 programs and expect to demonstrate comparability of our cryopreserved formulations to earlier manufactured fresh formulations in support of future submissions for marketing approval in the United States and Europe. Our programs in OTL-102, OTL-300, OTL-203 and OTL-201 have already started or will start with cryopreserved formulations. We plan to establish cryopreserved product formulations as the standard for all of our future gene therapy candidates.

In the cryopreservation process, a patient’s gene-modified HSCs are frozen at extremely low temperatures and then stored to allow quality control testing and release to be performed before introducing the gene-modified cells back into the patient. Our cryopreserved formulations are expected to have shelf-lives of months to years, enabling us to potentially distribute our products and product candidates from a few centralized manufacturing facilities to geographically dispersed treatment sites. Our ability to ultimately distribute our product candidates globally will facilitate access of the therapies to patients and reduce the logistical burden on patients and their families.

Commercial operations

Following our receipt of full, or standard, marketing approval from the European Commission for Libmeldy (OTL-200) for the treatment of early-onset MLD, we expect to launch Libmeldy in Europe and generate product sales as early as the first half of 2021. In preparation for a European launch, we have substantially completed our build-out of our commercial operations in Europe with a goal of delivering Libmeldy to patients through qualified treatment centers in the UK, France, Germany, Italy and The Netherlands. In addition, we expect to leverage cross-border and treatment abroad reimbursement pathways in both Europe and markets such as the Middle East and Turkey through the use of third-party strategic partners and distributors. Subject to approval of OTL-200 from the FDA, we plan to also put in place commercial operations and quality treatment centers in the U.S. We have begun a phased build of commercial capabilities by adding employees with broad experience in quality assurance and compliance, medical education, marketing, supply chain, sales, public policy, patient services, market access and product reimbursement. We expect to continue expansion of these capabilities throughout 2021 and beyond as we continue to implement appropriate quality systems, compliance policies, systems and procedures, as well as internal systems and infrastructure in order to support our supply chain, qualify and train additional treatment centers, establish patient-focused programs, educate healthcare professionals, and secure reimbursement. The timing and conduct of

26

these commercial activities will be dependent upon regulatory approvals and on agreements we have made or may make in the future with strategic collaborators. As part of the commercialization process, we are engaged in discussions with stakeholders across the healthcare system, including public and private payors, patient advocates and organizations, and healthcare providers, to drive more timely patient identification through education, newborn screening, and diagnostic initiatives and to explore new payment models that we hope will enable broader patient access. We have initiated pilot studies for newborns in certain countries to screen for MLD and develop the necessary data package to enable universal newborn screening in various countries where we expect our products to be sold. Ultimately, we intend to utilize the commercial infrastructure that we are building to support the potential for multiple product launches, if approved, sequentially across multiple geographies. For many territories and countries, we may also elect to utilize strategic partners, distributors, or contract field-based teams to assist in the commercialization of our products. We anticipate the list price of Libmeldy to be less than the average 10-year cumulative cost for some chronic or lifelong rare disease treatments, such as certain enzyme replacement therapies, which do not offer the potential for full genetic correction or a potentially positive impact on cognitive outcomes. We are engaging with European country- and regional-level payment authorities to negotiate reimbursement and access and are considering novel payment approaches, such as annuity payments, as part of these negotiation discussions.

Intellectual property and barriers to entry

Our commercial success depends, in part, upon our ability to protect commercially important and proprietary aspects of our business, defend and enforce our intellectual property rights, preserve the confidentiality of our know-how and trade secrets, and operate without infringing misappropriating and otherwise violating valid and enforceable intellectual property rights of others. In particular, we strive to protect the proprietary aspects of our business and to develop barriers to entry that we believe are important to the development and commercialization of our gene therapies. For example, where appropriate, we develop, or acquire exclusive rights to, clinical data for each of our products/product candidates, patents, know-how and trade secrets associated with each of our products/product candidates. However, we do not own any patents or patent applications that cover Libmeldy, Strimvelis or any of our lead product candidates. We in-license from UCLB and UCLA one family of patents directed at OTL-101, which are issued in the U.S. and Europe We cannot guarantee that patents will issue from any of existing patent applications or from any patent applications we or our licensors may file in the future, nor can we guarantee that any patents that may issue in the future from such patent applications will be commercially useful in protecting our products/product candidates. In addition, we plan to rely on regulatory protection based on orphan drug exclusivities, data exclusivities and market exclusivities. See “—Government regulation” for additional information.

We currently rely primarily on know-how and trade secret protection for aspects of our proprietary technologies that we or our licensors believe are not amenable to or appropriate for patent protection, including, for example, clinical data and production information for Libmeldy, Strimvelis and each of our product candidates. However, know-how and trade secrets can be difficult to protect. Although we take steps to protect our know-how, trade secrets and other proprietary information, including restricting access to our premises and our confidential information, as well as entering into agreements with our employees, consultants, advisors and potential collaborators, third parties may independently develop the same or similar know-how, trade secrets or proprietary information or may otherwise gain access to such know-how, trade secrets and other proprietary information or such know-how, trade secrets or other proprietary information may otherwise become known. Moreover, we cannot guarantee that our confidentiality agreements will provide meaningful protection or that they may not be breached and we may not have an adequate remedy for any such breach. As a result, we may be unable to meaningfully protect our know-how, trade secrets and other proprietary information.

In addition, with regard to patent protection, the scope of coverage being sought in a patent application may be reduced significantly before a patent is issued, and even after issuance the scope of coverage may be challenged. As a result, we cannot guarantee that any of our product candidates will be protectable or remain protected by enforceable patents. 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.

With regards to our OTL-101 product candidate, we have exclusive, worldwide, sublicensable, licenses pursuant to the UCLB/UCLA Agreement to clinical data and to a patent family containing one issued U.S. patent with claims directed to the OTL-101 product candidate and its use in the treatment of ADA-SCID, and one issued counterpart European patent. These patents are expected to expire in 2036, without taking a potential patent term adjustment or extension into account. In addition, under the UCLB/UCLA Agreement, we have non-exclusive, worldwide, sublicensable, licenses to know-how and materials relating to the OTL-101 product candidate.

With regards to Strimvelis, OTL-103, OTL-200 and OTL-300, and as discussed in detail in “—License agreements”, we have exclusive, worldwide, sublicensable licenses pursuant to the GSK Agreement and the R&D Agreement to anonymized patient-level data arising from the clinical trials of Strimvelis, OTL-103, OTL-200 and OTL-300 and know-how, including other clinical data and production information relating to Strimvelis, OTL-103, OTL-200, and OTL-300.

27

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 are seeking patent protection for our product candidates, the patent term is 20 years from the earliest date of filing a non-provisional patent application. In the United States, the term of a patent may be lengthened by a patent term adjustment, which provides additional term caused by administrative delays at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, in granting a patent, or may be shortened it a patent is terminally disclaimer over another patent with an earlier expiration date.

Furthermore, in the United States, the term of a patent covering an FDA-approved drug may be eligible for a patent term extension under the Hatch-Waxman Amendments as compensation for the loss of patent term during the FDA regulatory review process. The period of extension may be up to five years beyond the expiration of the patent but cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval. Only one patent among those eligible for an extension may be extended. Similar provisions are available in Europe and in certain other jurisdictions to extend the term of a patent that covers an approved drug. In the future, if we obtain any additional issued U.S. patents covering one of our present or future product candidates, and if such product candidate receives FDA approval, we expect to apply for a patent term extension, if available, to extend the term of the patent covering such approved product candidate. We also expect to seek patent term extensions in any jurisdictions where they are available, however, there is no guarantee that the applicable authorities, including the FDA, will agree with our assessment of whether such an extension should be granted, and even if granted, the length of such an extension.

License agreements

GSK asset purchase and license agreement

In April 2018, we entered into the GSK Agreement pursuant to which GSK transferred to us its portfolio of approved and investigational rare disease gene therapies, including Strimvelis, the first gene therapy approved by the EMA for ADA-SCID, two late-stage clinical gene therapy programs in ongoing registrational trials, OTL-200 for MLD and OTL-103 for WAS; and OTL-300, a clinical-stage gene therapy program for TDT. In addition, GSK novated to us their R&D Agreement with Telethon-OSR.

Under the GSK Agreement, we are subject to certain obligations to develop and advance certain of the acquired product candidates. For example, we are required to first use best endeavors to file an MAA for OTL-200 for MLD in either Europe or a BLA for MLD in the United States and to subsequently use commercially reasonable efforts to file an MAA or BLA, as applicable, in the other jurisdiction and to market, sell and promote OTL-200 in such jurisdictions.  In December 2020, we received full, or standard, marketing authorization for Libmeldy in the European Union as well as the United Kingdom, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. We are also required to use best endeavors to file a BLA for OTL-103 for WAS in the United States and to use commercially reasonable efforts to file an MAA for OTL-103 in Europe, and to subsequently market, sell and promote OTL-103 in such jurisdictions. We are also required to use commercially reasonable efforts to develop and file an MAA or BLA, as applicable, for OTL-300 for TDT in either the United States or Europe. In addition, we must also use best endeavors to maintain the MAA and regulatory designations for Strimvelis in the European Union and to continue to make Strimvelis available to eligible patients until an alternative gene therapy product has received marketing approval in Europe. We must also continue to make Strimvelis available at the San Raffaele Hospital for as long as a minimum number of patients are treated and entitled to receive reimbursement for the provision of Strimvelis, over a defined period. We intend to continue to make Strimvelis available for so long as we are required to do so under the GSK Agreement.

We are required to use commercially reasonable efforts to obtain a PRV from the FDA for each of Strimvelis, OTL-200, OTL-103 and OTL-300 and to transfer the first such PRV to GSK. GSK also has an option to acquire at a defined price any PRVs granted to us thereafter for Strimvelis, OTL-200, OTL-103 and OTL-300. In the event that GSK does not exercise this option with respect to any PRV, we may sell the PRV to a third party and must share any proceeds in excess of a specified sale price equally with GSK.

Under the GSK Agreement we are also obligated to pay non-refundable royalties and milestone payments in relation to the gene therapy programs acquired and OTL-101. We will pay a mid-single-digit percentage royalty on the combined annual net sales of ADA-SCID products, which includes Strimvelis and our product candidate, OTL-101. We will also pay tiered royalty rates at percentages from the mid-teens to the low twenties for the MLD and WAS products, upon marketing approval, calculated as percentages of aggregate cumulative net sales of the MLD and WAS products, respectively. We will pay a tiered royalty at percentages from the high single-digits to the low teens for the TDT product, upon marketing approval, calculated as percentages of aggregate annual net sales of the TDT product. These royalties owed to GSK are in addition to any royalties owed to other third parties under various license agreements for the GSK programs. In aggregate, we may pay up to £90.0 million in milestone payments upon achievement of certain sales milestones. Our royalty obligations with respect to MLD and WAS may be deferred for a certain period in the interest of prioritizing available capital to develop each product. Our royalty obligations are subject to reduction on a product-by-product basis in the event of market control by biosimilars and will expire in April 2048.

28

We may terminate our development and/or commercialization activities of any of the programs under the GSK Agreement, upon the occurrence of an SAE, or if we believe such program poses a safety risk to patients. GSK may require us to grant a third party a non-exclusive license under the intellectual property we have acquired from GSK under the GSK Agreement if we materially breach of our obligations to use best endeavors and/or commercially reasonable efforts to develop and commercialize the acquired programs and fail to develop and implement a mutually agreeable plan to cure such material breach within a specified time period. The foregoing license only continues until such time as we cure our material breach and we must pay GSK all amounts we receive from the third party in connection with such license.

Telethon-OSR research and development collaboration and license agreement

In April 2018, in connection with our entering into the GSK Agreement, we entered into a deed of novation with GSK, Telethon Foundation and San Raffaele Hospital, together referred to as Telethon-OSR, pursuant to which we acquired and assumed all of GSK’s rights and obligations under the R&D Agreement with Telethon-OSR for the research, development and commercialization of ex vivo HSC gene therapies for ADA-SCID, WAS, MLD, TDT, and options on three additional earlier-stage development programs.

Pursuant to the R&D Agreement, Telethon-OSR had granted to GSK an exclusive, worldwide, sublicensable license under certain intellectual property rights to develop and commercialize ex vivo gene therapy products for the treatment of ADA-SCID. In addition, Telethon-OSR had granted to GSK an exclusive option for an exclusive, sublicensable, worldwide license under certain intellectual property rights to develop and commercialize certain vectors and gene therapy products from disease-specific development programs for the treatment of WAS, MLD, TDT. At the time we entered into the deed of novation agreement, GSK had completed development, launched and commercialized Strimvelis for ADA-SCID in the European Union, and had exercised its exclusive option to obtain exclusive licenses from Telethon-OSR to the WAS, MLD and TDT programs. We acquired Strimvelis and GSK’s exclusive licenses relating to the ADA-SCID, WAS, MLD and TDT collaboration programs pursuant to the GSK Agreement and to the deed of novation.

Under the R&D Agreement, Telethon-OSR is required to use commercially reasonable efforts to conduct each of the collaboration programs in accordance with development plans approved by a joint steering committee. With respect to those programs in relation to which our option has been exercised, we are required to use commercially reasonable efforts to develop, obtain regulatory approval, launch and promote in both the European Union and the United States all licensed products and to commercialize and manufacture such products at levels sufficient to meet commercial demands. We are required to use best efforts to renew the European Union marketing authorization for Strimvelis to enable patients to be treated at the San Raffaele hospital from all referring centers globally, as permitted by applicable law. We are responsible for the costs and activities associated with the continued development of Strimvelis and each program for which an option under the R&D Agreement is exercised.

As consideration for the licenses and options granted under the R&D Agreement, we are required to make payments to Telethon-OSR upon achievement of certain product development milestones. We are obligated to pay up to an aggregate of €31.0 million in connection with product development milestones with respect to those programs for which we have exercised an option under this agreement (that is, our WAS, MLD and TDT programs). Additionally, we are required to pay to Telethon-OSR a tiered mid-single to low-double digit royalty percentage on net annual sales of licensed products on a country-by-country basis, as well as a low double-digit percentage of sublicense income received from any certain third party sublicensees of the collaboration programs. Our royalty obligation expires on a licensed product-by-licensed product and country-by-country basis upon the latest to occur of the expiration of the last valid claim under the licensed patent rights in such country, the 10th anniversary of the first commercial sale of such licensed product in such country, and the expiration of any applicable regulatory exclusivity in such country, provided that our royalty obligation will terminate immediately in the event significant generic or biosimilar competition to a licensed product achieves a certain threshold percentage of the market share.

Unless terminated earlier, the R&D Agreement will expire (i) on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis upon the expiration of all payment obligations with respect to such product in such country, (ii) in its entirety upon the expiration of all payment obligations with respect to the last product in all countries in the world and (iii), on a program-by-program basis when no vector or gene therapy product is being researched, developed or commercialized. Either we or Telethon-OSR may terminate the R&D Agreement in its entirety or on a program-by-program basis if the other party commits a material breach and fails to cure such breach within a certain period of time. Additionally, either we or Telethon-OSR may terminate involvement in a collaboration program for compelling safety reasons, and either we or Telethon-OSR may terminate the R&D Agreement if the other party becomes insolvent. We may also terminate the R&D Agreement either in its entirety or on a program-by-program basis for any reason upon notice to Telethon-OSR.

UCLB/UCLA license agreement

In February 2016, we entered into a license agreement, or the UCLB/UCLA Agreement, with UCLB and UCLA, pursuant to which we obtained an exclusive, worldwide, sublicensable license to certain technology, clinical data, manufacturing know-

29

how, and intellectual property rights related to the production of virally transduced HSCs for treatment of patients with ADA-SCID, in addition to certain other rare disease indications. We must use diligent efforts to develop and commercialize a gene therapy product in each of the foregoing indications in the United States, United Kingdom and at least one of France, Germany, Italy and Spain as soon as reasonably possible.

Under the UCLB/UCLA Agreement, we are also obligated to pay UCL royalties ranging from low to mid-single-digit percentages on net sales of each of the product candidates subject to the UCLB/UCLA Agreement that receive marketing approval. Our royalty obligations under the UCLB/UCLA Agreement terminate in February 2041. In addition, we are required to pay to UCLB milestone payments up to an aggregate of £28.9 million ($37.9 million as of December 31, 2019) upon achievement of our first, second and third marketing approvals of product candidates under the UCLB/UCLA Agreement.

Unless terminated earlier, the UCLB/UCLA Agreement will expire in February 2041. We may terminate the UCLB/UCLA Agreement in its entirety or with respect to either UCLB or UCLA for any reason upon prior written notice. Additionally, either we or UCLB may terminate the UCLB/UCLA Agreement in its entirety or on a program-by-program basis if the other party commits a material breach and fails to cure such breach within a certain period of time, or if the other party becomes insolvent.

Oxford BioMedica license and development agreement

In November 2016, we entered into a license and development agreement, or the Oxford Development Agreement, with Oxford BioMedica (UK) Limited, or Oxford BioMedica, for the development of gene therapies for ADA-SCID, MPS-IIIA and certain other diseases that we may request be included under the Oxford Development Agreement, such other diseases referred to as Subsequent Indications. The Oxford Development Agreement was amended on multiple occasions and most recently in April 2020.

Pursuant to the Oxford Development Agreement, Oxford BioMedica granted us an exclusive, worldwide license under certain intellectual property rights for the purposes of research, development and commercialization of ex vivo gene therapy products for the treatment of ADA-SCID, MPS-IIIA and Subsequent Indications, except that such license is non-exclusive to the extent the treatment of a Subsequent Indication is the subject of a certain previous license granted by Oxford BioMedica. Oxford BioMedica also granted us a non-exclusive, worldwide license under certain intellectual property rights for the purposes of research, development, commercialization and manufacture of ex vivo gene therapy products for the treatment of certain diseases other than ADA-SCID, MPS-IIIA and Subsequent Indications. Under the Oxford Development Agreement, Oxford BioMedica is required to use commercially reasonable efforts to perform the activities set forth in a collaboration plan approved by a joint steering committee, and we are responsible for certain costs of the activities set forth in such collaboration plan.

As consideration for the licenses granted under the agreement, we issued 588,220 of our ordinary shares to Oxford BioMedica. We are also obligated to issue additional equity upon the achievement of certain milestones, pursuant to which we issued 150,826 ordinary shares upon the achievement of the first milestone in November 2017 and 150,826 ordinary shares were issued upon the achievement of further milestones in August 2018. In April 2020, the fifth milestone was deemed to have been met upon execution of the amended agreement in April 2020, and the Company issued another 75,413 ordinary shares to Oxford BioMedica. Additionally, we are obligated to pay low single-digit royalties on net sales of licensed products until January 31, 2039. The foregoing royalties are reduced by a mid-double digit percentage in the case of compassionate use of a licensed product in a country until the first commercial sale following marketing authorization in such country. We are also required to pay a set monthly fee to Oxford BioMedica in the event we use a certain Oxford BioMedica system for generating stable cell lines.

Unless terminated earlier, the Oxford Development Agreement will expire when no further payments are due to Oxford BioMedica. We may terminate the performance of the collaboration plan upon notice to Oxford BioMedica, and either party may terminate the performance of the collaboration plan or the Oxford Development Agreement if the other party commits a material breach that is not cured within a certain period of time. Either party may also terminate the Oxford Development Agreement in the event the other party becomes insolvent.

Telethon-OSR license agreement

In May 2019, we entered into a license agreement with Telethon-OSR under which Telethon-OSR granted us an exclusive worldwide license for the research, development, manufacture and commercialization of ex vivo autologous HSC lentiviral based gene therapy products for the treatment of MPS-I, including MPS IH. Under the terms of the agreement, Telethon-OSR is entitled to receive an upfront payment, and we may be required to make milestone payments if certain development, regulatory and commercial milestones are achieved. Additionally, we will be required to pay Telethon-OSR a tiered mid-single to low-double digit royalty percentage on annual net sales of licensed products.

30

Competition

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by intense and rapidly changing competition to develop new technologies and proprietary products. While we believe that our portfolio of product candidates and scientific expertise in gene therapy provides us with competitive advantages, we face potential competition from many different sources.

We face competition not only from gene therapy companies, but also from companies that are developing novel, non-gene therapy approaches or improving existing treatment approaches. Depending on how successful these efforts are, it is possible they may increase the barriers to adoption and success for our product candidates, if approved.

We are currently aware of the following competitive approaches among our products and clinical programs:

31

Many of our potential competitors, alone or with their strategic partners, have substantially greater financial, technical and other resources than we do, such as larger research and development, clinical, marketing and manufacturing organizations. Mergers and acquisitions in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of competitors. Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient or are less expensive than any products that we may develop. Competitors also may obtain FDA, EMA 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. Additionally, technologies developed by our competitors may render our potential product candidates uneconomical or obsolete, and we may not be successful in marketing our product candidates against competitors.

Government regulation

In the United States, biological products, including gene therapy products, are subject to regulation under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or FD&C Act, and the Public Health Service Act, or PHS Act, and other federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations. Both the FD&C Act and the PHS Act and their corresponding regulations govern, among other things, the research, development, clinical trial, testing, manufacturing, safety, efficacy, labeling, packaging, storage, record keeping, distribution, reporting, advertising and other promotional practices involving biological products. Each clinical trial protocol for a gene therapy product must be reviewed by the FDA. FDA approval must be obtained before the marketing of biological products. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources and we may not be able to obtain the required regulatory approvals.

Ethical, social and legal concerns about gene therapy, genetic testing and genetic research could result in additional laws and regulations restricting or prohibiting the processes we may use. Federal and state legislatures, agencies, congressional committees and foreign governments have expressed interest in further regulating biotechnology. More restrictive laws and regulations or interpretations of existing laws or regulations, or claims that our products are unsafe or pose a hazard, could prevent us from commercializing any products. New government requirements may be established that could delay or prevent regulatory approval of our product candidates under development. It is impossible to predict whether legislative changes will be enacted, regulations, policies or guidance changed, or interpretations by agencies or courts changed, or what the impact of such changes, if any, may be.

32

U.S. biological products development process

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

Before testing any biological product candidate, including a gene therapy product, in humans, the product candidate enters the preclinical testing stage. Preclinical tests, also referred to as nonclinical studies, include laboratory evaluations of product biological characteristics, chemistry, toxicity and formulation, as well as animal studies to assess the potential safety and activity of the product candidate. The conduct of the preclinical tests must comply with federal regulations and requirements including GLPs.

An IND is an exemption from the FD&C Act that allows an unapproved product candidate to be shipped in interstate commerce for use in an investigational clinical trial and a request for FDA authorization to administer such investigational product to humans. Such authorization must be secured prior to interstate shipment and administration of any product candidate that is not the subject of an approved BLA. In support of a request for an IND, applicants must submit a protocol for each clinical trial and any subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. In addition, the results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature and plans for clinical trials, among other things, must be submitted to the FDA as part of an IND. The FDA requires a 30-day waiting period after the filing of each IND before clinical trials may begin. This waiting period is designed to allow the FDA to review the IND to determine whether human research subjects will be exposed to unreasonable health risks. At any time during this 30-day period the FDA may raise concerns or questions about the conduct of the trials as outlined in the IND and impose a clinical hold or partial clinical hold. In this case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before clinical trials can begin.

33

Following commencement of a clinical trial, the FDA may also place a clinical hold or partial clinical hold on that trial. A clinical hold is an order issued by the FDA to the sponsor to delay a proposed clinical investigation or to suspend an ongoing investigation. A partial clinical hold is a delay or suspension of only part of the clinical work requested under the IND. No more than 30 days after imposition of a clinical hold or partial clinical hold, the FDA will provide the sponsor a written explanation of the basis for the hold. Following issuance of a clinical hold or partial clinical hold, an investigation may only resume after the FDA has notified the sponsor that the investigation may proceed.

A sponsor may choose, but is not required, to conduct a foreign clinical trial under an IND. When a foreign clinical trial is conducted under an IND, all FDA IND requirements must be met unless waived. When a foreign clinical trial is not conducted under an IND, the sponsor must ensure that the study complies with certain regulatory requirements of the FDA in order to use the study as support for an IND or application for marketing approval or licensing. In particular, such studies must be conducted in accordance with GCP, including review and approval by an independent ethics committee, or IEC, and informed consent from subjects. The FDA must be able to validate the data through an onsite inspection, if deemed necessary by the FDA.

An IRB representing each institution participating in the clinical trial must review and approve the plan for any clinical trial before it commences at that institution, and the IRB must conduct continuing review and reapprove the study at least annually. The IRB must review and approve, among other things, the study protocol and informed consent information to be provided to study subjects. An IRB must operate in compliance with FDA regulations. An IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution, or an institution it represents, if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the product candidate has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients.

Some trials are overseen by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the trial sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board or committee, or DSMB. This group provides authorization as to whether or not a trial may move forward at designated check points based on access that only the group maintains to available data from the study.

In addition to the submission of an IND to the FDA before initiation of a clinical trial in the United States, certain human clinical trials involving recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecules had historically been subject to review by the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee, or RAC, of the NIH, Office of Biotechnology Activities, or the OBA, pursuant to the NIH Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant DNA Molecules, or NIH Guidelines. While the NIH Guidelines are not mandatory unless the research in question being conducted at or sponsored by institutions receiving NIH funding of recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecule research, many companies and other institutions not otherwise subject to the NIH Guidelines voluntarily follow them. On August 17, 2018, the NIH issued a notice in the Federal Register and issued a public statement proposing changes to the oversight framework for gene therapy trials, including changes to the applicable NIH Guidelines to modify the roles and responsibilities of the RAC with respect to human clinical trials of gene therapy products, and requesting public comment on its proposed modifications. During the public comment period, which closed October 16, 2018, the NIH announced that it will no longer accept new human gene transfer protocols for review as a part of the protocol registration process or convene the RAC to review individual clinical protocols. In April 2019, NIH announced the updated guidelines, which reflect these proposed changes, and clarified that these trials will remain subject to the FDA’s oversight and other clinical trial regulations, and oversight at the local level will continue as set forth in the NIH Guidelines. Specifically, under the NIH Guidelines, supervision of human gene transfer trials includes evaluation and assessment by an IBC, a local institutional committee that reviews and oversees research utilizing recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecules at that institution. The IBC assesses the safety of the research and identifies any potential risk to public health or the environment, and such review may result in some delay before initiation of a clinical trial. Further, NIH renamed the RAC the Novel and Exceptional Technology and Research Advisory Committee, or NExTRAC, and revised its role to provide recommendations to the NIH Director and a public forum for the discussion of the scientific, safety, and ethical issues associated with emerging biotechnologies.

Information about clinical trials must be submitted within specific timeframes to the NIH for public dissemination on its ClinicalTrials.gov website.

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

34

Post-approval clinical trials, sometimes referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials, may be conducted after initial marketing approval. These clinical trials are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication, particularly for long-term safety follow-up. The FDA generally recommends that sponsors of human gene therapy products integrating vectors such as gammaretroviral and lentiviral vectors and transposon elements observe subjects for potential gene therapy-related delayed adverse events for a 15-year period, including a minimum of five years of annual examinations followed by ten years of annual queries, either in person or by questionnaire, of study subjects.

Both the FDA and the EMA provide expedited pathways for the development of drug product candidates for treatment of rare diseases, particularly life-threatening diseases with high unmet medical need. Such drug product candidates may be eligible to proceed to registration following a single clinical trial in a limited patient population, sometimes referred to as a Phase 1/2 trial, but which may be deemed a pivotal or registrational trial following review of the trial’s design and primary endpoints by the applicable regulatory agencies. Determination of the requirements to be deemed a pivotal or registrational trial is subject to the applicable regulatory authority’s scientific judgement and these requirements may differ in the U.S. and the European Union.

During all phases of clinical development, regulatory agencies require extensive monitoring and auditing of all clinical activities, clinical data, and clinical trial investigators. Annual progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials must be submitted to the FDA. Written IND safety reports must be promptly submitted to the FDA, the NIH and the investigators for serious and unexpected adverse events, any findings from other studies, tests in laboratory animals or in vitro testing that suggest a significant risk for human subjects, or any clinically important increase in the rate of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure. The sponsor must submit an IND safety report within 15 calendar days after the sponsor determines that the information qualifies for reporting. The sponsor also must notify the FDA of any unexpected fatal or life-threatening suspected adverse reaction within seven calendar days after the sponsor’s initial receipt of the information. Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials may not be completed successfully within any specified period, if at all. The FDA or the sponsor, acting on its own or based on a recommendation from the sponsor’s data safety monitoring board may suspend a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research subjects or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the biological product has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients.

Human gene therapy products are a new category of therapeutics. Because this is a relatively new and expanding area of novel therapeutic interventions, there can be no assurance as to the length of the study period, the number of patients the FDA will require to be enrolled in the studies in order to establish the safety, purity and potency of human gene therapy products, or that the data generated in these studies will be acceptable to the FDA to support marketing approval.

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

U.S. review and approval processes

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

35

Within 60 days following submission of the application, the FDA reviews a BLA submitted to determine if it is substantially complete before the FDA accepts it for filing. The FDA may refuse to file any BLA that it deems incomplete or not properly reviewable at the time of submission and may request additional information. In this event, the BLA must be resubmitted with the additional information. The resubmitted application also is subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing. In most cases, the submission of a BLA is subject to a substantial application user fee, although the fee may be waived under certain circumstances. Under the performance goals and policies implemented by the FDA under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA, for original BLAs, the FDA targets ten months from the filing date in which to complete its initial review of a standard application and respond to the applicant, and six months from the filing date for an application with priority review. The FDA does not always meet its PDUFA goal dates, and the review process is often significantly extended by FDA requests for additional information or clarification. This review typically takes twelve months from the date the BLA is submitted to the FDA because the FDA has approximately two months to make a ‘‘filing’’ decision. The review process and the PDUFA goal date may be extended by three months if the FDA requests or the BLA sponsor otherwise provides additional information or clarification regarding information already provided in the submission within the last three months before the PDUFA goal date.

Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth substantive review of the BLA. The FDA reviews the BLA to determine, among other things, whether the proposed product is safe, pure and potent, for its intended use, and whether the product is being manufactured in accordance with cGMP to ensure the continued safety, purity and potency of such product. The FDA may refer applications for novel biological products or biological products that present difficult or novel questions of safety or efficacy to an advisory committee, typically a panel that includes clinicians and other experts, for review, evaluation and a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions. During the biological product approval process, the FDA also will determine whether a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, is necessary to assure the safe use of the biological product. If the FDA concludes a REMS is needed, the sponsor of the BLA must submit a proposed REMS; the FDA will not approve the BLA without a REMS, if required.

Before approving a BLA, the FDA typically will inspect the facilities at which the product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve the product unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. For a gene therapy product, the FDA also will not approve the product if the manufacturer is not in compliance with the CGTPs. These are FDA regulations that govern the methods used in, and the facilities and controls used for, the manufacture of human cells, tissues, and cellular and tissue-based products, or HCT/Ps, which are human cells or tissue intended for implantation, transplant, infusion, or transfer into a human recipient. The primary intent of the CGTP requirements is to ensure that cell and tissue-based products are manufactured in a manner designed to prevent the introduction, transmission and spread of communicable disease. FDA regulations also require tissue establishments to register and list their HCT/Ps with the FDA and, when applicable, to evaluate donors through appropriate screening and testing. Additionally, before approving a BLA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure that the clinical trials were conducted in compliance with IND study requirements and GCP requirements. During the COVID-19 pandemic, restrictions preventing the conduct or completion of facility or clinical site inspections can lead to FDA deferred action on marketing applications or the issuance of complete response letters. To assure cGMP, CGTP and GCP compliance, an applicant must incur significant expenditure of time, money and effort in the areas of training, record keeping, production and quality control.

Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act, or PREA, a BLA or supplement to a BLA for a novel product (e.g., new active ingredient, new indication, etc.) 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 product is safe and effective. The FDA may grant deferrals for submission of data or full or partial waivers. Unless otherwise required by regulation, PREA does not apply to any biological product for an indication for which orphan designation has been granted.

Notwithstanding the submission of relevant data and information, the FDA may ultimately decide that the BLA does not satisfy its regulatory criteria for approval and deny approval. Data obtained from clinical trials are not always conclusive and the FDA may interpret data differently than we interpret the same data. If the FDA decides not to approve the BLA in its present form, the FDA will issue a complete response letter that usually describes all of the specific deficiencies in the BLA identified by the FDA. The deficiencies identified may be minor, for example, requiring labeling changes, or major, for example, requiring additional clinical trials. Additionally, the complete response letter may include recommended actions that the applicant might take to place the application in a condition for approval. If a complete response letter is issued, the applicant may either resubmit the BLA, addressing all of the deficiencies identified in the letter, or withdraw the application.

36

If a product receives regulatory approval, the approval may be significantly limited to specific diseases and dosages or the indications for use may otherwise be limited, including to subpopulations of patients, which could restrict the commercial value of the product. Further, the FDA may require that certain contraindications, warnings precautions or interactions be included in the product labeling. The FDA may impose restrictions and conditions on product distribution, prescribing, or dispensing in the form of a REMS, or otherwise limit the scope of any approval. In addition, the FDA may require post-marketing clinical trials, sometimes referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials, designed to further assess a biological product’s safety and effectiveness, and testing and surveillance programs to monitor the safety of approved products that have been commercialized.

Orphan drug designation

Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan designation to a drug or biological product intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally a disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or more than 200,000 individuals in the United States and for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making a drug or biological product available in the United States for this type of disease or condition will be recovered from sales of the product. Orphan product designation must be requested before submitting a BLA. After the FDA grants orphan product designation, the identity of the therapeutic agent and its potential orphan use are disclosed publicly by the FDA. Orphan product designation does not convey any advantage in or shorten the duration of the regulatory review and approval process.

Orphan drug designation entitles a party to financial incentives such as opportunities for grant funding towards clinical trial costs, tax advantages and user-fee waivers. If a product that has orphan designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for the disease or condition for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan product exclusivity, which means that the FDA may not approve any other applications to market the same drug or biological product for the same indication for seven years, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan exclusivity. Competitors, however, may receive approval of different products for the indication for which the orphan product has exclusivity or obtain approval for the same product but for a different indication for which the orphan product has exclusivity. Orphan product exclusivity also could block the approval of one of our products for seven years if a competitor obtains approval of the same biological product for the same use or indication, and we are unable to demonstrate that our product is clinically superior to the previously approved drug for the same use or indication. If a drug or biological product designated as an orphan product receives marketing approval for an indication broader than what is designated, it may not be entitled to orphan product exclusivity. Orphan drug status in the European Union has similar, but not identical, benefits.

Rare Pediatric Disease Designation and Priority Review Vouchers

Under the FD&C Act, the FDA incentivizes the development of drugs and biological products that meet the definition of a “rare pediatric disease,” defined to mean a serious or life-threatening disease in which the serious of life-threatening manifestations primarily affect individuals aged from birth to 18 years and the disease affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States or affects more than 200,000 in the United States and for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making in the United States a drug or biological product for such disease or condition will be received from sales in the United States of such drug or biological product. The sponsor of a product candidate for a rare pediatric disease may be eligible for a voucher that can be used to obtain a priority review for a subsequent human drug or biological product application after the date of approval of the rare pediatric disease drug or biological product, referred to as a priority review voucher, or PRV. A sponsor may request rare pediatric disease designation from the FDA prior to the submission of its BLA. A rare pediatric disease designation does not guarantee that a sponsor will receive a PRV upon approval of its BLA. Moreover, a sponsor who chooses not to submit a rare pediatric disease designation request may nonetheless receive a PRV upon approval of their marketing application if they request such a voucher in their original marketing application and meet all of the eligibility criteria. If a PRV is received, it may be sold or transferred an unlimited number of times. Congress has extended the PRV program through September 30, 2024, with the potential for PRVs to be granted through September 30, 2026.

Expedited development and review programs

The FDA has various programs, including Fast Track designation, breakthrough therapy designation, accelerated approval and priority review, that are intended to expedite or simplify the process for the development and FDA review of drugs and biologics that are intended for the treatment of serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions. These programs do not

37

change the standards for approval but may help expedite the development or approval process. To be eligible for fast track designation, new drugs and biological products must be intended to treat a serious or life-threatening condition and demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the condition. Fast Track designation applies to the combination of the product and the specific indication for which it is being studied. The sponsor of a new drug or biologic may request the FDA to designate the drug or biologic as a Fast Track product at any time during the clinical development of the product. One benefit of fast track designation, for example, is that the FDA may consider for review sections of the marketing application for a product that has received Fast Track designation on a rolling basis before the complete application is submitted.

Under the FDA’s breakthrough therapy program, products intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition may be eligible for the benefits of the Fast Track program when preliminary clinical evidence demonstrates that such product may have substantial improvement on one or more clinically significant endpoints over existing therapies. Additionally, the FDA will seek to ensure the sponsor of a breakthrough therapy product receives timely advice and interactive communications to help the sponsor design and conduct a development program as efficiently as possible.

Any product is eligible for priority review if it has the potential to provide safe and effective therapy where no satisfactory alternative therapy exists or a significant improvement in the treatment, diagnosis or prevention of a disease compared to marketed products. The FDA will attempt to direct additional resources to the evaluation of an application for a new drug or biological product designated for priority review in an effort to facilitate the review. Under priority review, the FDA’s goal is to review an application in six months once it is filed, compared to ten months for a standard review.

Additionally, a product may be eligible for accelerated approval. Drug or biological products studied for their safety and effectiveness in treating serious or life-threatening illnesses and that provide meaningful therapeutic benefit over existing treatments may receive accelerated approval, which means that they may be approved on the basis of adequate and well-controlled clinical trials establishing that the product has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict a clinical benefit, or on the basis of an effect on an intermediate clinical endpoint other than survival or irreversible morbidity. As a condition of approval, the FDA may require that a sponsor of a drug or biological product receiving accelerated approval perform adequate and well-controlled post-marketing clinical trials. In addition, the FDA currently requires as a condition for accelerated approval pre-approval of promotional materials, which could adversely impact the timing of the commercial launch of the product.

RMAT designation

As part of the 21st Century Cures Act, enacted in December 2016, Congress amended the FD&C Act to facilitate an efficient development program for, and expedite review of RMAT, which include cell and gene therapies, therapeutic tissue engineering products, human cell and tissue products, and combination products using any such therapies or products. RMAT do not include those HCT/Ps regulated solely under section 361 of the PHS Act and 21 CFR Part 1271. This program is intended to facilitate efficient development and expedite review of regenerative medicine therapies, which are intended to treat, modify, reverse, or cure a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and qualify for RMAT designation. A drug sponsor may request that FDA designate a drug as a RMAT concurrently with or at any time after submission of an IND. FDA has 60 calendar days to determine whether the drug meets the criteria, including whether there is preliminary clinical evidence indicating that the drug has the potential to address unmet medical needs for a serious or life-threatening disease or condition. A BLA for a regenerative medicine therapy that has received RMAT designation may be eligible for priority review or accelerated approval through use of surrogate or intermediate endpoints reasonably likely to predict long-term clinical benefit, or reliance upon data obtained from a meaningful number of sites. Benefits of RMAT designation also include early interactions with FDA to discuss any potential surrogate or intermediate endpoint to be used to support accelerated approval. A regenerative medicine therapy with RMAT designation that is granted accelerated approval and is subject to post-approval requirements may fulfill such requirements through the submission of clinical evidence from clinical trials, patient registries, or other sources of real world evidence, such as electronic health records; the collection of larger confirmatory data sets; or post-approval monitoring of all patients treated with such therapy prior to its approval. Like some of FDA’s other expedited development programs, RMAT designation does not change the standards for approval but may help expedite the development or approval process.

Post-approval requirements

Maintaining substantial compliance with applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations requires the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. Rigorous and extensive FDA regulation of biological products continues after approval, particularly with respect to cGMP. We currently rely, and may continue to rely, on third parties for the production of clinical and commercial quantities of any products that we may commercialize. Manufacturers of our products are required to comply with applicable requirements in the cGMP regulations, including quality control and quality assurance and maintenance of records and documentation. Other post-approval requirements applicable to biological products, include reporting of cGMP deviations that may affect the identity, potency, purity and overall safety of a distributed product, record-

38

keeping requirements, reporting of adverse effects, reporting updated safety and efficacy information, and complying with electronic record and signature requirements. After a BLA is approved, the product also may be subject to official lot release. 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 also may 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.

We also must comply with the FDA’s advertising and promotion requirements, such as those related to direct-to-consumer advertising, the prohibition on promoting products for uses or in patient populations that are not described in the product’s approved labeling (known as “off-label use”), industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities, and promotional activities involving the internet. Discovery of previously unknown problems or the failure to comply with the applicable regulatory requirements may result in restrictions on the marketing of a product or withdrawal of the product from the market as well as possible civil or criminal sanctions. Failure to comply with the applicable U.S. requirements at any time during the product development process, approval process or after approval, may subject an applicant or manufacturer to administrative or judicial civil or criminal sanctions and adverse publicity. FDA sanctions could include refusal to approve pending applications, withdrawal of an approval, clinical holds, warning or untitled letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, mandated corrective advertising or communications with doctors or other stakeholders, debarment, restitution, disgorgement of profits, or civil or criminal penalties. Any agency or judicial enforcement action could have a material adverse effect on us.

Biological product manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved biological products are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies, and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with cGMP and other laws. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money, and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain cGMP compliance. Discovery of problems with a product after approval may result in restrictions on a product, manufacturer, or holder of an approved BLA, including withdrawal of the product from the market. In addition, changes to the manufacturing process or facility generally require prior FDA approval before being implemented and other types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications and additional labeling claims, are also subject to further FDA review and approval.

U.S. patent term restoration and marketing exclusivity

Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of the FDA approval of the use of our product candidates, some of our U.S. patents may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Hatch-Waxman Amendments. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit a patent restoration term of up to five years as compensation for patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review process. However, patent term restoration cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the product’s approval date. The patent term restoration period is generally one-half the time between the effective date of an IND and the submission date of a BLA plus the time between the submission date of a BLA and the approval of that application. Only one patent applicable to an approved biological product is eligible for the extension and the application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent. In addition, a patent can only be extended once and only for a single product. The USPTO, in consultation with the FDA, reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension or restoration. In the future, we may intend to apply for restoration of patent term for one of our patents, if and as applicable, to add patent life beyond its current expiration date, depending on the expected length of the clinical trials and other factors involved in the filing of the relevant BLA.

A biological product can obtain pediatric market exclusivity in the United States. Pediatric exclusivity, if granted, adds six months to existing exclusivity periods, including some regulatory exclusivity periods tied to patent terms. This six-month exclusivity, which runs from the end of other exclusivity protection or patent term, may be granted based on the voluntary completion of a pediatric study in accordance with an FDA-issued “Written Request” for such a study.

The ACA, signed into law on March 23, 2010, includes a subtitle called the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 which created an abbreviated approval pathway for biological products shown to be similar to, or interchangeable with, an FDA-licensed reference biological product. This amendment to the PHS Act attempts to minimize duplicative testing. Biosimilarity, which requires that there be no clinically meaningful differences between the biological product and the reference product in terms of safety, purity, and potency, can be shown through analytical studies, animal studies, and a clinical trial or trials. Interchangeability requires that a product is biosimilar to the reference product and the product must

39

demonstrate 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.

A reference biological product is granted four- and 12-year exclusivity periods from the time of first licensure of the product. FDA will not accept an application for a biosimilar or interchangeable product based on the reference biological product until four years after the date of first licensure of the reference product, and FDA will not approve an application for a biosimilar or interchangeable product based on the reference biological product until twelve years after the date of first licensure of the reference product. “First licensure” typically means the initial date the particular product at issue was licensed in the United States. Date of first licensure does not include the date of licensure of (and a new period of exclusivity is not available for) a biological product if the licensure is for a supplement for the biological product or for a subsequent application by the same sponsor or manufacturer of the biological product (or licensor, predecessor in interest, or other related entity) for a change (not including a modification to the structure of the biological product) that results in a new indication, route of administration, dosing schedule, dosage form, delivery system, delivery device or strength, or for a modification to the structure of the biological product that does not result in a change in safety, purity, or potency. Therefore, one must determine whether a new product includes a modification to the structure of a previously licensed product that results in a change in safety, purity, or potency to assess whether the licensure of the new product is a first licensure that triggers its own period of exclusivity. Whether a subsequent application, if approved, warrants exclusivity as the “first licensure” of a biological product is determined on a case-by-case basis with data submitted by the sponsor.

Additional regulation

In addition to the foregoing, state and federal laws regarding environmental protection and hazardous substances, including the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Resource Conservancy and Recovery Act and the Toxic Substances Control Act, affect our business. 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.

U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

The U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, to which we are subject, prohibits corporations and individuals from engaging in certain activities to obtain or retain business or to influence a person working in an official capacity. It is illegal to pay, offer to pay or authorize the payment of anything of value to any foreign government official, government staff member, political party or political candidate in an attempt to obtain or retain business or to otherwise influence a person working in an official capacity.

Government regulation outside of the United States

In addition to regulations in the United States, we are subject to a variety of regulations in other jurisdictions governing, among other things, research and development, clinical trials, testing, manufacturing, safety, efficacy, labeling, packaging, storage, record keeping, distribution, reporting, advertising and other promotional practices involving biological products as well as authorization and approval of our products. 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 must be 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 fail to comply with applicable foreign regulatory requirements, we may be subject to, among other things, fines, suspension of clinical trials, suspension or withdrawal of regulatory approvals, product recalls, seizure of products, operating restrictions and criminal prosecution.

European Union clinical trials regulation

Whether or not we obtain FDA approval for 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 European Union, for example, a CTA must be submitted for each clinical trial to each country’s National Competent Authority, or NCA, and at least one independent Ethics Committee, or EC, much like the FDA and an IRB, respectively. Once the CTA is approved in accordance with a country’s

40

requirements, the corresponding clinical trial may proceed. Under the current regime (the EU Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC and corresponding national laws) all suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions to the investigated drug that occur during the clinical trial have to be reported to the NCA and ECs of the Member State where they occurred.

In April 2014, the European Union adopted a new Clinical Trials Regulation (EU) No 536/2014, which is set to replace the current Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC. It will overhaul the current system of approvals for clinical trials in the European Union. Specifically, the new regulation, which will be directly applicable in all Member States (meaning that no national implementing legislation in each European Union Member State is required), aims at simplifying and streamlining the approval of clinical trials in the European Union. For instance, the new Clinical Trials Regulation provides for a streamlined application procedure via a single entry point and strictly defined deadlines for the assessment of clinical trial applications. It is expected that the new Clinical Trials Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 will come into effect following confirmation of full functionality of the Clinical Trials Information System, the centralized European Union portal and database for clinical trials foreseen by the new Clinical Trials regulation, through an independent audit, which is currently expected to occur in December 2021.

Drug review and approval in the EEA

In the European Economic Area (comprised of the European Union Member States plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein), or EEA, medicinal products, including advanced therapy medicinal products, or ATMPs, are subject to extensive pre- and post-market regulation by regulatory authorities at both the EEA and national levels. ATMPs comprise gene therapy products, somatic cell therapy products and tissue engineered products. Gene therapy products deliver genes into the body that lead to a therapeutic, prophylactic or diagnostic effect. Libmeldy is authorized as a gene therapy product in the EEA, and we anticipate that our gene therapy development products would also be regulated as ATMPs in the EEA.

To obtain regulatory approval of an ATMP under EEA regulatory systems, we must submit an MAA under the centralized procedure administered by the EMA. The application used to submit the BLA in the United States is similar to that required in the European Union, with the exception of, among other things, , certain specific requirements set out in the ATMP Regulation, for example certain particulars to be contained in the summary of product characteristics. The centralized procedure provides for the grant of a single marketing authorization by the European Commission that is valid across all of the EEA. As provided for in the ATMP Regulation, the scientific evaluation of MAAs for ATMPs is primarily performed by a specialized scientific committee called the Committee for Advanced Therapies, or CAT. The CAT prepares a draft opinion on the quality, safety and efficacy of the ATMP which is the subject of the MAA, which is sent for final approval to the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use, or CHMP. The CHMP recommendation is then sent to the European Commission, which adopts a decision binding in all EEA Member States. The maximum timeframe for the evaluation of a MAA for an ATMP is 210 days from receipt of a valid MAA, excluding clock stops when additional information or written or oral explanation is to be provided by the applicant in response to questions of the CAT and/or CHMP. Clock stops may extend the timeframe of evaluation of a MAA considerably beyond 210 days.  Where the CHMP gives a positive opinion, the EMA provides the opinion together with supporting documentation to the European Commission, who make the final decision to grant a marketing authorization, which is issued within 67 days of receipt of the EMA’s recommendation.  Accelerated assessment may be granted by the CHMP in exceptional cases, when a medicinal product is of major interest from the point of view of public health and, in particular, from the viewpoint of therapeutic innovation. If the CHMP accepts such a request, the timeframe of 210 days for assessment will be reduced to 150 days (excluding clock stops), but it is possible that the CHMP may revert to the standard time limit for the centralized procedure if it determines that the application is no longer appropriate to conduct an accelerated assessment.

Now that the UK (which comprises Great Britain and Northern Ireland) has left the European Union, Great Britain will no longer be covered by centralized marketing authorizations (under the Northern Irish Protocol, centralized marketing authorizations will continue to be recognized in Northern Ireland). All medicinal products with a current centralized marketing authorization were automatically converted to Great Britain marketing authorizations on January, 1 2021. For a period of two years from January 1, 2021, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, or MHRA, the UK medicines regulator, may rely on a decision taken by the European Commission on the approval of a new marketing authorization in the centralized procedure, in order to more quickly grant a new Great Britain marketing authorization. A separate application will, however, still be required.

Data and marketing exclusivity

The EEA also provides opportunities for market exclusivity. Upon receiving marketing authorization in the EEA, innovative medicinal products generally receive eight years of data exclusivity and an additional two years of market exclusivity. If granted, data exclusivity prevents generic or biosimilar applicants from referencing the innovator’s preclinical and clinical trial data contained in the dossier of the reference product when applying for a generic or biosimilar marketing authorization during a period of eight years from the date on which the reference product was first authorized in the EEA. During the additional two-year period of market exclusivity, a generic or biosimilar marketing authorization can be submitted, and the innovator’s data may be referenced, but no generic or biosimilar product can be marketed until the expiration of the market

41

exclusivity period. The overall ten-year period will be extended to a maximum of eleven years if, during the first eight years of those ten years, the marketing authorization holder obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications which, during the scientific evaluation prior to authorization, is held to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with existing therapies. Even if an innovative medicinal product gains the prescribed period of data exclusivity, another company may market another version of the product if such company obtained marketing authorization based on a MAA with a complete independent data package of pharmaceutical tests, preclinical tests and clinical trials. There is, however, no guarantee that a product will be considered by the European Union’s regulatory authorities to be an innovative medicinal product, and products may therefore not qualify for data exclusivity.

Orphan drug designation and exclusivity

Products with an orphan designation in the EEA can receive ten years of market exclusivity, during which time “no similar medicinal product” for the same indication may be placed on the market. A “similar medicinal product” is defined as a medicinal product containing a similar active substance or substances as contained in an authorized orphan medicinal product, and which is intended for the same therapeutic indication. An orphan product can also obtain an additional two years of market exclusivity in the EEA where an agreed Pediatric Investigation Plan for pediatric studies has been complied with. No extension to any supplementary protection certificate can be granted on the basis of pediatric studies for orphan indications.

The criteria for designating an “orphan medicinal product” in the EEA are similar in principle to those in the United States. Under Article 3 of Regulation (EC) 141/2000, a medicinal product may be designated as an orphan medicinal product if it meets the following criteria: (1) it is intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition; and (2) either the prevalence of such condition must not be more than five in 10,000 persons in the EEA when the application is made, or without the benefits derived from orphan status, it must be unlikely that the marketing of the medicine would generate sufficient return in the EEA to justify the investment needed for its development; and (3) there exists no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment of such condition authorized for marketing in the EEA, or if such a method exists, the product will be of significant benefit to those affected by the condition, as defined in Regulation (EC) 847/2000. Orphan medicinal products are eligible for financial incentives such as reduction of fees or fee waivers and are, upon grant of a marketing authorization, entitled to ten years of market exclusivity for the approved therapeutic indication. The application for orphan drug designation must be submitted before the application for marketing authorization. The applicant will receive a fee reduction for the MAA if the orphan drug designation has been granted, but not if the designation is still pending at the time the marketing authorization is submitted. Orphan drug designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process.

The 10-year market exclusivity may be reduced to six years if, at the end of the fifth year, it is established that the product no longer meets the criteria for orphan designation, for example, if the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity. Otherwise, orphan medicine marketing exclusivity may be revoked only in very select cases, such as if:

Pediatric development

In the EEA, companies developing a new medicinal product must agree upon a Pediatric Investigation Plan, or PIP, with the EMA’s Pediatric Committee, or PDCO, and must conduct pediatric clinical trials in accordance with that PIP, unless a waiver applies, (e.g., because the relevant disease or condition occurs only in adults). The PIP sets out the timing and measures proposed to generate data to support a pediatric indication of the drug for which marketing authorization is being sought. The marketing authorization application for the product must include the results of pediatric clinical trials conducted in accordance with the PIP, unless a waiver applies, or a deferral has been granted by the PDCO of the obligation to implement some or all of the measures of the PIP until there are sufficient data to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of the product in adults, in which case the pediatric clinical trials must be completed at a later date. Products that are granted a marketing authorization with the results of the pediatric clinical trials conducted in accordance with the PIP are eligible for a six month extension of the protection under a supplementary protection certificate (if any is in effect at the time of approval) even where the trial results are negative. In the case of orphan medicinal products, a two year extension of the orphan market exclusivity may be available. This pediatric reward is subject to specific conditions and is not automatically available when data in compliance with the PIP are developed and submitted.

42

PRIME Designation

In March 2016, the EMA launched an initiative to facilitate development of product candidates in indications, often rare, for which few or no therapies currently exist. The PRIority MEdicines, or PRIME, scheme is intended to encourage drug development in areas of unmet medical need and provides accelerated assessment of products representing substantial innovation, where the marketing authorization application will be made through the centralized procedure. Eligible products must target conditions for which where is an unmet medical need (there is no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment in the EEA or, if there is, the new medicine will bring a major therapeutic advantage) and they must demonstrate the potential to address the unmet medical need by introducing new methods of therapy or improving existing ones. Products from small- and medium-sized enterprises may qualify for earlier entry into the PRIME scheme than larger companies. Many benefits accrue to sponsors of product candidates with PRIME designation, including but not limited to, early and proactive regulatory dialogue with the EMA, frequent discussions on clinical trial designs and other development program elements, and accelerated marketing authorization application assessment once a dossier has been submitted. Importantly, a dedicated Agency contact and rapporteur from the CHMP or CAT are appointed early in PRIME scheme facilitating increased understanding of the product at EMA’s Committee level. A kick-off meeting initiates these relationships and includes a team of multidisciplinary experts at the EMA to provide guidance on the overall development and regulatory strategies. Where, during the course of development, a medicine no longer meets the eligibility criteria, support under the PRIME scheme may be withdrawn.

Post-approval controls

Following approval, the holder of the marketing authorization is required to comply with a range of requirements applicable to the manufacturing, marketing, promotion and sale of the medicinal product. These include the following:

Brexit and the Regulatory Framework in the United Kingdom

In June 2016, the electorate in the United Kingdom voted in favor of leaving the European Union (commonly referred to as “Brexit”). Thereafter, in March 2017, the country formally notified the European Union of its intention to withdraw pursuant to Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. The United Kingdom formally left the European Union on January 31, 2020. A transition period began on February 1, 2020, during which European Union pharmaceutical law remained applicable to the United Kingdom. This transition period ended on December 31, 2020. Since the regulatory framework in the United Kingdom covering quality, safety and efficacy of pharmaceutical products, clinical trials, marketing authorization, commercial sales and distribution of pharmaceutical products is derived from European Union Directives and Regulations, Brexit could materially impact the future regulatory regime which applies to products and the approval of product candidates in the United Kingdom as United Kingdom legislation now has the potential to diverge from European Union legislation. It remains to be seen how Brexit will impact regulatory requirements for product candidates and products in the United Kingdom in the long-term. The MHRA, the United Kingdom medicines and medical devices regulator, has recently published detailed guidance for industry and organizations to follow from January 1, 2021 now that the transition period is over, which will be updated as the United Kingdom’s regulatory position on medicinal products evolves over time. Brexit has also created uncertainty with regard to data protection regulation in the United Kingdom, and in particular, how data transfers from the European Union to the United Kingdom will be regulated.  The European Union and the United Kingdom have agreed a bridging period of up to 6 months to allow the continued free flow of data from the European Union to the United Kingdom, during which time the European Commission will assess whether the United Kingdom will be granted adequacy status.  There is no certainty that an adequacy decision will be granted. If it is not, legal uncertainties regarding the flow of data across borders could increase the complexity and cost of transferring personal data from the European Union to the United Kingdom.

43

Other healthcare laws and compliance requirements

In the United States, our current and future operations are subject to regulation by various federal, state and local authorities in addition to the FDA, including but not limited to, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, other divisions of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS (such as the Office of Inspector General, Office for Civil Rights and the Health Resources and Service Administration), the U.S. Department of Justice, or DOJ, and individual U.S. Attorney offices within the DOJ, and state and local governments. For example, our clinical research, sales, marketing and scientific/educational grant programs may have to comply with the anti-fraud and abuse provisions of the Social Security Act, the false claims laws, the privacy and security provisions of the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, and similar state laws, each as amended, as applicable:

44

In addition to the above, on November 20, 2020, the Office of Inspector General, or OIG, finalized further modifications to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute. Under the final rules, OIG added safe harbor protections under the Anti-Kickback Statute for certain coordinated care and value-based arrangements among clinicians, providers, and others. The final rule (with some exceptions) became effective January 19, 2021. We continue to evaluate what effect, if any, these rules will have on our business.

Additionally, we are subject to state and foreign equivalents of each of the healthcare laws and regulations described above, among others, some of which may be broader in scope and may apply regardless of the payor. Many U.S. states have adopted laws similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and False Claims Act, and may apply to our business practices, including, but not limited to, research, distribution, sales or marketing arrangements and claims involving healthcare items or services reimbursed by non-governmental payors, including private insurers. In addition, some states have passed laws that require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the April 2003 Office of Inspector General Compliance Program Guidance for Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and/or the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America’s Code on Interactions with Healthcare Professionals. Several states also impose other marketing restrictions or require pharmaceutical companies to make marketing or price disclosures to the state. There are ambiguities as to what is required to comply with these state requirements and if we fail to comply with an applicable state law requirement, we could be subject to penalties. Finally, there are state and foreign laws governing the privacy and security of health information (e.g., the California Consumer Privacy Act), many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not preempted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts.

We may also be subject to additional privacy restrictions. The collection, use, storage, disclosure, transfer, or other processing of personal data regarding individuals in the European Economic Area, or EEA, including personal health data, is subject to the General Data Protection Regulation 2016/679 (GDPR), which became effective on May 25, 2018. The GDPR is wide-ranging in scope and imposes numerous requirements on companies that process personal data, including requirements relating to processing health and other sensitive data, obtaining consent of the individuals to whom the personal data relates, providing information to individuals regarding data processing activities, implementing safeguards to protect the security and confidentiality of personal data, providing notification of data breaches, and taking certain measures when engaging third-party processors. The GDPR also imposes strict rules on the transfer of personal data to countries outside the European Union, including the United States, and permits data protection authorities to impose large penalties for violations of the GDPR, including potential fines of up to €20 million or 4% of annual global revenues, whichever is greater. The GDPR also confers a private right of action on data subjects and consumer associations to lodge complaints with supervisory authorities, seek judicial remedies, and obtain compensation for damages resulting from violations of the GDPR. In addition, the GDPR includes restrictions on cross-border data transfers. Compliance with the GDPR will be a rigorous and time-intensive process that may increase our cost of doing business or require us to change our business practices, and despite those efforts, there is a risk that we may be subject to fines and penalties, litigation, and reputational harm in connection with our European activities.

Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of the statutory exceptions and safe harbors available, it is possible that some of our business activities could be subject to challenge under one or more of such laws.

Violations of fraud and abuse laws may be punishable by criminal and/or civil sanctions, including penalties, fines, imprisonment and/or exclusion or suspension from federal and state healthcare programs such as Medicare and Medicaid and debarment from contracting with the U.S. government. In addition, private individuals have the ability to bring actions on behalf of the U.S. government under the federal False Claims Act as well as under the false claims laws of several states.

Law enforcement authorities are increasingly focused on enforcing fraud and abuse laws, and it is possible that some of our practices may be challenged under these laws. Efforts to ensure that our current and future business arrangements with third parties, and our business generally, will comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations will involve substantial costs. If our operations, including our arrangements with physicians and other healthcare providers are found to be in violation of any of such laws or any other governmental regulations that apply to us, we may be subject to penalties, including, without limitation, administrative, civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, exclusion from participation in federal and state healthcare programs (such as Medicare and Medicaid), and imprisonment, any of which

45

could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our financial results. In addition, our gene therapy programs for Strimvelis and Libmeldy were approved by the EMA in 2016 and 2020, respectively, and the approval and commercialization of Strimvelis and Libmeldy subjects us to foreign equivalents of the healthcare laws mentioned above, among other foreign laws. The approval and commercialization of any of our other gene therapies outside the United States will also likely subject us to foreign equivalents of the healthcare laws mentioned above, among other foreign laws.

If any of the physicians or other healthcare providers or entities with whom we expect to do business are found to be not in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government funded healthcare programs, which may also adversely affect our business.

The risk of our being found in violation of these laws is increased by the fact that many of these laws have not been fully interpreted by the regulatory authorities or the courts, and their provisions are open to a variety of interpretations. Any action against us for violation of these laws, even if we successfully defend against it, could cause us to incur significant legal expenses and divert our management’s attention from the operation of our business. The shifting compliance environment and the need to build and maintain a robust system to comply with multiple jurisdictions with different compliance and reporting requirements increases the possibility that a healthcare company may violate one or more of the requirements. Efforts to ensure that our business arrangements with third parties will comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations will involve substantial cost.

Healthcare reform

A primary trend in the U.S. healthcare industry and elsewhere is cost containment. Government authorities and other payors have attempted to control costs by limiting coverage and the amount of reimbursement for particular medical products. For example, in March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, or ACA, was enacted, which, among other things, increased the minimum Medicaid rebates owed by most manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program; introduced a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for drugs that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted or injected; extended the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program to utilization of prescriptions of individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care plans; imposed mandatory discounts for certain Medicare Part D beneficiaries as a condition for manufacturers’ outpatient drugs coverage under Medicare Part D; subjected drug manufacturers to new annual, nondeductible fees based on pharmaceutical companies’ share of sales to federal healthcare programs; imposed a new federal excise tax on the sale of certain medical devices; expanded healthcare fraud and abuse laws, including the False Claims Act and the Anti-Kickback Statute, new government investigative powers and enhanced penalties for non-compliance; expanded eligibility criteria for Medicaid programs by, among other things, allowing states to offer Medicaid coverage to additional individuals with income at or below 133% of the federal poverty level, thereby potentially increasing manufacturers’ Medicaid rebate liability; expanded the entities eligible for discounts under the PHS Act’s pharmaceutical pricing program, also known as the 340B Drug Pricing Program; created new requirements to report financial arrangements with physicians and teaching hospitals, commonly referred to as the Physician Payments Sunshine Act; created a new requirement to annually report the identity and quantity of drug samples that manufacturers and authorized distributors of record provide to physicians; created a new Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute to oversee, identify priorities in and conduct comparative clinical effectiveness research, along with funding for such research; and established the Center for Medicare Innovation at the CMS to test innovative payment and service delivery models to lower Medicare and Medicaid spending.

Some of the provisions of the ACA have yet to be implemented, and there have been legal and political challenges to certain aspects of the ACA. Since January 2017, President Trump has signed two executive orders and other directives designed to delay, circumvent, or loosen certain requirements mandated by the ACA. On January 20, 2017, President Trump signed an Executive Order directing federal agencies with authorities and responsibilities under the ACA to waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation of any provision of the ACA that would impose a fiscal burden on states or a cost, fee, tax, penalty or regulatory burden on individuals, healthcare providers, health insurers, or manufacturers of pharmaceuticals or medical devices. On October 13, 2017, President Trump signed an Executive Order terminating the cost-sharing subsidies that reimburse insurers under the ACA. The Trump administration has concluded that cost-sharing reduction, or CSR, payments to insurance companies required under the ACA have not received necessary appropriations from Congress and announced that it will discontinue these payments immediately until those appropriations are made. The loss of the CSR payments is expected to increase premiums on certain policies issued by qualified health plans under the ACA. Several state Attorneys General filed suit to stop the administration from terminating the subsidies, but their request for a restraining order was denied by a federal judge in California on October 25, 2017. On August 14, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in two separate cases that the federal government is liable for the full amount of unpaid CSRs for the years preceding and including 2017. For CSR claims made by health insurance companies for years 2018 and

46

later, further litigation will be required to determine the amounts due, if any. Further, on June 14, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that the federal government was not required to pay more than $12 billion in ACA risk corridor payments to third-party payors who argued the payments were owed to them. On April 27, 2020, the United States Supreme Court reversed the U.S.  Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision and remanded the case to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, concluding the government has an obligation to pay these risk corridor payments under the relevant formula.

Concurrently, Congress has considered legislation that would repeal or repeal and replace all or part of the ACA. While Congress has not passed comprehensive repeal legislation, two bills affecting the implementation of certain taxes under the ACA have been signed into law. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, or Tax Act, includes a provision repealing, effective January 1, 2019, the tax-based shared responsibility payment imposed by the ACA on certain individuals who fail to maintain qualifying health coverage for all or part of a year that is commonly referred to as the “individual mandate.” On December 14, 2018, a federal district court in Texas ruled the individual mandate is a critical and inseverable feature of the ACA, and therefore, because it was repealed as part of the Tax Act, the remaining provisions of the ACA are invalid as well. On December 18, 2019, the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals held that the individual mandate is unconstitutional, and remanded the case to the lower court to reconsider its earlier invalidation of the full ACA. On March 2, 2020, the United States Supreme Court granted the petitions for writs of certiorari to review this case and held oral arguments on November 10, 2020. It is unclear what effect this will have on the status of the ACA and our business. In December 2018, CMS published a final rule permitting further collections and payments to and from certain ACA qualified health plans and health insurance issuers under the Affordable Care Act risk adjustment program in response to the outcome of the federal district court litigation regarding the method CMS uses to determine this risk adjustment. Since then, the ACA risk adjustment program payment parameters have been updated annually. In addition, CMS published a final rule that would give states greater flexibility, starting in 2020, in setting benchmarks for insurers in the individual and small group marketplaces, which may have the effect of relaxing the essential health benefits required under the ACA for plans sold through such marketplaces.

On January 22, 2018, President Trump signed a continuing resolution on appropriations for fiscal year 2018 that delayed the implementation of certain ACA -mandated fees, including the so-called “Cadillac” tax on certain high cost employer-sponsored insurance plans, the annual fee imposed on certain health insurance providers based on market share, and the medical device excise tax on non-exempt medical devices; however, on December 20, 2019, President Trump signed into law the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act (H.R. 1865), which repealed the Cadillac tax, the health insurance provider tax, and the medical device excise tax. Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the Affordable Care Act was enacted. The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, or the BBA, among other things, amends the ACA, effective January 1, 2019, to close the coverage gap in most Medicare drug plans, commonly referred to as the “donut hole”.

Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted. For example, in August 2011, President Obama signed into law the Budget Control Act of 2011, which, among other things, created the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction to recommend to Congress proposals in spending reductions. The Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction did not achieve a targeted deficit reduction of at least $1.2 trillion for fiscal years 2012 through 2021, triggering the legislation’s automatic reduction to several government programs. This includes aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of up to 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect beginning on April 1, 2013 and, due to legislation amendments to the statute, including the BBA, will stay in effect through 2030 unless additional Congressional action is taken. However, pursuant to the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act, or CARES Act, and subsequent legislation, these Medicare sequester reductions are suspended from May 1, 2020 through March 31, 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In January 2013, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was signed into law, which, among other things, further reduced Medicare payments to several types of providers, including hospitals, imaging centers and cancer treatment centers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years.

Additionally, there has been increasing legislative and enforcement interest in the United States with respect to specialty drug pricing practices. Specifically, there have been several recent U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, reduce the cost of prescription drugs under Medicare, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs. At the federal level, the Trump administration’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2021 includes a $135 billion allowance to support legislative proposals seeking to reduce drug prices, increase competition, lower out-of-pocket drug costs for patients, and increase patient access to lower-cost generic and biosimilar drugs. On March 10, 2020, the Trump administration sent “principles” for drug pricing to Congress, calling for legislation that would, among other things, cap Medicare Part D beneficiary out-of-pocket pharmacy expenses, provide an option to cap

47

Medicare Part D beneficiary monthly out-of-pocket expenses, and place limits on pharmaceutical price increases. . Further, the Trump administration also previously released a “Blueprint”, or plan, to lower drug prices and reduce out of pocket costs of drugs that contains additional proposals to increase drug manufacturer competition, increase the negotiating power of certain federal healthcare programs, incentivize manufacturers to lower the list price of their products, and reduce the out of pocket costs of drug products paid by consumers. HHS has already started the process of soliciting feedback on some of these measures and, at the same, is immediately implementing others under its existing authority. For example, in May 2019, CMS issued a final rule to allow Medicare Advantage Plans the option of using step therapy, a type of prior authorization, for Part B drugs beginning January 1, 2020. This final rule codified CMS’s policy change that became effective January 1, 2019. In addition, there has been several changes to the 340B drug pricing program, which imposes ceilings on prices that drug manufacturers can charge for medications sold to certain health care facilities. On December 27, 2018, the District Court for the District of Columbia invalidated a reimbursement formula change under the 340B drug pricing program, and CMS subsequently altered the FYs 2019 and 2018 reimbursement formula on specified covered outpatient drugs (“"SCODs”"). The court ruled this change was not an “adjustment” which was within the Secretary’s discretion to make but was instead a fundamental change in the reimbursement calculation. However, most recently, on July 31, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit overturned the district court’s decision and found that the changes were within the Secretary’s authority. On September 14, 2020, the plaintiffs-appellees filed a Petition for Rehearing En Banc (i.e., before the full court), but was denied on October 16, 2020. It is unclear how these developments could affect covered hospitals who might purchase our future products and affect the rates we may charge such facilities for our approved products in the future, if any. While a number of these and other proposed measures will require authorization through additional legislation to become effective, Congress and has indicated that it will continue to seek new legislative and/or administrative measures to control drug costs.

Further, on July 24, 2020 and September 13, 2020, President Trump signed several Executive Orders aimed at lowering drug pricing that seek to implement several of the administration's proposals. The FDA also released a final rule on September 24, 2020, which went into effect on November 30, 2020, providing guidance for states to build and submit importation plans for drugs from Canada. Further, on November 20 2020 CMS issued an Interim Final Rule implementing the Most Favored Nation, or MFN, Model  under which  Medicare Part B reimbursement rates will be calculated for certain drugs and biologicals based on the lowest price drug manufacturers receive in Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries with a similar gross domestic product per capita.  The MFN Model regulations mandate participation by identified Part B providers and will apply in all U.S. states and territories for a seven-year period beginning January 1, 2021 and ending December 31, 2027.  The Interim Final Rule has not been finalized and is subject to revision and challenge. Additionally, on November 20, 2020, HHS finalized a regulation removing safe harbor protection for price reductions from pharmaceutical manufacturers to plan sponsors under Part D, either directly or through pharmacy benefit managers, unless the price reduction is required by law. The rule also creates a new safe harbor for price reductions reflected at the point-of-sale, as well as a safe harbor for certain fixed fee arrangements between pharmacy benefit managers and manufacturers. Although a number of these, and other proposed measures may require authorization through additional legislation to become effective, and the Biden administration may reverse or otherwise change these measures, Congress has indicated that it will continue to seek new legislative measures to control drug costs.

Individual states in the United States have also increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing.

Further, on May 30, 2018, the Trickett Wendler, Frank Mongiello, Jordan McLinn, and Matthew Bellina Right to Try Act of 2017, or the Right to Try Act, was signed into law. The law, among other things, provides a federal framework for certain patients to request access to certain investigational new drug products that have completed a Phase I clinical trial and that are undergoing investigation for FDA approval.  There is no obligation for a pharmaceutical manufacturer to make its drug products available to eligible patients as a result of the Right to Try Act.

48

Coverage and reimbursement

Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of any gene therapies for which we obtain regulatory approval. In the United States and markets in other countries, sales of any gene therapies for which we receive regulatory approval for commercial sale will depend, in part, on the availability of coverage and reimbursement from payors. Payors include government authorities, managed care providers, private health insurers and other organizations. Patients who are prescribed treatments for their conditions and providers generally rely on these third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the associated healthcare. The process for determining whether a payor will provide coverage for a product may be separate from the process for setting the reimbursement rate that the payor will pay for the product. Payors may limit coverage to specific products on an approved list, or formulary, which might not include all of the FDA-approved products for a particular indication. A decision by a payor not to cover our gene therapies could reduce physician utilization of our products once approved and have a material adverse effect on our sales, results of operations and financial condition. Moreover, a payor’s decision to provide coverage for a product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. 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 and manufacturing costs. Further, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, millions of individuals have lost or may lose employer-based insurance coverage, which may adversely affect our ability to commercialize our products in certain jurisdictions.

In addition, coverage and reimbursement for products can differ significantly from payor to payor. One payor’s decision to cover a particular medical product or service does not ensure that other payors will also provide coverage for the medical product or service, or will provide coverage at an adequate reimbursement rate. In the United States, the principal decisions about reimbursement for new medicines are typically made by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, an agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. CMS decides whether and to what extent a new medicine will be covered and reimbursed under Medicare and private payors tend to follow CMS to a substantial degree.

Additionally, the coverage determination process will require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our products to each payor separately and will be a time-consuming process.

Payors are increasingly challenging the price and examining the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of medical products and services, in addition to their safety and efficacy. In order to obtain and maintain coverage and reimbursement for any product, we may need to conduct expensive evidence generation studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of such a product, in addition to the costs required to obtain regulatory approvals. If payors do not consider a product to be cost-effective compared to current standards of care , they may not cover the product as a benefit under their plans or, if they do, the level of payment may not be sufficient to allow a company to cover its costs or make a profit.

Outside of the United States, the pricing of pharmaceutical products is subject to governmental control in many countries. For example, in the EU, pricing and reimbursement schemes vary widely from country to country. Some countries provide that products may be marketed only after a reimbursement price has been agreed with the government authority. Furthermore, some countries may require the completion of additional studies that compare the effectiveness and/or cost-effectiveness of a particular therapy to current standards of care as part of so-called health technology assessments, or HTAs, in order to obtain reimbursement or pricing approval. Additionally, there may be a need for activities to secure reimbursement for procedures associated with products administered in a hospital setting, such as Libmeldy, under the diagnosis-related group, or DRG, system, whereby a billing code may not exist or may be currently insufficient to cover the cost of the procedure. In other instances, countries may monitor and control product volumes and issue guidance to physicians to limit prescriptions in the form of treatment policies. Efforts to control prices and utilization of pharmaceutical products and medical devices will likely continue as countries attempt to manage healthcare expenditures.

Employees and Human Capital Resources

As of December 31, 2020, we had 224 full-time employees.  We have no collective bargaining agreements with our employees, and we have not experienced any work stoppages. We consider our relationship with our employees to be positive. We monitor employee engagement through an annual survey and develop a prioritized action plan on an annual basis to address any areas in need of attention. Our human capital objectives include, as applicable, identifying, recruiting, developing, retaining, and incentivizing our existing and prospective employees, as well as optimizing the overall employee experience. The principal purposes of our incentive plans are to attract, retain and motivate our employees. The granting of share-based compensation awards are designed to reward selected employees for long-term shareholder value creation and our cash-based performance bonus awards reward the achievement of annual performance goals. The health and safety of our employees, customers and communities are of primary concern. During the COVID-19 pandemic, we have taken significant

49

steps to protect our workforce including but not limited to, working remotely, and implementing social distancing protocols consistent with guidelines issued by federal, state, and local laws. In 2020, we launched a comprehensive initiative to enhance diversity, inclusion and belonging.

Corporate Information

We were originally incorporated under the laws of England and Wales in August 2018 as Orchard Rx Limited (now known as Orchard Therapeutics plc) to become a holding company for Orchard Therapeutics (Europe) Limited (previously known as Orchard Therapeutics Limited). Orchard Rx Limited subsequently re-registered as a public limited company and its name was changed from Orchard Rx Limited to Orchard Therapeutics plc in October 2018. Orchard Therapeutics (Europe) Limited was originally incorporated under the laws of England and Wales in September 2015 as Newincco 1387 Limited and subsequently changed its name to Orchard Therapeutics Limited in November 2015 and to Orchard Therapeutics (Europe) Limited in October 2018. Our registered office is located at 108 Cannon Street, London EC4N 6EU, United Kingdom, and our telephone number is +44 (0) 203 808 8286. Our website address is www.orchard-tx.com. We do not incorporate the information on or accessible through our website into this Annual Report, and you should not consider any information on, or that can be accessed through, our website as part of this Annual Report. We make available free of charge through our website our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and amendments to these reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file or furnish such materials to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

50

Item 1A. Risk Factors.

Our business faces significant risks. This section of the Annual Report highlights some of the risks that may affect our future operating results. You should carefully consider the risks described below, as well as in our consolidated financial statements and the related notes included elsewhere in this Annual Report and in our other SEC filings. The occurrence of any of the events or developments described below could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and/or prospects. This Annual Report also contains forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. Our results could materially differ from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements, as a result of certain factors including the risks described below and elsewhere in this Annual Report and our other SEC filings. See “Special Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements” above.

Risks related to our financial position and need for additional capital

We have incurred net losses since inception. We expect to incur net losses for the foreseeable future and may never achieve or maintain profitability.

Since inception, we have incurred net losses. We incurred net losses of $152.0 million and $163.4 million for the years ended December 31, 2020 and 2019, respectively. We historically have financed our operations primarily through private placements of our convertible preferred shares and through sales of our ADSs in our initial public offering and follow-on offering. We have devoted substantially all of our efforts to research and development, including clinical and preclinical development and arranging the manufacturing of our product candidates, establishing a commercial infrastructure to support the commercialization of Strimvelis in the European Union, building a global commercial infrastructure to support commercialization of our product candidates, including Libmeldy (OTL-200) and OTL-103 for Wiskott Aldrich syndrome, or WAS, if such product candidates are approved, as well as expanding our team. Prior to the approval of Libmeldy in Europe in December 2020, Strimvelis was our only product that had been approved for sale.  Absent the realization of sufficient revenues from product sales of Libmeldy and Strimvelis, and from sales of our current or future product candidates, if approved, we may never attain profitability.

We expect to continue to incur significant expenses and increasing operating losses for the foreseeable future. We anticipate that our expenses will increase substantially over time if, and as, we:

51

In December 2020, we received full, or standard, marketing authorization for Libmeldy in the European Union as well as the United Kingdom, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. Although we are preparing to launch the commercialization of Libmeldy in Europe, to date Strimvelis is our only product that we have sold and, to date, it has only been approved for sale in the European Union for the treatment of ADA-SCID. Since receiving marketing authorization, only a limited number of patients have been treated with Strimvelis.  There is no assurance that sales of Strimvelis will resume, and even if resumed, our revenue from sales of Strimvelis alone will not be sufficient for us to become profitable. Under the terms of our asset purchase and license agreement with GSK, or the GSK Agreement, we are required to use our best endeavors to make Strimvelis commercially available in the European Union until such time as an alternative gene therapy, is commercially available for patients, and at all times at the San Raffaele Hospital in Milan, Italy, provided that a minimum number of patients continue to be treated at this site.

To become and remain profitable, we must develop and eventually commercialize product candidates with greater market potential. This will require us to be successful in a range of challenging activities, and our expenses will increase substantially as we seek to complete necessary preclinical studies and clinical trials of our product candidates, and manufacture, market and sell Libmeldy or any future product candidates for which we may obtain marketing approval, if any, and satisfy any post-marketing requirements. We may never succeed in any or all of these activities and, even if we do, we 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 our research and development efforts, expand our business or continue our operations.

We have only generated revenue from sales of Strimvelis to date, and we may never be profitable.

Our ability to generate revenue from product sales and achieve profitability depends on our ability, alone or with collaborative partners, to successfully develop and commercialize products. Although we have generated revenue from the sale of Strimvelis, we do not expect to achieve profitability unless and until we successfully commercialize Libmeldy in Europe and complete the development of, and obtain the regulatory approvals necessary to commercialize, additional product candidates. For example, in connection with the GSK Agreement, we recorded a liability for Strimvelis representing the fair value of the future expected costs to maintain the marketing authorization in excess of expected future sales. Our ability to generate future revenues from product sales depends heavily on our and or our collaborators’ success in:

52

We anticipate incurring significant costs associated with commercializing Libmeldy in Europe and any other products for which we obtain marketing approval. Our expenses could increase beyond expectations if we are required by the United States Food and Drug Administration, or the FDA, or the EMA or other regulatory authorities to perform clinical and other studies in addition to those that we currently anticipate or if we encounter delays or clinical holds in the development of our product candidates. Even if we commercialize Libmeldy in Europe, resume generating revenue from sales of Strimvelis and are able to generate revenues from the sale of any other approved products, we may not become profitable and may need to obtain additional funding to continue operations.

We will need additional funding, which may not be available on acceptable terms, or at all. Failure to obtain this necessary capital when needed may force us to delay, limit or terminate our product development efforts or other operations.

Our operations have consumed a substantial amount of cash since our inception, and we recorded negative cash flows from operating activities in 2020, primarily due to our net loss of $152.0 million for that year. We expect our expenses to increase in connection with our ongoing activities, particularly as we prepare to launch the commercialization of Libmeldy in Europe, continue to support our commercial infrastructure in support of Strimvelis, if sales resume, and our anticipated commercialization of OTL-103 for WAS, if approved, continue the research and development of, initiate further clinical trials of and seek marketing approval for, our product candidates and continue to enhance and optimize our vector technology and manufacturing processes. In addition, we expect to incur significant expenses related to product sales, post-marketing regulatory commitments, medical affairs, marketing, manufacturing, distribution and quality systems to support Libmeldy and Strimvelis, if sales resume, and any other products for which we obtain marketing approval. Furthermore, we will continue to incur additional costs associated with operating as a public company, including with respect to the system and process evaluations and testing of our internal controls and financial reporting. Accordingly, we will need to obtain substantial additional funding in connection with our continuing operations. If we are unable to raise capital when needed or on reasonable terms, or at all, we would be forced to delay, reduce or eliminate certain of our research and development programs and/or commercialization efforts.

Our future capital requirements will depend on many factors, including:

53

Identifying potential product candidates and conducting preclinical testing and clinical trials, as well as preparing for the potential commercialization of these product candidates, is a time-consuming, expensive and uncertain process that takes years to complete. We may never generate the necessary data or results required to obtain marketing approval and achieve product sales for any products other than Strimvelis. In addition, Libmeldy and Strimvelis or any other products for which we obtain and maintain marketing approval may not achieve commercial success. Any product revenues from our product candidates, if any, will be derived from or based on sales of products that may not be commercially available for many years, if at all. Accordingly, we will need to continue to rely on additional financing to achieve our business objectives. Adequate additional financing may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all.

Raising additional capital may cause dilution to our existing shareholders, restrict our operations or cause us to relinquish valuable rights.

We may seek to raise capital through a combination of public and private equity offerings, debt financings, strategic partnerships and alliances and licensing arrangements. To the extent that we raise capital through the sale of equity, convertible debt securities or other equity-based derivative securities, ownership percentages of all our shareholders may be diluted and the terms may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect their rights as shareholders. Any additional indebtedness we incur would result in additional increased fixed payment obligations and could involve restrictive covenants, such as limitations on our ability to incur additional debt, limitations on our ability to acquire or license intellectual property rights and other operating restrictions that could adversely impact our ability to conduct our business. Furthermore, the issuance of additional securities, whether equity or debt, by us, or the possibility of such issuance, may cause the market price of our ADSs to decline and existing shareholders may not agree with our financing plans or the terms of such financings. If we raise funds through strategic partnerships and alliances and licensing arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our technologies, or our product candidates, or grant licenses on terms unfavorable to us. Adequate financing may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all. The significant volatility in public equity markets and the disruptions to the U.S. and global economies caused by the COVID-19 pandemic may make it more difficult to raise capital through sales of our ADSs on favorable terms, or at all.

Our limited operating history may make it difficult to evaluate the success of our business to date and to assess our future viability.

We were incorporated in August 2018 to become a holding company for Orchard Therapeutics (Europe) Limited, which was founded in 2015, and its subsidiaries. Our operations, to date, have been limited to corporate organization, recruiting key personnel, business planning, raising capital, acquiring certain of our product candidate portfolios and rights to our technology, identifying potential product candidates, undertaking preclinical studies and planning and supporting clinical trials of our product candidates, establishing research and development and manufacturing capabilities, establishing a quality management system, establishing a commercial infrastructure to support the commercialization of Strimvelis in the European Union, if sales resume, and building a global commercial infrastructure to support commercialization of Libmeldy and OTL-103 for WAS, if approved. We have not yet demonstrated the ability to manufacture products on a commercial scale or conduct sales and marketing activities necessary for successful commercialization. Consequently, any predictions about our future success or viability may not be as accurate as they could be if we had a longer operating history. In addition, as a new business, we may encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays and other known and unknown factors and setbacks.

54

Risks related to the discovery, development and regulatory approval of our product candidates

Our gene therapy product candidates are based on a novel technology, which makes it difficult to predict the time and cost of product candidate development and of subsequently obtaining regulatory approval.

We have concentrated our research and development efforts on our autologous ex vivo gene therapy approach, and our future success depends on our successful development of commercially viable gene therapy products. There can be no assurance that we will not experience problems or delays in developing new products and that such problems or delays will not cause unanticipated costs, or that any such development problems can be solved. Although we have established a commercial infrastructure for the production of Strimvelis in the European Union and we are building a global commercial infrastructure to support commercialization of Libmeldy and OTL-103 for WAS, if approved, we may experience delays in establishing a sustainable, reproducible and scalable manufacturing capability with commercial CDMO partners, which may prevent us from commercializing our product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval on a timely or profitable basis, if at all.

In addition, the clinical trial requirements of the FDA, EMA and other foreign regulatory authorities and the criteria these regulators use to determine the safety and efficacy of a product candidate can vary substantially, for example, based upon the type, complexity, novelty and intended use and market of such product candidates. The regulatory approval process for novel product candidates such as ours can be more expensive and take longer than for other, better known or more extensively studied product candidates. To date, only a limited number of gene therapies have received marketing authorization from the FDA or EMA. We have limited experience in preparing, submitting and maintaining regulatory submissions. It is difficult to determine how long it will take or how much it will cost to obtain regulatory approvals for our product candidates in the United States, Europe or in other jurisdictions, or how long it will take to commercialize Libmeldy in Europe or any other product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. Approvals by the EMA may not be indicative of what the FDA may require for approval, and vice versa.

The results from our clinical trials for OTL-200 for MLD, OTL-103 for WAS and for any of our other product candidates may not be sufficiently robust to support marketing approval or the submission of marketing approval. Before we submit our product candidates for marketing approval, the FDA and/or the EMA may require us to conduct additional clinical trials, or evaluate patients for an additional follow-up period.

The results from our clinical trials may not be sufficiently robust to support the approval of or submission of marketing approval for our product candidates by the FDA for OTL-200 and by the FDA and EMA for OTL-103 for WAS. The FDA and/or EMA normally require two registrational trials to approve a drug or biologic product, and thus the FDA and/or EMA may require that we conduct additional clinical trials of our product candidates prior to a BLA or MAA submission. The FDA and/or EMA typically does not consider a single registrational clinical trial to be adequate to serve as sufficient evidence to support a marketing authorization unless it is, among other things, well-controlled and demonstrates a clinically meaningful effect on mortality, irreversible morbidity, or prevention of a disease with potentially serious outcome, and a confirmatory study would be practically or ethically impossible.

Due to the nature of the indications our product candidates are designed to treat, and the limited number of patients with these conditions, a placebo-controlled and blinded study is not always practicable for ethical and other reasons.  Accordingly, in some cases our registrational programs rely on natural history models to demonstrate clinical efficacy.  While the FDA recognizes the potential for natural history models to alleviate the need for placebo arms in trials for drugs that target very rare diseases, where trial recruitment can be especially challenging, the FDA has found the use of natural history data as a historical comparator to be unsuitable for adequate and well-controlled trials in many circumstances. The FDA generally finds trials using historical controls to be credible only when the observed effect is large in comparison to variability in disease course. It is possible the FDA will not consider our comparisons to natural history data and, where available, historical transplant data or intra-subject comparison between before gene therapy and after gene therapy, to provide clinically meaningful results. Additionally, even though OTL-200 and OTL-103 for WAS have achieved the primary endpoints in their respective ongoing registrational clinical trials, the FDA has not (and in the case of OTL-103, the EMA has also not) yet approved the clinical meaningfulness of the trial results and their sufficiency to support a marketing authorization.

For example, the FDA has provided written feedback on the sufficiency of our data package for OTL-200, including the clinical endpoints, natural history analysis and chemistry and manufacturing and controls, or CMC, data package. Although the FDA cleared our IND application for OTL-200 in 2020 and we received Regenerative Medicine Advanced Therapy, or RMAT, designation in 2021, there can be no guarantee we will be successful in resolving open matters to the FDA’s satisfaction before the intended BLA submission, in which case the adequacy of our clinical endpoints, natural history analysis and CMC data package to support a potential BLA submission and approval will be review issues. We have also received written feedback from the FDA on the sufficiency and adequacy of our data package for OTL-103 for WAS. The

55

FDA has advised us that the sufficiency of such package to support a BLA submission will be a review issue and recommended that we collect additional CMC and clinical data to support any such submission. We continue to engage with the FDA as we seek to address their recommendations and identify expeditious paths to market for our product candidates.

It is possible that the FDA or EMA may recommend or require us to conduct further studies, analyses or registrational trials with respect to our product candidates, possibly involving a larger sample size or a different clinical trial design. The FDA or EMA may also require that we conduct a longer follow-up period of patients treated with our product candidates prior to accepting a BLA or MAA submission, as applicable.

In addition, data obtained from preclinical and clinical activities are subject to varying interpretations, which may delay, limit or prevent regulatory approval. There can be no assurance that the FDA, EMA or other foreign regulatory bodies will find the efficacy endpoints in our registrational trials or any efficacy endpoint we propose in future registrational trials to be sufficiently validated and clinically meaningful, or that our product candidates will achieve the pre-specified endpoints in current or future registrational trials to a degree of statistical significance, and with acceptable safety profiles. The FDA may further refer any future BLA submission to an advisory committee for review, evaluation, and recommendation as to whether the application should be approved. This review may add to the time for approval, and although the FDA is not bound by the recommendation of an advisory committee, objections or concerns expressed by the advisory committee may cause the FDA to delay or deny approval. We also may experience regulatory delays or rejections as a result of many factors, including serious adverse events, or SAEs, involving our product candidates, changes in regulatory policy or changes in requirements during the period of our product candidate development. Any such delays could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We expect that the FDA and EMA will assess the totality of the safety and efficacy data from our product candidates in reviewing any future BLA or MAA submissions. Based on this assessment, the FDA or EMA may require that we conduct additional preclinical studies or clinical trials prior to submitting or approving a BLA or MAA for our target indications.

It is possible that the FDA or the EMA may not consider the results of our clinical trials, including reliance on foreign clinical data, to be sufficient for approval of our product candidates. If the FDA or the EMA requires additional trials, we would incur increased costs and delays in the marketing approval process, which may require us to expend more resources than we have available. In addition, it is possible that the FDA and the EMA may have divergent opinions on the elements necessary for a successful BLA and MAA, respectively, which may cause us to alter our development, regulatory and/or commercialization strategies.

Regulatory requirements governing gene and cell therapy products have evolved and may continue to change in the future. Such requirements may lengthen the regulatory review process, require us to perform additional studies, and increase our development costs or may force us to delay, limit, or terminate certain of our programs.

Regulatory requirements governing gene and cell therapy products have evolved and may continue to change in the future. The FDA has established the Office of Tissues and Advanced Therapies within its Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, or CBER, to consolidate the review of gene therapy and related products, and has established the Cellular, Tissue and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee to advise CBER in its review when called upon. The NIH has refocused the NIH Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee and changed its name to the Novel and Exceptional Technology and Research Advisory Committee, or NExTRAC. NExTRAC is a federal advisory committee that provides recommendations to the NIH Director and a public forum for the discussion of the scientific, safety, and ethical issues associated with emerging biotechnologies, which include, but are not restricted to, technologies surrounding advances in recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid research such as human gene transfer. These regulatory review committees and advisory groups and any new guidelines they promulgate may lengthen the regulatory review process, require us to perform additional studies, increase our development costs, lead to changes in regulatory positions and interpretations, delay or prevent approval and commercialization of these product candidates or lead to significant post-approval limitations or restrictions.

The FDA and EMA have each expressed interest in further regulating biotechnology, including gene therapy and genetic testing. For example, the EMA advocates a risk-based approach to the development of a gene therapy product. Agencies at both the federal and state level in the United States, as well as the U.S. congressional committees and other governments or governing agencies, have also expressed interest in further regulating the biotechnology industry. Such action may delay or prevent commercialization of some or all of our product candidates. Adverse events in clinical trials of gene therapy products conducted by others may cause the FDA or other oversight bodies to change the requirements for approval of any of our product candidates, which could require additional preclinical studies or clinical trials to support the marketing approval of our product candidates or which could make our product candidates unable to successfully obtain approval.

56

Similarly, the European Commission may issue new guidelines concerning the development and marketing authorization for gene therapies and require that we comply with these new guidelines, which could require additional preclinical studies or clinical trials to support the marketing approval of our product candidates or which could make our product candidates unable to successfully obtain approval.

As we advance our product candidates, we are required to consult with these regulatory and advisory groups, and comply with applicable guidelines. If we fail to do so, we may be required to delay or discontinue development of certain of our product candidates. These additional processes may result in a review and approval process that is longer than we otherwise would have expected. Delay or failure to obtain, or unexpected costs in obtaining, the regulatory approval necessary to bring a potential product to market could decrease our ability to generate sufficient product revenue, and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects would be materially and adversely affected.

The FDA and EMA have released a series of final guidance documents and a draft guidance document for consultation, which amongst other topics, included various aspects of gene therapy product development, review, and approval, including aspects relating to clinical and manufacturing issues related to gene therapy products. We cannot be certain whether future guidance will be issued and be relevant to, or have an impact on, our gene therapy programs or the duration or expense of any applicable regulatory development and review processes.

Libmeldy, Strimvelis and our product candidates and the process for administering Libmeldy, Strimvelis, and our product candidates may cause serious or undesirable side effects or adverse events or have other properties that could delay or prevent regulatory approval, limit commercial potential or result in significant negative consequences for our company.

Following treatment with our gene therapies, patients may experience changes in their health, including illnesses, injuries, discomforts or a fatal outcome. It is possible that as we test our product candidates in larger, longer and more extensive clinical programs, or as use of our product candidates becomes more widespread if they receive regulatory approval, illnesses, injuries, discomforts and other adverse events that were observed in previous clinical trials, as well as conditions that did not occur or went undetected in previous clinical trials, will be reported by patients. Gene therapies are also subject to the potential risk that occurrence of adverse events will be delayed following administration of the gene therapy due to persistent biological activity of the genetic material or other components of the vectors used to carry the genetic material. Many times, additional safety risks, contraindications, drug interactions, adverse events and side effects are only detectable after investigational products are tested in larger scale, registrational trials or, in some cases, after they are made available to patients on a commercial scale after approval. The FDA generally requires long-term follow-up of study subjects. Although the risk profile of a gene therapy candidate is a factor in determining the adequacy of such long-term follow-up, the FDA currently recommends that sponsors observe study subjects for potential gene therapy-related adverse events for a 15-year period, including a minimum of five years of annual examinations followed by ten years of annual queries, either in person or by questionnaire, of study subjects. If additional experience indicates that any of our product candidates or similar products developed by other companies has side effects or causes serious or life-threatening side effects, the development of such product candidate may fail or be delayed, or, if the product has received regulatory approval, such approval may be revoked or limited.

Gene therapy is still a relatively new approach to disease treatment and additional adverse side effects could develop. Possible adverse side effects and adverse events that may occur with treatment with gene therapy products include an immunologic reaction early after administration that could substantially limit the effectiveness of the treatment or represent safety risks for patients. Another traditional safety concern for gene therapies using viral vectors has been the possibility of insertional mutagenesis (or oncogenesis) by the vectors, leading to malignant transformation of transduced cells. There have been several adverse events and SAEs attributed to gene therapy treatments in the past, including reported cases of leukemia with the use of gammaretrovirus vector and death seen in other clinical trials. In October 2020, we were notified that a patient treated with Strimvelis under a compassionate use program in 2016 had been diagnosed with lymphoid T cell leukemia. Subsequent findings confirmed that the patient’s leukemia was due to insertional oncogenesis attributable to treatment with Strimvelis. The EMA’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use, or CHMP, concluded that the risk-benefit balance remains favorable and requested that the Strimvelis product information identify insertional mutagenesis (or oncogenesis) as an “important identified risk” instead of an “important potential risk” in light of this event.

Strimvelis is the only gammaretroviral vector-based gene therapy in our portfolio. Libmeldy and all of our pipeline therapies employ the self-inactivating (SIN) lentiviral vector-based approach which has been specifically designed to avoid insertional oncogenesis after administration. Although to our knowledge and as of the date of this report no evidence of insertional oncogenesis has been observed with lentiviral vector-based HSC gene therapy in any of our programs, there can be no assurance that this will continue to be the case. Moreover, while our gene therapy approach is designed to avoid

57

immunogenicity after administration, there can be no assurance that patients would not develop antibodies that may impair treatment. Our approach involves the use of integrating vectors which have the potential for genomic disruption and therefore could interfere with other genes with adverse clinical effects. If any of our gene therapy product candidates demonstrates adverse side effects or adverse events at unacceptable rates or degrees of severity, we may decide or be required to halt or delay clinical development of such product candidates.

In addition to side effects and adverse events caused by our product candidates, the conditioning, administration process or related procedures also can cause adverse side effects and adverse events. A gene therapy patient is generally administered cytotoxic drugs to remove stem cells from the bone marrow to create sufficient space in the bone marrow for the modified stem cells to engraft and produce new cells. This procedure compromises the patient’s immune system. While certain of our product candidates are designed to utilize milder conditioning regimens that are intended to require only limited removal of a patient’s bone marrow cells, the conditioning regimens may not be successful or may nevertheless result in adverse side effects and adverse events. If in the future we are unable to demonstrate that such adverse events were caused by the conditioning regimens used, or administration process or related procedure, the FDA, the European Commission, EMA or other regulatory authorities could order us to cease further development of, or deny approval of, our product candidates for any or all target indications. Even if we are able to demonstrate that adverse events are not related to the drug product or the administration of such drug product, such occurrences could affect patient recruitment, the ability of enrolled patients to complete the clinical trial, or the commercial viability of any product candidates that obtain regulatory approval.

Additionally, the FDA could require us to adopt a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS as a condition of approval to ensure that the benefits of our product candidates outweigh their risks, which may include, among other things, a medication guide outlining the risks of the product for distribution to patients, a communication plan to health care practitioners, and restrictions on how or where the product can be distributed, dispensed or used. Other non-U.S. regulatory authorities could impose other specific obligations, such as through a risk management plan, or RMP, submitted to the EMA. Furthermore, if we or others later identify undesirable side effects caused by Strimvelis, Libmeldy or our product candidates, several potentially significant negative consequences could result, including:

Any of these events could prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of Libmeldy and Strimvelis, if sales resume following investigation of the adverse event described above, and any other products for which we obtain marketing approval and could significantly harm our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

To date, most of the clinical trials for our product candidates were conducted as investigator-sponsored clinical trials using drug product manufactured at academic sites. Regulatory authorities may closely scrutinize the data collected from these trials, and may require that we conduct additional clinical trials prior to any marketing approval.

We have limited experience conducting company-sponsored clinical trials and to date most of our product candidates have been evaluated under investigator-sponsored clinical trials using drug product manufactured at the applicable or relevant academic site. We did not control the design or administration of these investigator-sponsored trials, nor the submission or approval of any IND or foreign equivalent required to conduct these clinical trials. Investigator-sponsored clinical trials are often conducted under less rigorous clinical and manufacturing standards than those used in company-sponsored clinical trials. For example, the drug product used in our company-sponsored clinical trials is manufactured by third party CDMOs using current good manufacturing practices, or cGMP, standards. Accordingly, regulatory authorities may closely scrutinize the data collected from these investigator-sponsored clinical trials, and may require us to obtain and submit additional clinical data prior to granting any marketing approval, which could delay clinical development or marketing approval of our product candidates. We will be required to demonstrate comparability between the manufacturing process used at academic centers with the manufacturing process used at CDMOs, and we cannot provide assurances that we will satisfy such comparability requirements. We may also be required to demonstrate improved quality and drug product manufacturing state of control in accordance with cGMP standards. For example, in the compassionate use program conducted by Great Osmond Street Hospital, or GOSH, one patient experienced an SAE, staphylococcal infection, possibly resulting from a bacterial growth noted in samples of the fresh drug product during the transduction procedure at this academic facility. A similar SAE, bacteremia, was observed in the clinical trial conducted at University of California Los Angeles, or UCLA, for OTL-101 for

58

ADA-SCID with the fresh drug product manufactured at the academic facility, also possibly due to contamination of the drug product. The bacteremia resolved on Day 3 without sequelae. We believe that our commercial manufacturing processes for our product candidates, together with cryopreserved formulation, which allows for safety/microbiological testing to be completed prior to drug infusion to the patient, could mitigate the risk of contamination of products that might have resulted in such infections, but there can be no assurance that this will be the case. To the extent that the results of our current company-sponsored trials are inconsistent with, or different from, the results of any investigator-sponsored trials or raise concerns regarding our product candidates, the regulatory authorities may question the results from some or all of these trials, and may require us to obtain and submit additional clinical data from drug product manufactured by CDMOs prior to granting any marketing approval, which could delay clinical development or marketing approval of our product candidates.

We may be unable to demonstrate comparability between drug product manufactured using hematopoietic stem cells, or HSCs, derived from the patient’s mobilized peripheral blood and drug product manufactured using HSCs derived from the patient’s bone marrow and/or comparability between drug product that has been cryopreserved and fresh drug product and/or demonstrate comparability between the manufacturing process used at academic centers with the manufacturing process used at CDMOs. Failure to demonstrate such comparability could adversely affect our ability to secure regulatory approval for our product candidates, or could adversely affect the commercial viability of our product candidates if approved for use using only HSCs derived using bone marrow and/or fresh drug product.

To date, most of the patients who have been treated in clinical trials involving our product candidates received fresh drug product manufactured using HSCs derived from the patient’s bone marrow at academic centers. We are currently evaluating our product candidates and plan to seek marketing approval using drug product that is manufactured at CDMOs using HSCs derived from either the patient‘s bone marrow or mobilized peripheral blood and using a procedure by which the gene-modified HSCs are cryopreserved in order to maintain the cellular material in suitable condition until it is thawed prior to being infused into the patient.

In those cases where clinical trials were conducted using vector and/or drug product manufactured at academic research centers (e.g., OTL-101 for the treatment of ADA-SCID), we will need to demonstrate comparability between vector and drug product manufactured by our CDMOs with vector and/or drug product manufactured at such academic centers. Similarly, in those cases where clinical trials were conducted using fresh drug product, we will need to demonstrate comparability between drug product that has been cryopreserved and fresh drug product. In some cases, clinical trials were conducted using drug product using bone marrow or mobilized peripheral blood, or both, as the cellular source. In some cases, we may seek to demonstrate comparability between drug product manufactured using one cellular source and another and in some cases we may elect to initially seek approval of our product candidate using one cellular source only, and subsequently seek approval for the use of the other cellular source. We cannot be assured that the FDA, EMA or other regulatory authority will not require us to conduct additional analytical comparability analyses, preclinical studies and/or clinical trials before approving our product candidates using these production methods and processes. Moreover, we cannot be assured that our analytical comparability analyses or clinical trials will be sufficiently robust to support approval or our product candidates using these production methods and processes. For example, in connection with our OTL-200 (Libmeldy) program the FDA has noted that we may have challenges demonstrating comparability between data collected at one manufacturing facility using bone marrow and data collected at another manufacturing facility using bone marrow or peripheral blood, and both the FDA and the EMA have advised us that they will require clinical data using drug product that has been cryopreserved as part of our planned BLA and MAA submissions for OTL-103 for WAS.

If the FDA, EMA or other regulatory authority does not accept our comparability data or if an adequate potency assay for a product candidate is not available or supported by such regulatory authority, our regulatory approval for such product candidate, if any, will be limited or delayed. For example, if one or more of these regulatory authorities does not accept that our cryopreservation process produces a product candidate that is comparable to our fresh drug product, our regulatory approval, if any, would be limited to our fresh product candidate until we are able to provide the regulators with satisfactory comparability data, which may include data from additional clinical trials or require additional test method development. Potency assays that measure strength (e.g., enzymatic activity, or other relevant function) of each active ingredient are required for release testing of licensed biological drug products, comparability and stability analysis.  

In certain conditions, such as MLD and ADA-SCID, the potency of a product candidate may be directly measured through enzymatic activity; however, for an intracellular protein such as WAS, developing an assay is more complex.  We are therefore working with the FDA and EMA to develop appropriate approaches to assess the drug product potency of  OTL-103 for the treatment of WAS.  However, COVID-19-related restrictions to laboratory access at our facilities and those of our third-party service providers have delayed and may continue to delay the timeline for such development. If an adequate potency assay for a product candidate, such as OTL-103, is not available, if COVID-19-related restrictions to laboratory access persist, or if the FDA, EMA or other regulatory authority require additional tests or recommend a different approach to support the potency of any of our product candidates, regulatory approval for any such product candidates, if any, will be delayed, and such regulators might request additional clinical data to support comparability analysis. Similarly, if one or more of these regulatory authorities does not accept that our drug product manufactured with HSCs derived from the patient’s mobilized peripheral blood is comparable to drug product manufactured with HSCs derived from the patient’s bone marrow, any regulatory approval would be limited to drug product manufactured with HSCs derived from the patient’s bone marrow until we are able to provide the regulators with satisfactory comparability data, which may include data from

59

additional clinical trials. In April 2020, the FDA advised us that we may need to generate additional data to demonstrate the comparability of our OTL-200 drug product derived from the patient’s mobilized peripheral blood and the OTL-200 drug product derived from the patient’s bone marrow, and that the data provided to date are inadequate to determine if the two materials are comparable.  Further, the FDA requested that we provide data that demonstrates the comparability of the different OTL-200 product formulations used across our trials. Failure to demonstrate such comparability, or if we are required to conduct additional testing or additional clinical trials, potentially at additional sites, would delay any marketing authorization and adversely affect the commercial viability of our product candidates and may adversely affect our ability to generate revenue, as a result of which our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations may suffer.

Our focus on developing our current product candidates may not yield any commercially viable products, and our failure to successfully identify and develop additional product candidates could impair our ability to grow.

As part of our strategy, we intend to identify, develop and market additional product candidates beyond our existing product candidates. We may spend several years completing our development of any particular current or future product candidates, and failure can occur at any stage. Even if we receive approval of a product candidate, we may not achieve commercial success for a variety of factors, including failure to achieve market acceptance in the medical community and the availability of third-party insurance coverage or reimbursement. For example, we received full, or standard, marketing authorization for Libmeldy in December 2020 in the European Union and are preparing to launch the commercialization of Libmeldy in Europe in the first half of 2021, but there is no assurance that our commercialization efforts will be successful or that our pricing assumptions or our assumptions about the size of the anticipated patient population will prove to be accurate. The product candidates to which we allocate our resources may not end up being successful. Because we have limited resources, we may forego or delay pursuit of opportunities with certain programs or product candidates or for indications that later prove to have greater commercial potential. For example, in May 2020, we announced our decision to reduce investment in the development of OTL-101 for ADA-SCID and OTL-300 for TDT and to focus on other product candidates in our pipeline and new research and development efforts in less rare diseases. Our focus on the advancement of our other product candidates may ultimately prove to be unsuccessful or less successful than if we had continued to prioritize OTL-101 or OTL-300, and if we choose to reprioritize OTL-101 or OTL-300 in the future, we may experience delays that would not have otherwise occurred, due to inefficiencies from loss of organizational knowledge and ramp up costs. Our spending on current and future research and development programs may not yield any commercially viable product candidates. If we do not accurately evaluate the commercial potential for a particular product candidate, we may relinquish valuable rights to that product candidate through strategic collaborations, licensing or other arrangements in cases in which it would have been more advantageous for us to retain sole development and commercialization rights to such product candidate. If any of these events occur, we may be forced to abandon our development efforts with respect to a particular product candidate or fail to develop a potentially successful product candidate.

Because our internal research capabilities are limited, we may be dependent upon biotechnology companies, academic scientists and other researchers to sell or license product candidates, approved products or the underlying technology to us. The success of this strategy depends partly upon our ability to identify, select, discover and acquire promising product candidates and products.

In addition, certain of our current or future product candidates may not demonstrate in patients any or all of the pharmacological benefits we believe they may possess or compare favorably to existing, approved therapies, such as bone marrow transplantation or enzyme replacement therapy. We may never succeed in demonstrating efficacy and safety of our product candidates or any future product candidates in clinical trials or in obtaining marketing approval thereafter. Accordingly, our focus on treating rare diseases may not always result in the discovery and development of commercially viable products.

If we are unsuccessful in our development efforts, we may not be able to advance the development of our product candidates, commercialize products other than Strimvelis and Libmeldy, raise capital, expand our business or continue our operations.

Interim data and ad hoc analyses are preliminary in nature.  Success in preclinical studies or early clinical trials may not be indicative of results obtained in later trials.

From time to time, we may publish interim data and/or ad hoc analyses from investigator-sponsored or company-sponsored clinical trials of our product candidates. Preliminary data and ad hoc analyses from these clinical trials may change as longer-term patient data become available. In general, we seek to conduct interim analyses at times we pre-specify with the applicable regulators prior to commencement of the trial, at which time we lock and reconcile the database. We may from time to time elect not to conduct subsequent interim analyses so as not to compromise the statistical analysis plan for the trial.  

60

Accordingly, our interim analyses do not include data subsequent to the cut-off date and may not be available until the next planned interim analysis. From time to time, preliminary data and ad hoc analyses might be presented, typically by academic investigators at scientific conferences or in scientific publications.

With respect to clinical trials conducted by our academic or other collaborators, such as University College London, UCLA, Telethon-OSR and GSK, we may not have access to the most recent clinical data or the clinical data available to us may otherwise be limited or incomplete. Interim data or ad hoc analyses from these clinical trials are not necessarily predictive of final results. Interim data or ad hoc analyses are subject to the risk that one or more of the clinical outcomes may materially change as patient enrollment continues and/or more patient data become available to us. Interim, topline and preliminary data and ad hoc analyses also remain subject to audit and verification procedures that may result in the final data being materially different from the preliminary data available to us or that we previously published. As a result, preliminary and interim data and ad hoc analyses should be viewed with caution until the final data are available. Material adverse changes in the final data compared to the preliminary or interim data or ad hoc analyses could significantly harm our business prospects.

Similarly, the results of preclinical studies and previous clinical trials should not be relied upon as evidence that our ongoing or future clinical trials will succeed. Trial designs and results from preclinical studies or previous clinical trials are not necessarily predictive of future clinical trial results or the ability to obtain marketing approval for our product candidates. Our product candidates may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy in clinical development despite demonstrating positive results in preclinical studies or having successfully advanced through initial clinical trials or preliminary stages of registrational clinical trials.

For example, although sustained clinical activity has been observed in clinical trials to date for Libmeldy (OTL-200) and OTL-103 for WAS, follow-up in each of these clinical trials is ongoing and there can be no assurance that the results, in each case as of the applicable primary endpoint measurement date, seen in clinical trials of any of our product candidates ultimately will result in success in clinical trials or provide adequate support for marketing approvals by the FDA in the case of Libmeldy, and by the FDA or EMA in the case of OTL-103, without conducting further clinical trials.  These data, or other positive data, may not continue or occur for these patients or for any future patients in our ongoing or future clinical trials, and may not be repeated or observed in ongoing or future trials involving our product candidates. There is limited data concerning long-term safety and efficacy following treatment with our product candidates. For example, OTL-202 for mucopolysaccharidosis type III-B, or MPS-IIIB, has not yet been tested in humans. These and any of our other product candidates may fail to adequately demonstrate safety and efficacy in clinical development despite positive results in preclinical studies. Our product candidates may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy in later stages of clinical development despite having successfully advanced through initial clinical trials. There can be no assurance that any of these trials will ultimately be successful or support further clinical advancement or regulatory approval of our product candidates. In addition, there can be no assurance that we will be able to achieve the same or similar success in our preclinical studies and clinical trials of our other product candidates.

Favorable results from compassionate use programs may not establish proof of concept, and the FDA or other regulatory authorities may not accept compassionate use data as sufficient clinical validation in support of our regulatory approval efforts.

A number of patients have been administered our autologous ex vivo gene therapies through compassionate use programs. Compassionate use is a term that is used to refer to the use of an investigational drug outside of a clinical trial to treat a patient with a serious or immediately life-threatening disease or condition who has no comparable or satisfactory alternative treatment options. Regulators often allow compassionate use on a case-by-case basis for an individual patient or for defined groups of patients with similar treatment needs. Caution should be given when reviewing and interpreting compassionate use data. While results from treating patients through compassionate use have in certain cases been encouraging, we cannot be assured that the results observed in these cases will be observed in our ongoing or future clinical trials or that our ongoing and future clinical trials will ultimately be successful.

We plan to submit any data available to us from compassionate use cases as part of any regulatory submission for the applicable product candidate. However, because these patients were not treated as part of a clinical trial regulatory framework and related requirements, regulatory authorities may not accept compassionate use data as sufficiently robust clinical evidence in support of our regulatory approval efforts, or they may find that the data submitted from our clinical trials are insufficient to support approval. Such decisions could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We may find it difficult to enroll patients in our clinical trials, which could delay or prevent us from proceeding with clinical trials of our product candidates.

Identifying and qualifying patients to participate in clinical trials of our product candidates is critical to our success. The timing of our clinical trials depends on our ability to recruit patients to participate as well as the completion of required

61

follow-up periods. Patients may be unwilling to participate in our gene therapy clinical trials because of negative publicity from adverse events related to the biotechnology or gene therapy fields, competitive clinical trials for similar patient populations, clinical trials in product candidates employing our vectors, the existence of current treatments or for other reasons. Additionally, the recent COVID-19 global pandemic has had and may continue to have a sustained impact on our ability to recruit and follow-up with patients either due to continued or renewed restrictions on travel or shelter-in-place orders or policies, or due to changes in patient willingness to participate in trials or travel to study sites in the wake of the pandemic. Additionally, COVID-19 related study site policies may create delays or setbacks in our ability to continue to enroll or to dose patients.  For example, the enrollment timeline for OTL-201 was initially delayed by three months, and we may face delays in the future due to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, the indications that we are currently targeting and may in the future target are rare diseases, which may limit the pool of patients that may be enrolled in our ongoing or planned clinical trials. The timeline for recruiting patients, conducting trials and obtaining regulatory approval of our product candidates may be delayed, which could result in increased costs, delays in advancing our product candidates, delays in testing the effectiveness of our product candidates or termination of the clinical trials altogether.

We may not be able to identify, recruit and enroll a sufficient number of patients, or those with the required or desired characteristics, to complete our clinical trials in a timely manner. For example, due to the nature of the indications that we are initially targeting, patients with advanced disease progression may not be suitable candidates for treatment with our product candidates and may be ineligible for enrollment in our clinical trials. Therefore, early diagnosis in patients with our target diseases is critical to our success. Patient enrollment and trial completion is affected by factors including the:

Our current product candidates are being developed to treat rare conditions. We plan to seek initial marketing approvals in the United States and the European Union. We may not be able to initiate or continue clinical trials if we cannot enroll a sufficient number of eligible patients to participate in the clinical trials required by the FDA or the EMA. Our ability to successfully initiate, enroll and complete a clinical trial in any foreign country is subject to numerous risks unique to conducting business in foreign countries, including:

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

62

We may encounter substantial delays in our clinical trials or we may fail to demonstrate safety and efficacy to the satisfaction of applicable regulatory authorities.

Before obtaining marketing approval from regulatory authorities for the sale of our product candidates, we must conduct extensive clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of the product candidates in humans. Clinical testing is expensive, time-consuming and uncertain as to outcome. We cannot guarantee that any clinical trials will be conducted as planned or completed on schedule, if at all. As a result of the COVID-19 global pandemic, certain of our clinical sites have partially shifted and may continue to shift significant resources to patients with COVID-19, which extended the enrollment timeline of our OTL-201 clinical trial by three months and provided challenges for patient follow-up visits for all programs. A failure of one or more clinical trials can occur at any stage of testing. Events that may prevent successful or timely completion of clinical development include:

Any inability to successfully complete preclinical and clinical development could result in additional costs to us or impair our ability to generate revenues. In addition, if we make changes to our product candidates, we may need to conduct additional studies to bridge our modified product candidates to earlier versions, which could delay our clinical development plan or marketing approval for our product candidates. Clinical trial delays could also shorten any periods during which we may have the exclusive right to commercialize our product candidates or allow our competitors to bring products to market before we do, which could impair our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates and may harm our business and results of operations.

If the results of our clinical trials are inconclusive or if there are safety concerns or adverse events associated with our product candidates, we may:

Any of these events could prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of our product candidates and impair our ability to commercialize our products.

63

We may elect to initiate a rolling BLA for our product candidates, in which case the FDA will not complete, and may delay initiating, its review of the BLA until we submit all of the required information.

A rolling BLA is an application process that allows us to submit the information required by the BLA in sections. The FDA will not complete, and may delay initiating, its review of our BLA until we submit all of the required information for a full BLA. If we are delayed or unable to provide this required information it could delay or prevent our ability to obtain regulatory approvals, as a result of which our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations may suffer.

Even if we complete the necessary preclinical studies and clinical trials, we cannot predict when or if we will obtain regulatory approval to commercialize a product candidate and the approval may be for a narrower indication than we seek.

We cannot commercialize a product until the appropriate regulatory authorities have reviewed and approved the product candidate. Even if our product candidates demonstrate safety and efficacy in clinical trials, the regulatory agencies may not complete their review processes in a timely manner, or we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval. Many companies in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have suffered significant setbacks in late-stage clinical trials even after achieving promising results in preclinical testing and earlier-stage clinical trials. Additional delays may result if an FDA Advisory Committee or other regulatory authority recommends non-approval or restrictions on approval. In addition, we may experience delays or rejections based upon additional government regulation from future legislation or administrative action, or changes in regulatory agency policy during the period of product development, clinical trials and the review process. As of June 23, 2020, the FDA noted it was continuing to ensure timely reviews of applications for medical products during the COVID-19 pandemic in line with its user fee performance goals and conducting mission critical domestic and foreign inspections to ensure compliance of manufacturing facilities with FDA quality standards. However, the FDA may not be able to maintain this pace and delays or setbacks are possible in the future, including where a pre-approval inspection or an inspection of clinical sites is required and due to the COVID-19 pandemic and travel restrictions FDA is unable to complete such required inspections during the review period. In 2020, several companies announced receipt of complete response letters due to the FDA's inability to complete required inspections for their applications. Regulatory authorities outside the U.S. may similarly experience delays in their regulatory activities due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

In addition, regulatory agencies may not approve the labeling claims that are necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of our product candidates. For example, regulatory agencies may approve a product candidate for fewer or more limited indications than requested or may grant approval subject to the performance of post-marketing studies. Regulators may approve a product candidate for a smaller patient population (such as pre-symptomatic MLD patients as opposed to symptomatic patients), drug formulation (such as drug product using HSCs derived from bone marrow as opposed to mobilized peripheral blood or vice versa) or manufacturing processes (such as fresh drug product as opposed to cryopreserved or use of different manufacturing facilities), than we are seeking. If we are delayed in obtaining or unable to obtain necessary regulatory approvals, or more limited regulatory approvals than we expect, our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations may suffer.

Even if we complete the necessary preclinical studies and clinical trials, the marketing approval process is expensive, time-consuming and uncertain and may prevent us from obtaining approvals for the commercialization of some or all of our product candidates. If we or any future collaborators are not able to obtain, or if there are delays in obtaining, required regulatory approvals, we or they will not be able to commercialize our product candidates, and our ability to generate revenue will be materially impaired.

Our product candidates and the activities associated with their development and commercialization, including their design, testing, manufacture, safety, efficacy, recordkeeping, labeling, storage, approval, advertising, promotion, sale and distribution, export and import, are subject to comprehensive regulation by the FDA and other regulatory agencies in the United States and by the EMA and comparable regulatory authorities in other countries. Failure to obtain marketing approval for a product candidate will prevent us from commercializing such product candidate. We have only limited experience in submitting and supporting the applications necessary to gain marketing approvals and expect to rely on third-party CROs to assist us in this process.

Securing marketing approval requires the submission of extensive preclinical and clinical data and supporting information to the various regulatory authorities for each therapeutic indication to establish the product candidate’s safety and efficacy. Securing regulatory approval also requires the submission of extensive information about the product manufacturing process and controls up to and including inspection of manufacturing facilities by, the relevant regulatory authority. 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.

64

The process of obtaining marketing approvals, both in the United States and abroad, is expensive (the submission fee in the United States can be more than $2.0 million and may be higher in the future), may take many years if additional clinical trials are required, if approval is obtained at all, and can vary substantially based upon a variety of factors, including the type, complexity and novelty of the product candidates involved. 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 cause delays in the approval or rejection of an application. The FDA and comparable authorities in other countries have substantial discretion in the approval process and may refuse to accept any application or may decide that our data are insufficient for approval and require additional preclinical, clinical or other studies. In addition, varying interpretations of the data obtained from preclinical and clinical testing could delay, limit or prevent marketing approval of a drug candidate. Any marketing approval of our product candidates that we, or any future collaborators, ultimately obtain may be limited or subject to restrictions or post-approval commitments that render the approved product not commercially viable.

Accordingly, if we or any future collaborators experience delays in obtaining approval or if we or they fail to obtain approval of our product candidates, the commercial prospects for our product candidates may be harmed and our ability to generate revenues will be materially impaired.

Even if we obtain and maintain approval for our product candidates in one jurisdiction, we may never obtain approval for our product candidates in other jurisdictions, which would limit our market opportunities and adversely affect our business.

Approval of a product candidate in the United States by the FDA does not ensure approval of such product candidate by the EMA or other regulatory authorities in other countries or jurisdictions, and approval by the EMA or another regulatory authority does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other foreign countries or by the FDA. For example, though we received full, or standard, marketing authorization of Libmeldy (OTL-200) by the European Commission in December 2020, there is no guarantee that we will receive approval by the FDA.  Sales of our product candidates outside of the United States will be subject to foreign regulatory requirements governing clinical trials and marketing approval. Even if the FDA grants marketing approval for a product candidate, comparable regulatory authorities of foreign countries also must approve the manufacturing and marketing of the product candidates in those countries. Approval procedures vary among jurisdictions and can involve requirements and administrative review periods different from, and more onerous than, those in the United States, including additional preclinical studies or clinical trials. In many countries outside the United States, a product candidate must be approved for reimbursement before it can be approved for sale in that country. In some cases, the price that we intend to charge for our products, if approved, is also subject to approval. We intend to submit an MAA to the EMA for approval of our product candidates in the European Union but obtaining such approval from the European Commission following the opinion of EMA is a lengthy and expensive process. Even if a product candidate is approved, the FDA or the European Commission may limit the indications for which the product may be marketed, require extensive warnings on the product labeling or require expensive and time-consuming additional clinical trials or reporting as conditions of approval. Regulatory authorities in countries outside of the United States and the European Union also have requirements for approval of product candidates with which we must comply prior to marketing in those countries. 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 product candidates in certain countries.

Further, clinical trials conducted in one country may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other countries. Also, regulatory approval for any of our product candidates may be withdrawn. If we fail to comply with the regulatory requirements, 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, financial condition, results of operations and prospects will be harmed.

Additionally, on June 23, 2016, the electorate in the United Kingdom voted in favor of leaving the European Union, commonly referred to as Brexit. On March 29, 2017, the country formally notified the European Union of its intention to withdraw pursuant to Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. The withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union took effect on January 31, 2020 (the Exit Day), however there was an initial transition period during which European Union medicines legislation continued to apply in the United Kingdom. This transition period ended on December 31, 2020 but United Kingdom and the European Union have signed a EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement (the TCA), which became provisionally applicable on January 1, 2021 and will become formally applicable once ratified by both the United Kingdom and the European Union. Under the terms of the TCA, the European Union and Great Britain have separate regulatory regimes for pharmaceutical products, although there are some provisions for mutual recognition of standards, for example with regards to GMP. For instance, Great Britain will now no longer be covered by the centralized procedure for obtaining EEA-wide marketing authorizations for medicinal products (under the Northern Irish Protocol, centralized marketing authorizations will continue to be recognized in Northern Ireland), and a separate process for authorization of

65

medicinal products will be required, resulting in an authorization covering the United Kingdom or Great Britain only. Brexit could materially impact the regulatory regime with respect to the approval of our product candidates in the United Kingdom or the European Union. Any delay in obtaining, or an inability to obtain, any marketing approvals, as a result of Brexit or otherwise, would prevent us from commercializing our product candidates in the United Kingdom and/or the European Union and restrict our ability to generate revenue and achieve and sustain profitability. If any of these outcomes occur, we may be forced to restrict or delay efforts to seek regulatory approval in the United Kingdom and/or European Union for our product candidates, which could significantly and materially harm our business.

Most of the clinical trials for our product candidates conducted to date were conducted at sites outside the United States, and the FDA may not accept data from trials conducted in such locations.

To date, most of the clinical trials conducted on our product candidates have been conducted outside the United States. For example, we do not yet have an IND open in the United States for OTL-203 for MPS-I or OTL-300 for TDT. Although the FDA may accept data from clinical trials conducted outside the United States, acceptance of these data is subject to conditions imposed by the FDA, as noted in the risk factor immediately above. For example, the clinical trial must be well designed and conducted and performed by qualified investigators in accordance with ethical principles. The trial population must also adequately represent the U.S. population, and the data must be applicable to the U.S. population and U.S. medical practice in ways that the FDA deems clinically meaningful. In addition, while these clinical trials are subject to the applicable local laws, FDA acceptance of the data will depend on its determination that the trials also complied with all applicable U.S. laws and regulations. If the FDA does not accept the data from any trial that we conduct outside the United States, due to study design or otherwise, it would likely result in the need for additional trials, which would be costly and time-consuming and would delay or permanently halt our development of the applicable product candidates. Further, without an IND open in the United States, we forego more frequent interactions and dialogue with FDA regarding the design and conduct of our trials as well as product comparability, which may delay or halt the development of our product candidates later in development should FDA later disagree with the design or conduct of our trials or product comparability approach.

In addition, in order to commence a clinical trial in the United States, we are required to seek FDA acceptance of an IND for each of our product candidates. We cannot be sure any IND we submit to the FDA, or any similar CTA we submit in other countries, will be accepted. We may also be required to conduct additional preclinical testing prior to submitting an IND for any of our product candidates, and the results of any such testing may not be positive. Consequently, we may be unable to successfully and efficiently execute and complete necessary clinical trials in a way that leads to a BLA submission and approval of our product candidates. We may require more time and incur greater costs than our competitors and may not succeed in obtaining regulatory approvals of product candidates that we develop. Failure to commence or complete, or delays in, our planned clinical trials, could prevent us from or delay us in commercializing our product candidates.

While we intend to seek designations for our product candidates with the FDA and comparable other regulatory authorities that are intended to confer benefits such as a faster development process or an accelerated regulatory pathway, there can be no assurance that we will successfully obtain such designations. In addition, even if one or more of our product candidates are granted such designations, we may not be able to realize the intended benefits of such designations.

The FDA and comparable other regulatory authorities offer certain designations for product candidates that are designed to encourage the research and development of product candidates that are intended to address conditions with significant unmet medical need. These designations may confer benefits such as additional interaction with regulatory authorities, a potentially accelerated regulatory pathway and priority review. OTL-101 for ADA-SCID has received a Breakthrough Therapy designation from the FDA, OTL-200 for MLD and OTL-103 for WAS received RMAT designation from the FDA and both OTL-300 for TDT and OTL-203 for MPS-I received a Priority Medicines, or PRIME, designation from EMA.  Despite these designations, there can be no assurance that we will successfully obtain these or other designations for any of our other product candidates. In addition, while such designations could expedite the development or review process, they generally do not change the standards for approval. Even if we obtain such designations for one or more of our product candidates, there can be no assurance that we will realize their intended benefits.

For example, we may seek a Breakthrough Therapy designation for some of our other product candidates. A breakthrough therapy is defined as a therapy that is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other therapies, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the therapy may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. For therapies that have been designated as breakthrough therapies, interaction and communication between the FDA and the sponsor of the trial can help to identify the most efficient path for clinical development while minimizing the number of patients placed in ineffective control regimens. Therapies designated as breakthrough therapies by the FDA are also eligible for accelerated approval. Designation as a breakthrough therapy is within the discretion of the FDA. Accordingly, even if we believe one of our product candidates meets the criteria for designation as a breakthrough therapy, the FDA may disagree and instead determine not to make such designation. In any

66

event, the receipt of a Breakthrough Therapy designation for a product candidate may not result in a faster development process, review or approval compared to therapies considered for approval under conventional FDA procedures and does not assure ultimate approval by the FDA. In addition, even if one or more of our product candidates qualify as breakthrough therapies, the FDA may later decide that such product candidates no longer meet the conditions for qualification.

In addition, we may seek RMAT designation for some of our other product candidates. An RMAT is defined as cell therapies, therapeutic tissue engineering products, human cell and tissue products, and combination products using any such therapies or products. Gene therapies, including genetically modified cells that lead to a durable modification of cells or tissues may meet the definition of a regenerative medicine therapy. The RMAT program is intended to facilitate efficient development and expedite review of RMATs, which are intended to treat, modify, reverse, or cure a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and for which preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug has the potential to address unmet medical needs for such disease or condition. A BLA for an RMAT may be eligible for priority review or accelerated approval. An RMAT may be eligible for priority review if it treats a serious condition, and, if approved would provide a significant improvement in the safety or effectiveness of the treatment of the condition. An RMAT may be eligible for accelerated approval through (1) surrogate or intermediate endpoints reasonably likely to predict long-term clinical benefit or (2) reliance upon data obtained from a meaningful number of sites. Benefits of such designation also include early interactions with FDA to discuss any potential surrogate or intermediate endpoint to be used to support accelerated approval. A regenerative medicine therapy that is granted accelerated approval and is subject to post-approval requirements may fulfill such requirements through the submission of clinical evidence, clinical trials, patient registries, or other sources of real world evidence, such as electronic health records; the collection of larger confirmatory data sets; or post-approval monitoring of all patients treated with such therapy prior to its approval. RMAT designation is within the discretion of the FDA. Accordingly, even if we believe one of our product candidates meets the criteria for designation as a RMAT, the FDA may disagree and instead determine not to make such designation. In any event, the receipt of RMAT designation for a product candidate may not result in a faster development process, review or approval compared to drugs considered for approval under conventional FDA procedures and does not assure ultimate approval by the FDA. In addition, even if one or more of our product candidates qualify as for RMAT designation, the FDA may later decide that the biological products no longer meet the conditions for qualification.

In addition, the FDA has granted Rare Pediatric Disease designation to Strimvelis, OTL-101 for ADA-SCID, OTL-200 for MLD, OTL-103 for WAS, OTL-201 for MPS-IIIA and OTL-203 for MPS-I, and we may seek Rare Pediatric Disease designation for some of our other product candidates. The FDA defines a “rare pediatric disease” as a serious or life-threatening disease in which the serious of life-threatening manifestations primarily affect individuals aged from birth to 18 years and the disease affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the U.S. or affects more than 200,000 in the U.S. and for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making in the U.S. a drug for such disease or condition will be received from sales in the U.S. of such drug. Under the FDA’s Rare Pediatric Disease Priority Review Voucher, or PRV, program, upon the approval of a BLA for the treatment of a rare pediatric disease, the sponsor of such application would be eligible for a Rare Pediatric Disease PRV that can be used to obtain priority review for a subsequent new drug application or BLA. The PRV may be sold or transferred an unlimited number of times. Congress has extended the PRV program through September 30, 2024, with potential for PRVs to be granted through September 30, 2026. This program has been subject to criticism, including by the FDA, and it is possible that even if we obtain approval for Libmeldy (OTL-200), OTL-101 for ADA-SCID, OTL-103 for WAS, OTL-201 for MPS-IIIA and OTL-203 for MPS-I and qualify for such a PRV, the program may no longer be in effect at the time or the value of any such PRV may decrease such that we are may not be able to realize the benefits of such PRV.

In addition, we may seek Fast Track Designation for some of our product candidates. If a therapy is intended for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening condition and the therapy demonstrates the potential to address unmet medical needs for this condition, the therapy sponsor may apply for Fast Track Designation. The FDA has broad discretion whether or not to grant this designation, so even if we believe a particular product candidate is eligible for this designation, there can be no assurance that the FDA would decide to grant it. Even if we do receive Fast Track Designation, we may not experience a faster development process, review or approval compared to conventional FDA procedures, and receiving a Fast Track Designation does not provide assurance of ultimate FDA approval. In addition, the FDA may withdraw Fast Track Designation if it believes that the designation is no longer supported by data from our clinical development program.

We may seek priority review designation for one or more of our product candidates, but we might not receive such designation, and even if we do, such designation may not lead to a faster regulatory review or approval process.

If the FDA determines that a product candidate offers a treatment for a serious condition and, if approved, the product would provide a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness, the FDA may designate the product candidate for priority review. A priority review designation means that the goal for the FDA to review an application is six months, rather than the standard review period of ten months. We may request priority review for our product candidates. The FDA has broad discretion with respect to whether or not to grant priority review status to a product candidate, so even if we believe a particular product candidate is eligible for such designation or status, in particular if such product candidate has received a Breakthrough Therapy

67

designation or RMAT designation, the FDA may decide not to grant it. Moreover, a priority review designation does not result in expedited development and does not necessarily result in expedited regulatory review or approval process or necessarily confer any advantage with respect to approval compared to conventional FDA procedures. Receiving priority review from the FDA does not guarantee approval within the six-month review cycle or at all.

Under the terms of the GSK Agreement, we are required to use commercially reasonable efforts to obtain a PRV from the FDA for each of Libmeldy, OTL-103 for WAS and OTL-300 for TDT and to transfer the first such PRV to GSK. GSK also has an option to acquire at a defined price any PRV granted to us thereafter for Libmeldy, OTL-103 for WAS and OTL-300 for TDT. In the event that GSK does not exercise this option with respect to any PRV, we may sell the PRV to a third party and must share any proceeds in excess of a specified sale price equally with GSK.

We have sought and received orphan drug designation for Libmeldy (OTL-200), OTL-101 for ADA-SCID, OTL-103 for WAS, OTL-102 for X-CGD and OTL-201 for MPS-IIIA from the FDA and EMA, for OTL-203 for MPS-I from the FDA, and for OTL-300 for TDT from the EMA, but we may be unable to obtain orphan drug designation for our other product candidates and, even if we obtain such designation, we may not be able to realize the benefits of such designation, including potential marketing exclusivity of our product candidates, if approved.

Regulatory authorities in some jurisdictions, including the United States and other major markets, may designate drugs intended to treat conditions or diseases affecting relatively small patient populations as orphan drugs. Under the Orphan Drug Act of 1983, the FDA may designate a product candidate as an orphan drug if it is intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally defined as having a patient population of fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or a patient population greater than 200,000 in the United States where there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing the drug will be recovered from sales in the United States. In the EEA, EMA’s Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products grants orphan drug designation to promote the development of products that are intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition affecting not more than 5 in 10,000 persons in the EEA. Additionally, orphan designation is granted for products intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a life-threatening, seriously debilitating or serious and chronic condition and when, without incentives, it is unlikely that sales of the drug in the EEA would be sufficient to justify the necessary investment in developing the drug or biologic product. In either case, the applicant for orphan designation must also demonstrate that no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention, or treatment for the condition has been authorized (or, if a method exists, the new product would be a significant benefit to those affected compared to the product available).

We have sought and received orphan drug designation for Libmeldy, OTL-101 for ADA-SCID, OTL-103 for WAS, OTL-102 for X-CGD and OTL-201 for MPS-IIIA from the FDA and EMA, for OTL-203 for MPS-I from the FDA, and for OTL-300 for TDT from the EMA. If we request orphan drug designation for any of our other product candidates, there can be no assurances that the FDA or EMA will grant any of our product candidates such designation. Additionally, the designation of any of our product candidates as an orphan product does not mean that any regulatory agency will accelerate regulatory review of, or ultimately approve, that product candidate, nor does it limit the ability of any regulatory agency to grant orphan drug designation to product candidates of other companies that treat the same indications as our product candidates prior to our product candidates receiving exclusive marketing approval.

Generally, if a product candidate with an orphan drug designation receives the first marketing approval for the indication for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to a period of marketing exclusivity, which precludes the FDA or EMA from approving another marketing application for a product that constitutes the same drug treating the same indication for that marketing exclusivity period, except in limited circumstances. If another sponsor receives such approval before we do (regardless of our orphan drug designation), we will be precluded from receiving marketing approval for our product for the applicable exclusivity period. The applicable period is seven years in the United States and 10 years in the EEA. The exclusivity period in the EEA can be reduced to six years if a product no longer meets the criteria for orphan drug designation or if the product is sufficiently profitable so that market exclusivity is no longer justified. Orphan drug exclusivity may be revoked if any regulatory agency determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient quantity of the product to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition.

68

Even if we obtain orphan drug exclusivity for a product candidate, that exclusivity may not effectively protect the product candidate from competition because different drugs can be approved for the same condition. In the United States, even after an orphan drug is approved, the FDA may subsequently approve another drug for the same condition if the FDA concludes that the latter drug is not the same drug or is clinically superior in that it is shown to be safer, more effective or makes a major contribution to patient care. In the EEA, marketing authorization may be granted to a similar medicinal product for the same orphan indication if:

We may seek a conditional marketing authorization in Europe for some or all of our current product candidates, but we may not be able to obtain or maintain such designation.

As part of its marketing authorization process, the EMA may grant marketing authorizations for certain categories of medicinal products on the basis of less complete data than is normally required, where the benefit of immediate availability of the medicine outweighs the risk inherent in the fact that additional data are still required or in the interests of public health. In such cases, it is possible for the CHMP to recommend the granting of a marketing authorization, subject to certain specific obligations to be reviewed annually, which is referred to as a conditional marketing authorization. This may apply to medicinal products for human use that fall under the jurisdiction of the EMA, including those that aim at the treatment, the prevention, or the medical diagnosis of seriously debilitating or life-threatening diseases and those designated as orphan medicinal products.

A conditional marketing authorization may be granted when the CHMP finds that, although comprehensive clinical data referring to the safety and efficacy of the medicinal product have not been supplied, all the following requirements are met:

The granting of a conditional marketing authorization is restricted to situations in which only the clinical part of the application is not yet fully complete. Incomplete preclinical or quality data may only be accepted if duly justified and only in the case of a product intended to be used in emergency situations in response to public health threats. Conditional marketing authorizations are valid for one year, on a renewable basis. The holder will be required to complete ongoing trials or to conduct new trials with a view to confirming that the benefit-risk balance is positive. In addition, specific obligations may be imposed in relation to the collection of pharmacovigilance data.

Granting a conditional marketing authorization allows medicines to reach patients with unmet medical needs earlier than might otherwise be the case and will ensure that additional data on a product is generated, submitted, assessed and acted upon. Although we may seek a conditional marketing authorization for one or more of our product candidates by the EMA, the CHMP may ultimately not agree that the requirements for such conditional marketing authorization have been satisfied and hence delay the commercialization of our product candidates.

Even if we obtain regulatory approval for a product candidate, our products will remain subject to regulatory oversight.

Libmeldy, Strimvelis and any of our product candidates for which we obtain regulatory approval will be subject to ongoing regulatory requirements for manufacturing, labeling, packaging, storage, advertising, promotion, sampling, record-keeping and submission of safety and other post-market information. For example, as a post-marketing commitment, we are continuing to follow patients in the OTL-200 clinical development program for up to 15 years, and data will be presented to regulators at agreed points in order to further characterize the long-term efficacy and safety of Libmeldy, particularly in the early symptomatic early juvenile population.  For an example of adverse event reporting, in October 2020 we notified the EMA and relevant local European regulatory authorities after we became aware that a patient treated with Strimvelis under a compassionate use program in 2016 had been diagnosed with leukemia.

69

Any regulatory approvals that we receive for our product candidates also may be subject to a REMS or equivalent requirement from a non-U.S. regulatory authority, limitations on the approved indicated uses for which the product may be marketed or to the conditions of approval, or contain requirements for potentially costly post-marketing testing, including Phase 4 clinical trials, and surveillance to monitor the quality, safety and efficacy of the product. For example, in the United States, the holder of an approved BLA is obligated to monitor and report adverse events and any failure of a product to meet the specifications in the BLA. FDA guidance advises that patients treated with some types of gene therapy undergo long-term safety and efficacy follow-up for as long as 15 years post therapy. The holder of an approved BLA must also submit new or supplemental applications and obtain FDA approval for certain changes to the approved product, product labeling or manufacturing process. Advertising and promotional materials must comply with FDA rules and are subject to FDA review, in addition to other potentially applicable federal and state laws.

In the European Union, the advertising and promotion of our products are subject to European Union laws governing promotion of medicinal products, interactions with physicians, misleading and comparative advertising and unfair commercial practices. In addition, other legislation adopted by individual European Union Member States may apply to the advertising and promotion of medicinal products. These laws require that promotional materials and advertising for medicinal products are consistent with the product’s Summary of Product Characteristics, or SmPC, as approved by the competent authorities. The SmPC is the document that provides information to physicians concerning the safe and effective use of the medicinal product. It forms an intrinsic and integral part of the marketing authorization granted for the medicinal product. Promotion of a medicinal product that does not comply with the SmPC is considered to constitute off-label promotion. The off-label promotion of medicinal products is prohibited in the European Union. The applicable laws at European Union level and in the individual European Union Member States also prohibit the direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription-only medicinal products. Violations of the rules governing the promotion of medicinal products in the European Union could be penalized by administrative measures, fines and imprisonment. These laws may further limit or restrict the advertising and promotion of our products to the general public and may also impose limitations on our promotional activities with health care professionals.

In addition, product manufacturers and their facilities are subject to payment of user fees and continual review and periodic inspections by the FDA and other regulatory authorities for compliance cGMP requirements and adherence to commitments made in the BLA or foreign marketing application. If we, or a regulatory authority, discover previously unknown problems with a product, such as adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or problems with the facility where the product is manufactured or disagrees with the promotion, marketing or labeling of that product, a regulatory authority may impose restrictions relative to that product, the manufacturing facility or us, including requiring recall or withdrawal of the product from the market or suspension of manufacturing.

If we fail to comply with applicable regulatory requirements following approval of any of our product candidates, a regulatory authority may:

Any government investigation of alleged violations of law could require us to expend significant time and resources in response and could generate negative publicity. The occurrence of any event or penalty described above may inhibit our ability to commercialize our product candidates and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

In addition, the FDA’s policies, and those of the EMA and other regulatory authorities, may change and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of our product candidates. We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action, either in the United States or abroad. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may lose any marketing approval that we may have obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability, which would materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

70

Both marketing authorization holders and manufacturers of medicinal products are subject to comprehensive regulatory oversight by the EMA and the competent authorities of the individual European Union Member States both before and after grant of the manufacturing and marketing authorizations. This includes compliance with cGMP rules, which govern quality control of the manufacturing process and require documentation policies and procedures. We and our third-party manufacturers would be required to ensure that all of our processes, quality systems, methods, and equipment are compliant with cGMP. Failure by us or by any of our third-party partners, including suppliers, manufacturers, and distributors to comply with European Union laws and the related national laws of individual European Union Member States governing the conduct of clinical trials, manufacturing approval, marketing authorization of medicinal products, both before and after grant of marketing authorization, and marketing of such products following grant of authorization may result in administrative, civil, or criminal penalties. These penalties could include delays in or refusal to authorize the conduct of clinical trials or to grant marketing authorization, product withdrawals and recalls, product seizures, suspension, or variation of the marketing authorization, total or partial suspension of production, distribution, manufacturing, or clinical trials, operating restrictions, injunctions, suspension of licenses, fines, and criminal penalties.

In addition, European Union legislation related to pharmacovigilance, or the assessment and monitoring of the safety of medicinal products, provides that EMA and the competent authorities of the European Union Member States have the authority to require companies to conduct additional post-approval clinical efficacy and safety studies. The legislation also governs the obligations of marketing authorization holders with respect to additional monitoring, adverse event management and reporting. Under the pharmacovigilance legislation and its related regulations and guidelines, we may be required to conduct a burdensome collection of data regarding the risks and benefits of marketed products and may be required to engage in ongoing assessments of those risks and benefits, including the possible requirement to conduct additional clinical trials, which may be time-consuming and expensive and could impact our profitability. Non-compliance with such obligations can lead to the variation, suspension or withdrawal of marketing authorization or imposition of financial penalties or other enforcement measures.

Risks related to manufacturing and supply

Gene therapies are novel, complex and difficult to manufacture. We have limited manufacturing experience, and we rely on third party manufacturers that are often our single source of supply. We could experience manufacturing problems that result in delays in the development or commercialization of our commercial products or our product candidates or otherwise harm our business.

Biological products are inherently difficult to manufacture, and gene therapy products are complex biological products, the development and manufacture of which necessitates substantial expertise and capital investment. Libmeldy, Strimvelis and our product candidates are individually manufactured for each patient using complex processes in specialized facilities. Our production process requires a variety of raw materials, some of which are highly specialized, including the viral vector that encodes for the functional copy of the missing or faulty gene to treat a specific disease. Some of these raw materials have limited and, in some cases, sole suppliers. Even though we plan to have back-up supplies of raw materials whenever possible, we cannot be certain such supplies will be sufficient if our primary sources are unavailable. A shortage of a critical raw material or a technical issue during manufacturing may lead to delays in clinical development or commercialization of our product candidates. Additionally, each manufacturing batch must meet certain analytical specifications to be released and production difficulties caused by unforeseen events may delay the availability of one or more of the necessary raw materials or delay the manufacture of our product candidates for use in clinical trials or for commercial supply. As a result of the COVID-19 global pandemic, some of our CDMOs have experienced, and are likely to continue to experience, delays and other direct impacts at their manufacturing sites as a result of travel restrictions, shelter-in-place policies or restrictions and other disruptions caused by the pandemic.

We have contracted with third party CDMOs for the manufacture of our viral vectors and drug product. We expect these CDMOs will be capable of providing sufficient quantities of our viral vectors and gene therapy products to meet the anticipated scale of our clinical trials and current and initial commercial demands, if any additional products are approved. However, to meet our projected needs for further commercial manufacturing and clinical trials of new product candidates, third parties with whom we currently work might need to increase their scale and frequency of production or we will need to secure alternate suppliers or develop in-house capabilities. We believe that there are alternate sources of supply that can satisfy our clinical and commercial requirements; however, identifying and establishing relationships with such sources, if necessary, could result in significant delays or material additional costs, which could delay or prevent the development of our product candidates and would have a negative impact on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

71

Additionally, the manufacturers of pharmaceutical products must comply with strictly enforced cGMP requirements, state and federal regulations, as well as foreign requirements when applicable. Any failure of our CDMOs to adhere to or document compliance to such regulatory requirements could lead to a delay or interruption in the availability of our program materials for clinical trials. If our manufacturers were to fail to comply with the FDA, EMA, or other regulatory authority, it could result in sanctions being imposed on us, including clinical holds, fines, injunctions, civil penalties, delays, suspension or withdrawal of approvals, license revocation, seizures or recalls of raw materials, product candidates or products, operating restrictions and criminal prosecutions, any of which could significantly and adversely affect supplies of our product candidates. Our dependence upon others for the manufacture of our gene therapies may also adversely affect our future profit margins and our ability to commercialize any product candidates that receive regulatory approval on a timely and competitive basis.

Delays in obtaining regulatory approval of our or our CDMOs’ manufacturing process and facility or disruptions in our manufacturing process may delay or disrupt our commercialization efforts. Until recently, no cGMP gene therapy manufacturing facility in the United States had received approval from the FDA for the manufacture of an approved gene therapy product.

Before we can begin to commercially manufacture our viral vector or product candidates in a CDMO facility, we must obtain regulatory approval from the FDA for our manufacturing processes and for the facility in which manufacturing is performed. A manufacturing authorization must also be obtained from the appropriate European Union regulatory authorities. Until recently, no cGMP gene therapy manufacturing facility in the United States had received approval from the FDA for the manufacture of an approved gene therapy product and, therefore, the timeframe required for us to obtain such approval is uncertain. In addition, we must pass a pre-approval inspection of our CDMOs manufacturing facility by the FDA and other relevant regulatory authorities before any of our gene therapy product candidates can obtain marketing approval. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, on March 10, 2020 the FDA announced its intention to postpone most inspections of foreign manufacturing facilities while local, national and international conditions warrant. On March 18, 2020, the FDA announced its intention to temporarily postpone routine surveillance inspections of domestic manufacturing facilities and provided guidance regarding the conduct of clinical trials which the FDA continues to update. As of June 23, 2020, the FDA noted it was conducting mission critical domestic and foreign inspections to ensure compliance of manufacturing facilities with FDA quality standards. On July 10, 2020, the FDA announced its goal of restarting domestic on-site inspections during the week of July 20, 2020, but such activities will depend on data about the virus’ trajectory in a given state and locality and the rules and guidelines that are put in place by state and local governments. The FDA has developed a rating system to assist in determining when and where it is safest to conduct prioritized domestic inspections. Should FDA determine that an inspection is necessary for approval and an inspection cannot be completed during the review cycle due to restrictions on travel, FDA has stated that it generally intends to issue a complete response letter.  Further, if there is inadequate information to make a determination on the acceptability of a facility, FDA may defer action on the application until an inspection can be completed. In 2020, several companies announced receipt of incomplete response letters due to the FDA’s inability to complete required inspections for their applications. Regulatory authorities outside the U.S. may adopt similar restrictions or other policy measures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and may experience delays in their regulatory activities.

In order to obtain approval, we will need to ensure that all of our processes, quality systems, methods, equipment, policies and procedures are compliant with cGMP, and perform extensive audits of vendors, contract laboratories, CDMOs and suppliers. If any of our vendors, contract laboratories, CDMOs or suppliers is found to be out of compliance with cGMP, we may experience delays or disruptions in manufacturing while we work with these third parties to remedy the violation or while we work to identify suitable replacement vendors. The cGMP requirements govern quality control of the manufacturing process and documentation policies and procedures. In complying with cGMP, we will be obligated to spend time, money and effort in production, record keeping and quality control to assure that the product meets applicable specifications and other requirements. If we fail to comply with these requirements, we would be subject to possible regulatory action and may not be permitted to sell any products that we may develop.

Any problems in our manufacturing process or facilities could make us a less attractive collaborator for potential partners, including larger pharmaceutical companies and academic research institutions, which could limit our access to additional attractive development programs.

We do not have experience as a company managing a complex supply chain or satisfying manufacturing-related regulatory requirements.

The FDA, the EMA and other foreign regulatory authorities may require us to submit samples of any lot of any approved product together with the protocols showing the results of applicable tests at any time. Under some circumstances, the FDA, the EMA or other foreign regulatory authorities may require that we not distribute a product lot until the relevant

72

agency authorizes its release. Slight deviations in the manufacturing process, including those affecting quality attributes and stability, may result in unacceptable changes in a viral vector or a gene therapy product that could result in lot failures or product recalls. Lot failures or product recalls could cause us to delay product launches or clinical trials, which could be costly to us and otherwise harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Problems in our manufacturing processes could restrict our ability to meet market demand for our products.

Managing an autologous ex vivo gene therapy supply chain is highly complex.  We must identify, engage, and coordinate with treatment centers where patients’ cellular source material must be collected, prepared, stored and transported to the manufacturing facility and the cryopreserved drug product must be returned to the treatment center for administration into the patient using controlled temperature shipping containers.

Once collected from the patient, the cellular source material must be prepared and stored according to specified procedures. While we intend to standardize the processes at treatment centers, if there is a deviation of the processes, the cellular source material from a patient could be adversely impacted and potentially result in manufacturing failures. The patients’ cellular materials must be transported to the manufacturing facility using a shipping container that maintains the material at a cool temperature and must typically be delivered and processed within three days of collection. While we intend to use reputable couriers and agents for the transport of such materials, if the shipping container is opened or damaged such that the cool temperature is not maintained, the cellular source material may be adversely impacted and it may not be feasible to manufacture a drug product for the patient. Similarly, if a shipment is delayed due to adverse weather, misrouting, being held up at a customs point, COVID-19 impacts or other events, the cellular source material may not be delivered within a time window that will allow for its use for the successful manufacture of a drug product.

Similarly, the patient’s autologous drug product must be returned to the clinical site for administration into the patient using a specialized shipping container that maintains the material at a very low temperature for a period of typically up to ten days. While we intend to use reputable couriers and agents for the transport of our drug products, if the shipping container is opened or damaged such that the very low temperature is not maintained, the drug product may be adversely impacted and it may not be feasible to administer it to the patient or, if administered, it could cause harm to the patient. Similarly, if a shipment is delayed due to adverse weather, misrouting, being held up at a customs point, COVID-19 impacts or other events, and is not delivered to the clinical site within the time period that the very low temperature is maintained, the drug product may be adversely affected and be unable to be administered or, if administered, could cause harm to the patient.

We may be delayed or unable to identify, engage, successfully coordinate or qualify with treatment centers in the regions we are targeting as part of our commercial launch strategy, which could delay or prevent patients from receiving gene therapy treatments, if approved.  For example, due to COVID-19-related travel restrictions, some in-person visits to qualify certain potential treatment centers were postponed or required to take place remotely.  If our treatment centers fail to perform satisfactorily, we may suffer reputational, operational, and business harm.

Any of the above events, should they happen, could adversely affect our development timelines and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Our gene therapies are for autologous use only. Therefore, if a drug product is administered to the wrong patient, the patient could suffer harm.

Our gene therapies are autologous, so they must be administered back only to the patient from which the cellular source material was collected. While we implement specific identifiers, lot numbers and labels with cross checks for our products and operations from collection of cellular source material, through manufacture of drug product, transport of product to the clinical site up to thawing and administration of the product, it is possible that a product may be administered into the wrong patient. If an autologous gene therapies were to be administered into the wrong patient, the patient could suffer harm, including experiencing a severe adverse immune reaction and this event, should it happen, could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

73

Any microbial contamination in the manufacturing process for our viral vectors or drug product, shortages of raw materials or failure of any of our key suppliers to deliver necessary components could result in delays in our clinical development or marketing schedules.

Given the nature of biologics manufacturing, there is a risk of microbial contamination. Any microbial contamination could adversely affect our ability to produce, release or administer our gene therapies on schedule and could, therefore, harm our results of operations and cause reputational damage. Additionally, although our gene therapies are tested for microbial contamination prior to release, if a contaminated product was administered to a patient, it could result in harm to the patient.

Some of the raw materials required in our manufacturing processes are derived from biologic sources. Such raw materials are difficult to procure and may be subject to contamination or recall. A material shortage, contamination, recall or restriction on the use of biologically derived substances in the manufacture of our vectors or drug product could adversely impact or disrupt the commercial manufacturing or the production of clinical material, which could adversely affect our development timelines and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Interruptions in the supply of viral vectors and/or drug products or inventory loss may harm our operating results and financial condition.

Our viral vectors and drug products are manufactured using technically complex processes in specialized facilities, sometimes using specialized equipment with highly specific raw materials and other production constraints. The complexity of these processes, as well as strict government standards for the manufacture and storage of our gene therapies, subjects us to manufacturing risks. While viral vectors and drug product released for use in clinical trials or for commercialization undergo sample testing, some defects may only be identified following their release. In addition, process deviations or unanticipated effects of approved process changes may result in viral vector and/or drug product not complying with stability requirements or specifications. Our viral vectors and drug product must be stored and transported at temperatures within a certain range. If these environmental conditions deviate, our viral vectors and drug products’ remaining shelf-lives could be impaired or their efficacy and safety could be negatively impacted, making them no longer suitable for use. For example, patients’ cellular material must be received by the manufacturing facility typically within three days after collection, and our gene therapy must be received by the clinical site typically within ten days after shipping from the manufacturing facility. The occurrence, or suspected occurrence, of manufacturing and distribution difficulties can lead to lost inventories and, in some cases, product recalls, with consequential reputational damage and the risk of product liability. The investigation and remediation of any identified problems can cause production delays, substantial expense, lost sales and delays of new product launches. Any interruption in the supply of finished products, due to transportation or other delays, including delays or disruptions resulting from the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, or the loss thereof could hinder our ability to timely distribute our products and satisfy customer demand. Any unforeseen failure in the storage of the viral vectors or drug products or loss in supply could delay our clinical trials and result in a loss of our market share for our commercial products or our product candidates, if approved, and negatively affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Our cryopreserved product candidates require specific storage, handling and administration at the clinical sites.

Our cryopreserved product candidates must be stored at very low temperatures in specialized freezers or specialized shipping containers until immediately prior to use. For administration, the cryopreserved drug product container must be carefully removed from storage, and rapidly thawed under controlled temperature conditions in an area proximal to the patient’s bedside and administered into the patient. The handling, thawing and administration of the cryopreserved gene therapy product must be performed according to specific instructions, typically using specific disposables and in some steps within specific time periods. Failure to correctly handle the product, follow the instructions for thawing and administration and or failure to administer the product within the specified period post-thaw could negatively impact the efficacy and or safety of the product.

74

Risks related to our reliance on third parties

We have in the past, and in the future may, enter into collaborations with third parties to develop or commercialize product candidates. If these collaborations are not successful, our business could be adversely affected.

We have entered into licensing and collaboration agreements with third parties, including the GSK Agreement, pursuant to which GSK transferred to us Strimvelis, Libmeldy (OTL-200), OTL-103 for WAS and OTL-300 for TDT. In addition, GSK novated to us their R&D and collaboration and license agreement, or the R&D Agreement, with Telethon-OSR. These agreements impose, and we expect that future license agreements will impose, various due diligence, milestone payment, royalty, insurance and other obligations on us. The termination of these agreements could result in our loss of rights to practice the intellectual property licensed to us under these agreements and could compromise our development and commercialization efforts for our current or any future product candidates.

We may also enter into additional collaborations in the future. We have limited control over the amount and timing of resources that our current and future collaborators dedicate to the development or commercialization of our product candidates. Our ability to generate revenues from these arrangements will depend on our and our collaborators’ abilities to successfully perform the functions assigned to each of us in these arrangements. Moreover, an unsuccessful outcome in any clinical trial for which our collaborator is responsible could be harmful to the public perception and prospects of our gene therapy platform.

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

75

If our collaborations do not result in the successful development and commercialization of products, or if one of our collaborators terminates its agreement with us, we may not receive any future research funding or milestone or royalty payments under the collaboration. If we do not receive the funding we expect under these agreements, our development of product candidates could be delayed, and we may need additional resources to develop our product candidates. In addition, if one of our collaborators terminates its agreement with us, we may find it more difficult to attract new collaborators and the perception of us in the business and financial communities could be adversely affected. All of the risks relating to product development, regulatory approval and commercialization described in this Annual Report apply to the activities of our collaborators.

We may in the future decide to collaborate with other pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies for the development and potential commercialization of our product candidates. These relationships, or those like them, may require us to incur non-recurring and other charges, increase our near- and long-term expenditures, issue securities that dilute our existing shareholders or disrupt our management and business. In addition, we could face significant competition in seeking appropriate collaborators and the negotiation process is time-consuming and complex. Our ability to reach a definitive collaboration agreement will depend, among other things, upon our assessment of the collaborator’s resources and expertise, the terms and conditions of the proposed collaboration and the proposed collaborator’s evaluation of several factors. If we license rights to product candidates, we may not be able to realize the benefit of such transactions if we are unable to successfully integrate them with our existing operations and company culture.

We utilize, and expect to continue to utilize, third parties to conduct some or all aspects of our vector production and product manufacturing for the foreseeable future, and these third parties may not perform satisfactorily.

We are not and will not be able for the foreseeable future to independently manufacture material for our planned clinical programs or our commercial supply, of Libmeldy, Strimvelis or any other product for which we obtain marketing approval. We currently rely on our CDMOs and in some cases academic partners for the production of our viral vectors and product candidates for our ongoing registrational and clinical trials and preclinical studies. For future clinical trials and for Libmeldy and other products for which we obtain marketing approval, if any, we intend to utilize materials manufactured by CDMOs. If our academic partners or these CDMOs do not successfully carry out their contractual duties, meet expected deadlines or manufacture our viral vector and product candidates in accordance with regulatory requirements or if there are disagreements between us and our academic partners or these CDMOs, we will not be able to complete, or may be delayed in completing, the preclinical studies and clinical trials required to support approval of our product candidates or the FDA, EMA or other regulatory agencies may refuse to accept our clinical or preclinical data. In such instances, we may need to enter into an appropriate replacement third-party relationship, which may not be readily available or available on acceptable terms, which would cause additional delay or increased expense prior to the approval of our product candidates and would thereby have a negative impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We partner with CDMOs and intend to utilize viral vectors and gene therapy products manufactured by CDMOs for our future clinical trials and products for which we obtain marketing approval. In some cases, we may need to perform clinical or analytical or other animal or cell-based testing to demonstrate that materials produced by these CDMOs, or any other third-party manufacturer that we engage, is comparable to the material produced by our academic partners and utilized in our registrational and clinical trials of our product candidates. There is no assurance that these CDMOs, or any other future third-party manufacturer that we engage, will be successful in producing any or all of our viral vector or product candidates, that any such product will, if required, pass the required comparability testing, or that any materials produced by these CDMOs or any other third-party manufacturer that we engage will have the same effect in patients that we have observed to date with respect to materials produced by our academic partners. We believe that our manufacturing network will have sufficient capacity to meet demand for our clinical and existing and expected initial commercial needs, but there is a risk that if supplies are interrupted or result in poor yield or quality, it would materially harm our business. Additionally, if the gene therapy industry were to grow, we may encounter increasing competition for the raw materials and consumables necessary for the production of our product candidates. Furthermore, demand for CDMO cGMP manufacturing capabilities may grow at a faster rate than existing manufacturing capacity, which could disrupt our ability to find and retain third-party manufacturers capable of producing sufficient quantities of our viral vectors or product candidates for future clinical trials or to meet expected initial commercial demand.

76

Under certain circumstances, our current CDMOs are entitled to terminate their engagements with us. If we need to enter into alternative arrangements, it could delay our development activities. Our reliance on our CDMOs for certain manufacturing activities will reduce our control over these activities but will not relieve us of our responsibility to ensure compliance with all required regulations.

In addition to our current CDMOs, we may rely on additional third parties to manufacture our viral vectors and or drug products in the future and to perform quality testing, and reliance on these third parties entails risks to which we would not be subject if we manufactured the product candidates ourselves, including:

Any of these events could lead to clinical trial delays or failure to obtain regulatory approval, or impact our ability to successfully commercialize any of our product candidates. Some of these events could be the basis for FDA, EMA or other regulatory authority action, including injunction, recall, seizure or total or partial suspension of product manufacture.

We rely on third parties, including independent clinical investigators and CROs, to conduct and sponsor some of the clinical trials of our product candidates. Any failure by a third party to meet its obligations with respect to the clinical development of our product candidates may delay or impair our ability to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates.

We have relied upon and plan to continue to rely upon third parties, including independent clinical investigators and third-party CROs, to conduct our preclinical studies and clinical trials, including in some instances sponsoring such clinical trials, and to monitor and manage data for our ongoing preclinical and clinical programs. For example, OTL-102 for X-CGD is currently being investigated in ongoing academic-sponsored clinical trials at Boston Children’s Hospital, the NIH and UCLA in the United States, and GOSH in Europe. While we will have agreements governing the activities of our academic partners and CROs, we will control only certain aspects of their activities and have limited influence over their actual performance.

Nevertheless, we are responsible for ensuring that each of our preclinical studies and clinical trials is conducted in accordance with the applicable protocol and legal, regulatory and scientific standards, and our reliance on these third parties does not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities. We and our third-party contractors and CROs are required to comply with GLP and GCP requirements, which are regulations and guidelines enforced by the FDA, the Competent Authorities of the Member States of the European Economic Area, or EEA, and comparable foreign regulatory authorities for all of our products in clinical development. Regulatory authorities enforce these GCP requirements through periodic inspections of trial sponsors, principal investigators and trial sites. If we fail to exercise adequate oversight over any of our academic partners or CROs or if we or any of our academic partners or CROs do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or obligations, fail to meet expected deadlines, or if the quality or accuracy of the clinical data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to our clinical protocols or regulatory requirements, or for any other reasons, the clinical data generated in our clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA, the EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to perform additional clinical trials before approving our marketing applications. We cannot assure that upon a regulatory inspection of us, our academic partners or our CROs or other third parties performing services in connection with our clinical trials, such regulatory authority will determine that any of our clinical trials complies with GCP regulations. In addition, our clinical trials must be conducted with product produced under applicable cGMP regulations. Our failure to comply with these regulations may require us to repeat clinical trials, which would delay the regulatory approval process. As a result, our financial results and the commercial prospects for our product candidates would be harmed, our costs could increase, and our ability to generate revenues could be delayed.

We do not control the design or conduct of the academic-sponsored trials, and it is possible that the FDA or EMA will not view these academic-sponsored trials as providing adequate support for future clinical trials or market approval, whether controlled by us or third parties, for any one or more reasons, including elements of the design or execution of the trials or safety concerns or other trial results. Such arrangements provide us certain information rights with respect to the academic-sponsored trials, including access to and the ability to use and reference the data, including for our own regulatory submissions, resulting from the academic-sponsored trials. However, we do not have control over the timing and reporting of the data from academic-sponsored trials, nor do we own the data from the academic-sponsored trials. If we are unable to confirm or replicate the results from the academic-sponsored trials or if negative results are obtained, we would likely be

77

further delayed or prevented from advancing further clinical development of OTL-102 for X-CGD, OTL-203 for MPS-I, OTL-201 for MPS-IIIA or any other product candidate investigated in an academic-sponsored clinical trial. Further, if investigators or institutions breach their obligations with respect to the clinical development of our product candidates, or if the data proves to be inadequate compared to the firsthand knowledge we might have gained had the academic-sponsored trials been sponsored and conducted by us, then our ability to design and conduct any future clinical trials ourselves may be adversely affected.

Additionally, the FDA or EMA may disagree with the sufficiency of our right of reference to the preclinical, manufacturing or clinical data generated by these academic-sponsored trials, or our interpretation of preclinical, manufacturing or clinical data from these academic-sponsored trials. If so, the FDA or EMA may require us to obtain and submit additional preclinical, manufacturing, or clinical data.

We and our contract manufacturers are subject to significant regulation with respect to manufacturing our viral vectors and drug products. The manufacturing facilities on which we rely may not continue to meet regulatory requirements and have limited capacity.

We currently have relationships with a limited number of suppliers for the manufacturing of our viral vectors and drug products. Each supplier may require licenses to manufacture such components if such processes are not owned by the supplier or in the public domain and we may be unable to transfer or sublicense the intellectual property rights we may have with respect to such activities.

All entities involved in the preparation of therapeutics for clinical trials or commercial sale, including our existing CDMOs for our viral vectors and drug product, are subject to extensive regulation. Components of a finished therapeutic product approved for commercial sale or used in clinical trials, including in some cases critical raw materials used in the manufacture thereof, must be manufactured in accordance with cGMP. Poor control of production processes can lead to the introduction of adventitious agents or other contaminants, or to inadvertent changes in the properties or stability of our viral vectors or product candidates that may not be detectable in final product testing. We or our CDMOs must supply all necessary documentation in support of a BLA or MAA on a timely basis and must adhere to the FDA’s and EMA’s cGMP and other applicable regulations that are enforced through facilities inspection programs. Some of our CDMOs have not produced a commercially-approved product and have never been inspected by the FDA or other regulatory body. Our quality systems and the facilities and quality systems of some or all of our CDMOs must pass a pre-approval inspection for compliance with the applicable regulations as a condition of regulatory approval of our product candidates or any of our other potential products. In addition, the regulatory authorities may, at any time, audit or inspect a manufacturing facility involved with the preparation of our viral vector or drug product or our other potential products or the associated quality systems for compliance with the regulations applicable to the activities being conducted.

If any such inspection or audit identifies a failure to comply with applicable regulations or if a violation of our product specifications or applicable regulations occurs independent of such an inspection or audit, we or the relevant regulatory authority may require remedial measures that may be costly and/or time-consuming for us or a third party to implement and that may include the temporary or permanent suspension of a clinical trial or commercial sales or the temporary or permanent closure of a facility. Any such remedial measures imposed upon us or third parties with whom we contract could materially harm our business.

If we or any of our CDMOs fail to maintain regulatory compliance, the FDA can impose regulatory sanctions including, among other things, refusal to approve a pending application for a new product or biologic product, or revocation of a pre-existing approval. As a result, our business, financial condition and results of operations may be materially harmed.

These factors could cause the delay of clinical trials, regulatory submissions, required approvals of our product candidates or commercialization of our commercial products or product candidates, if approved, cause us to incur higher costs and prevent us from commercializing our products successfully. Furthermore, if our suppliers fail to meet contractual requirements, and we are unable to secure one or more replacement suppliers capable of production at a substantially equivalent cost, our preclinical studies and clinical trials may be delayed.

We are dependent on a limited number of suppliers and, in some instances, a sole supplier, for some of our components and materials used in our product candidates.

We currently depend on a limited number of suppliers and, in some instances, a sole supplier, for some of the components and equipment necessary for the production of our viral vectors and drug product. We cannot be sure that these

78

suppliers will remain in business, or that they will not be purchased by one of our competitors or another company that is not interested in continuing to produce these materials for our intended purpose. Our use of a sole or a limited number of suppliers of raw materials, components and finished goods exposes us to several risks, including disruptions in supply, price increases, late deliveries and an inability to meet customer demand. There are, in general, relatively few alternative sources of supply for these components, and in some cases, no alternatives. These vendors may be unable or unwilling to meet our future demands for our clinical trials or commercial sale. Establishing additional or replacement suppliers for these components could take a substantial amount of time and it may be difficult to establish replacement suppliers who meet regulatory requirements. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, we may experience supply shortages from some of our suppliers. Any disruption in supply from any supplier or manufacturing location could lead to supply delays or interruptions which would damage our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

If we are required to switch to a replacement supplier, the manufacture and delivery of our viral vectors and product candidates could be interrupted for an extended period, adversely affecting our business. Establishing additional or replacement suppliers may not be accomplished quickly. If we are able to find a replacement supplier, the replacement supplier would need to be qualified and may require additional regulatory authority approval, which could result in further delay. For example, the FDA or EMA could require additional supplemental data, manufacturing data and comparability data up to and including clinical trial data if we rely upon a new supplier. While we seek to maintain adequate inventory of the components and materials used in our product candidates, any interruption or delay in the supply of components or materials, or our inability to obtain components or materials from alternate sources at acceptable prices in a timely manner, could impair our ability to conduct our clinical trials and, if our product candidates are approved, to meet the demand of our customers and cause them to cancel orders.

In addition, as part of the FDA’s approval of our product candidates, the FDA must review and approve the individual components of our production process, which includes raw materials, the manufacturing processes and facilities of our suppliers. Some of our current suppliers have not undergone this process nor have they had any components included in any product approved by the FDA.

Our reliance on these suppliers subjects us to a number of risks that could harm our reputation, business, and financial condition, including, among other things:

If any of these risks materialize, costs could significantly increase and our ability to conduct our clinical trials and, if our product candidates are approved, to meet demand for our products could be impacted.

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 currently rely on third parties to manufacture our vectors and our commercial products and product candidates, and because we collaborate with various organizations and academic institutions on the advancement of our gene therapy approach, we must, at times, share trade secrets with them. We seek to protect our proprietary technology in part by entering into confidentiality agreements and, if applicable, material transfer agreements, collaborative research agreements,

79

consulting agreements or other similar agreements with our collaborators, advisors, employees and consultants prior to beginning research or disclosing proprietary information. These agreements typically limit the rights of the third parties to use or disclose our confidential information, such as 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 a material adverse effect on our business.

In addition, these agreements typically restrict the ability of our collaborators, advisors, employees and consultants to publish data potentially relating to our trade secrets. Our academic collaborators typically have rights to publish data, provided that we are notified in advance and may delay publication for a specified time in order to secure our intellectual property rights arising from the collaboration. In other cases, publication rights are controlled exclusively by us, although in some cases we may share these rights with other parties. Despite our efforts to protect our trade secrets, our competitors may discover our trade secrets, either through breach of these agreements, independent development or publication of information including our trade secrets in cases where we do not have proprietary or otherwise protected rights at the time of publication. A competitor’s discovery of our trade secrets would impair our competitive position and have an adverse impact on our business.

Risks related to commercialization of our product candidates

If we are unable to establish effective sales and marketing capabilities or enter into agreements with third parties to market, sell and gain reimbursement for Libmeldy and our product candidates that may be approved, we may not be successful in commercializing Libmeldy or our product candidates if and when approved, and we may be unable to generate any product revenue.

We intend to commercialize our product candidates, if approved, in the United States, Europe, and other markets, and we are currently undertaking preparations for our commercial launch of Libmeldy in Europe. We intend to commercialize Libmeldy and our other product candidates, if approved, directly with specialized teams, given the relative rarity of the indications we are targeting. Although we have substantially built out our initial commercial infrastructure in preparation for our commercial launch of Libmeldy in Europe, we are continuing to build out our commercial capabilities and infrastructure and have a limited marketing and sales team for the marketing, sales and distribution of Strimvelis, Libmeldy and our product candidates, if approved. In order to commercialize Libmeldy, Strimvelis, if sales resume, and OTL-103 for WAS, if approved, or any of our other product candidates that may be approved, we must continue to build and expand, on a territory-by-territory basis, marketing, sales, distribution, managerial and other capabilities or make arrangements with third parties to perform these services, and we may not be successful in doing so. If we are unable to establish sufficient commercial capabilities and infrastructure, we may be unable to generate sufficient revenue to sustain our business.

There are risks involved with both establishing our own sales and marketing capabilities and entering into arrangements with third parties to perform these services. For example, recruiting and training a commercial organization is expensive and time consuming and could delay any product launch. If the commercial launch of a product candidate for which we recruit a sales force and establish marketing capabilities is delayed or does not occur for any reason, we would have prematurely or unnecessarily incurred these commercialization expenses. This may be costly and our investment would be lost if we cannot retain or reposition our sales and marketing personnel.

Factors that may inhibit our efforts to commercialize Libmeldy and our product candidates, if approved, on our own include:

80

In addition, we will need to commit significant additional management and other resources to maintain and grow our sales organization. We may not be able to achieve the necessary development and growth in a cost-effective manner or realize a positive return on our investment.

If we enter into arrangements with third parties to perform sales, marketing and distribution services, our product revenue or the profitability to us from these revenue streams is likely to be lower than if we were to market and sell any product candidates that we develop ourselves. In addition, we may not be successful in entering into arrangements with third parties to sell and market our product candidates or may be unable to do so on terms that are favorable to us. We likely will have little control over such third parties and any of them may fail to devote the necessary resources and attention to sell and market our product candidates effectively. If we do not establish sales and marketing capabilities successfully, either on our own or in collaboration with third parties, we may not be successful in commercializing our product candidates.

If we are unable to expand our market development capabilities or enter into agreements with third parties to market, sell and gain reimbursement for Libmeldy and any of our product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval, we will be unable to generate any product revenue.

To successfully commercialize Libmeldy and any products that may result from our development programs, we need to continue to expand our market development capabilities, either on our own or with others. The development of our own marketing capabilities is, and will continue to be, expensive and time-consuming and could delay any product launch, including our planned launch of Libmeldy in Europe in the first half of 2021. Moreover, we cannot be certain that we will be able to successfully develop this capability. We may enter into collaborations regarding any approved product candidates with other entities to utilize their established marketing and distribution capabilities, but we may be unable to enter into such agreements on favorable terms, if at all. If any future collaborators do not commit sufficient resources to commercialize our product candidates, or we are unable to develop the necessary capabilities on our own, we will be unable to generate sufficient product revenue to sustain our business. We compete with many companies that currently have extensive, experienced and well-funded sales, distribution and marketing operations to recruit, hire, train and retain marketing and sales personnel. We also face competition in our search for third parties to assist us with the sales and marketing efforts of our product candidates, if approved. Without an internal team or the support of a third party to perform marketing and sales functions, we may be unable to compete successfully against these more established companies.

We face significant competition in our industry and there can be no assurance that our commercial products or our product candidates, if approved, will achieve acceptance in the market over existing established therapies. In addition, our competitors may develop therapies that are more advanced or effective than ours, which may adversely affect our ability to successfully market or commercialize any of our product candidates.

We operate in a highly competitive segment of the biopharmaceutical market. We face competition from many different sources, including larger pharmaceutical, specialty pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, as well as from academic institutions, government agencies and private and public research institutions. Our product candidates, if successfully developed and approved, will compete with established therapies, some of which are being marketed by large and international companies. In addition, we expect to compete with new treatments that are under development or may be advanced into the clinic by our competitors. There are a variety of product candidates, including gene therapies, in development for the indications that we are targeting, including new areas that we may target as part of our strategic initiatives.

We rely primarily on know-how and trade secret protection for aspects of our proprietary technologies, Libmeldy, Strimvelis and our product candidates. We do not have any issued patents covering Libmeldy, Strimvelis or our product candidates, and only one patent family with patent applications pending in the United States and Europe with patent claims directed to our OTL-101 product candidate and its use in the treatment of ADA-SCID. This means that barriers to entry that typically apply in the case of pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical companies with issued patents covering aspects of their proprietary technologies, products and product candidates, such as composition of matter claims, will generally not apply to our commercial products or our product candidates, and this may expose us to competition from other biopharmaceutical companies, particularly those companies that possess greater financial resources and more mature product candidate development, manufacturing, marketing and distribution resources than we do. Although our product candidates, if approved, may be eligible for marketing and/or data exclusivities in, for example, the United States and Europe, these exclusivities would not prevent another biopharmaceutical company from conducting its own clinical trials to develop and seek regulatory approval of a competitive product. We are not the only company that is developing and commercializing products using a lentiviral-based autologous ex vivo gene therapy approach, and these competitive approaches may be comparable or superior to our approach. One or more of these companies may seek to develop products that compete directly with our commercial

81

products or one or more of our product candidates, the result of which could have a material adverse effect on our business.  In addition, many universities and private and public research institutes are active in our target disease areas.

Many of our competitors have significantly greater financial, product candidate development, manufacturing and marketing resources than we do. Large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies have extensive experience in clinical testing and obtaining regulatory approval for their products, and mergers and acquisitions within these industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of larger competitors. Established pharmaceutical companies may also invest heavily to accelerate discovery and development of novel therapeutics or to in-license novel therapeutics that could make the product candidates that we develop obsolete. Competition may increase further as a result of advances in the commercial applicability of technologies and greater availability of capital for investment in these industries. Our business would be materially and adversely affected if competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, have broader market acceptance, are more convenient or are less expensive than any product candidate that we may develop.

Even if we obtain regulatory approval of our product candidates, the availability and price of our competitors’ products could limit the demand and the price we are able to charge for our product candidates. We may not be able to implement our business plan if the acceptance of our product candidates is inhibited by price competition or the reluctance of physicians to switch from existing methods of treatment to our product candidates, or if physicians switch to other new drug or biologic products or choose to reserve our product candidates for use in limited circumstances.

If the size and value of the market opportunities for our commercial products or product candidates are smaller than our estimates, or if we have difficulty in finding patients that meet eligibility requirements for Libmeldy, Strimvelis or any of our product candidates, if approved, our product revenues may be adversely affected and our business may suffer.

We focus our research and product development on treatments for immunological disorders and inherited neurometabolic and neurodegenerative genetic disorders. We base our market opportunity estimates on a variety of factors, including our estimates of the number of people who have these diseases, the potential scope of our approved product labels, the subset of people with these diseases who have the potential to benefit from treatment with our product candidates, various pricing scenarios, and our understanding of reimbursement policies for rare diseases in particular countries. These estimates are based on many assumptions and may prove to be incorrect, and new studies may reduce the estimated incidence or prevalence of these diseases. Estimating market opportunities can be particularly challenging for ultra-rare indications, such as the ones we currently address, as epidemiological data is often more limited than for more prevalent indications and can require additional assumptions to assess potential patient populations. For example, as we advance our product candidates towards commercialization, learn more about market dynamics and engage with regulators on potential marketing approvals, our view of the initial potential market opportunity for our products will become more refined.  In some cases, the approved label may initially be directed to a narrower patient population with the opportunity to expand the label upon submission of additional clinical data. For example, in the case of Libmeldy, we are now initially focused primarily on annual incidence of the disease, and in the case of OTL-103 for WAS we are initially focused primarily on prevalence of the disease. In each case this means the initial market opportunity for these product candidates may be smaller than the total addressable market opportunity that could be achieved over time.  If we are unable to advance product candidates with attractive market opportunities, our future product revenues may be smaller than anticipated and our business may suffer. Patient identification efforts also influence the ability to address a patient population. If efforts in patient identification are unsuccessful or less impactful than anticipated, for instance, because of a lack of newborn screening or diagnostic initiatives, inadequate disease awareness among healthcare providers, or otherwise, we may not address the entirety of the opportunity we are seeking. As a result, patients may be difficult to identify and access, the addressable patient population in the United States, Europe and elsewhere may turn out to be lower than expected, or patients may not be otherwise amenable to treatment with our products, all of which would adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

82

The commercial success of any current or future product candidate will depend upon the degree of market acceptance by physicians, patients, payors and others in the medical community.

Even if we obtain any regulatory approval for our product candidates, the commercial success of our product candidates will depend in part on the medical community, patients, and payors accepting gene therapy products in general, and our product candidates in particular, as effective, safe and cost-effective. Any product that we bring to the market may not gain market acceptance by physicians, patients, payors and others in the medical community. The degree of market acceptance of these product candidates, if approved for commercial sale, will depend on a number of factors, including:

Even if a product candidate displays a favorable efficacy and safety profile in preclinical studies and clinical trials, market acceptance of the product, if approved for commercial sale, will not be known until after it is launched. Our efforts to educate the medical community and payors on the benefits of our product candidates may require significant resources and may never be successful. Such efforts to educate the marketplace may require more resources than are required by the conventional technologies marketed by our competitors. If these products do not achieve an adequate level of acceptance, we may not generate significant product revenue and may not become profitable.

The insurance coverage and reimbursement status of newly-approved products is uncertain. Failure to obtain or maintain adequate coverage and reimbursement for any of our product candidates, if approved, could limit our ability to market those products and decrease our ability to generate revenue.

We expect the cost of a single administration of gene therapy products, such as those we are developing, to be substantial, when and if they achieve market approval. In the United States and markets in other countries, patients generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the costs associated with their treatment. The availability and extent of reimbursement by governmental and private payors is essential for most patients to be able to afford expensive treatments, such as stem cell transplants. Sales of our product candidates will depend substantially, both domestically and abroad, on the extent to which the costs of our product candidates will be covered and paid by health maintenance, managed care, pharmacy benefit and similar healthcare management organizations, or reimbursed by government health administration authorities, private health coverage insurers and other payors. If coverage and adequate reimbursement are not available, or are available only to limited levels, we 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. We may not be able to provide data sufficient to gain acceptance with respect to coverage and reimbursement. If reimbursement is not available, or is available only at limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize our product candidates, if approved. The process for determining whether a payor will provide coverage for a product may be separate from the process for setting the reimbursement rate that the payor will pay for the product. Payors may limit coverage to specific products on an approved list, or formulary, which might not include all of the FDA-approved products for a particular indication. A decision by a payor not to cover our gene therapies could reduce physician utilization of our products once approved and have a material adverse effect on our sales, results of operations and financial condition. Further, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, millions of individuals have lost or will be losing employer-based insurance coverage, which may adversely affect our ability to commercialize our products.

There is significant uncertainty related to the insurance coverage and reimbursement of newly approved products. In the United States, the principal decisions about coverage and reimbursement for new medicines are typically made by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, an agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, as CMS decides whether and to what extent a new medicine will be covered and reimbursed under Medicare. Private payors tend to follow the CMS to a substantial degree. It is difficult to predict what the CMS will decide with respect to reimbursement for fundamentally novel products such as ours, as there is no body of established practices and precedents for these new products. Factors payors consider in determining reimbursement are based on whether the product is:

83

Outside the United States, certain countries, including a number of member states of the European Union, set prices and reimbursement for pharmaceutical products, or medicinal products, as they are commonly referred to in the European Union, with limited participation from the marketing authorization holders. We cannot be sure that such prices and reimbursement will be acceptable to us or our collaborators. If the regulatory authorities in these jurisdictions set prices or reimbursement levels that are not commercially attractive for us or our collaborators, our revenues from sales by us or our collaborators, and the potential profitability of our drug products, in those countries would be negatively affected. Some countries may also require the completion of clinical trials that compare the cost effectiveness of a particular product candidate to currently available therapies. An increasing number of countries are taking initiatives to attempt to reduce large budget deficits by focusing cost-cutting efforts on pharmaceuticals for their state-run health care systems. These international price control efforts have impacted all regions of the world, but have been most drastic in the European Union. Additionally, some countries require approval of the sale price of a product before it can be marketed. In many countries, the pricing review period begins after marketing or product licensing approval is granted. As a result, we might obtain marketing approval for a product in a particular country, but then may experience delays in the reimbursement approval of our product or be subject to price regulations that would delay our commercial launch of the product, possibly for lengthy time periods, which could negatively impact the revenues we are able to generate from the sale of the product in that particular country. There can be no assurance that any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for pharmaceutical products will allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements for any of our product candidates. Historically, products launched in the European Union do not follow price structures of the U.S. and generally prices tend to be significantly lower.

Moreover, efforts by governmental and payors, in the United States and abroad, to cap or reduce healthcare 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 healthcare, the increasing influence of health maintenance organizations and additional legislative changes. The downward pressure on healthcare 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.

Due to the novel nature of our technology and the potential for our product candidates to offer therapeutic benefit in a single administration, we face uncertainty related to pricing and reimbursement for these product candidates.

We are targeting rare diseases for which the patient populations are relatively small. In addition, treatment with any of our product candidates involves only a single administration. As a result, the pricing and reimbursement of our product candidates, if approved, must be adequate to support commercial infrastructure. It is possible that commercially available products may serve as a reference price that, for various reasons, may be lower than the price we need to obtain for our product candidates. If we are unable to obtain adequate levels of reimbursement, our ability to successfully market and sell our product candidates will be adversely affected. The manner and level at which reimbursement is provided for services related to our product candidates (e.g., for administration of our product to patients) is also important. Inadequate reimbursement for such services may lead to physician resistance and adversely affect our ability to market or sell our product candidates, if approved.

Risks related to the impact of COVID-19

Business interruptions resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic or similar public health crises have caused and may cause or continue to cause a disruption to the development of our product candidates and adversely impact our business.

Public health crises such as pandemics or similar outbreaks can adversely impact our business. The COVID-19 global pandemic is continually evolving, and to date has caused significant disruptions to the U.S. and global economies, has contributed to significant volatility and negative pressure in financial markets, and has led to the implementation of various responses, including government-imposed quarantines, travel restrictions and other public health safety measures, which have impacted various aspects of our business and our operations and are likely to continue to impact our operations. The extent to which the COVID-19 global pandemic impacts our operations, or those of our third-party partners, will depend on future developments, which are highly uncertain and cannot be predicted with confidence. Such developments include the duration of the pandemic and related disruptions as a result of “shelter-in-place” orders or similar mandatory or voluntary restrictions, renewed outbreaks in the future, including of novel strains of the virus, the ability to distribute and deliver approved vaccines

84

on a timely basis and the effectiveness of such vaccines, new information that may emerge concerning the severity of the pandemic and other actions to contain the coronavirus or treat its impact, among others.

In response to the pandemic, we implemented a work from home policy, our administrative employees continue to work outside of our offices, and we have reduced on-site staff significantly and in some cases restricted on-site staff to only those required to execute certain laboratory and related support activities. Continued remote working could have a variety of impacts on our business, including increasing our cyber security risk, creating data accessibility concerns, and making us more susceptible to communication disruptions, any of which could adversely impact our business operations or delay necessary interactions with regulators, manufacturing sites and clinical trial sites. We may also experience difficulty in recruiting and onboarding new employees. In addition, as a result of continued shelter-in-place orders or policies or other mandated travel restrictions, our on-site staff conducting research and development, preclinical studies, and manufacturing activities may not be able to access our laboratories or manufacturing space, and these core activities may be significantly limited or curtailed, possibly for an extended period of time.

We are conducting clinical trials for our product candidates in the United States and Europe, which are currently being affected by the COVID-19 pandemic and will likely continue to be affected. While our clinical sites are still treating and following up with patients in clinical trials, these centers are also devoting significant resources to patients with COVID-19, which could limit their ability to enroll additional patients in ongoing clinical trials or follow-up with existing patients. Some factors from the COVID-19 pandemic that have delayed and may continue to delay or otherwise adversely affect enrollment in or the progress of our clinical trials for some or all of our product candidates, as well as our business generally, include:

Trial procedures (particularly any procedures that may be deemed non-essential), patient dosing, shipment of our product candidates, distribution of clinical trial materials, study monitoring, site inspections and data analysis may be paused or delayed due to the above factors or other reasons related to the pandemic. Furthermore, if the coronavirus, including new strains of the virus, continues to spread, or recurs in the future, or if approved vaccines are not as effective as anticipated or are significantly delayed in being administered, some patients and clinical investigators may not be able to comply with clinical trial protocols or we may see increased rates of patients withdrawing from any planned clinical trial following enrollment, including as a result of contracting COVID-19, quarantines or other travel limitations (whether voluntary or required), which may impede patient movement, affect access to trial sites, or interrupt healthcare services. Moreover, follow-up visits associated with our active clinical trials are in most cases being conducted using alternative data collection approaches due to COVID-19 travel and other trial site limitations. Though we are following the FDA, EMA, and certain country-specific guidance on the management of clinical trials during the COVID-19 pandemic, we may also utilize other alternative approaches that may not be as effective as traditional approaches, and regulatory bodies, such as the FDA and EMA, may not approve such data collection techniques and may consider the data collected during the COVID-19 pandemic

85

insufficient support for the relevant regulatory filings. Additionally, we have experienced and anticipate that the COVID-19 pandemic may continue to result in regulatory delays, such as delays in receiving regulatory advice, reviews of applications, or performance of inspections required for approvals. The pandemic may also result in greater regulatory uncertainty. For example, while the FDA and EMA have issued guidance to provide biopharmaceutical manufacturers greater flexibility in certain regulatory areas, including remote monitoring, protocol deviations and adverse event reporting, such flexibility may result in greater uncertainty regarding the expectations of such health authorities in relation to this guidance and the adequacy of the data collected during the COVID-19 pandemic to support regulatory filings. Any disruption or delay in our ability to complete preclinical and clinical development of our product candidates could impair our ability to successfully gain regulatory approval for and ultimately commercialize our product candidates and may harm our business and results of operations.

The extent and impact of such disruptions are currently unpredictable. Any prolongation or de-prioritization of our clinical trials or delay in regulatory review resulting from such disruptions could materially affect the development, study and regulatory submissions of our product candidates. The COVID-19 global pandemic may also result in interruption or delays in the operations of the FDA and EMA and other regulatory agencies, which could further delay our anticipated regulatory submissions and any potential approval of our product candidates.

In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic initially impacted our ability to generate revenue from the sale of Strimvelis, as Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy, the treatment site for Strimvelis, postponed scheduling and treating non-urgent patients with the therapy for approximately three months. Although we derive limited revenue from sales of Strimvelis, a prolonged postponement of treatments would significantly reduce our sole source of product revenue. The COVID-19 pandemic may also result in a diversion of payor or government resources away from health technology assessment, reimbursement or market access activities, which could delay our efforts to commercialize Libmeldy in the EU.  

The extent to which the COVID-19 pandemic impacts our business, and our clinical development and regulatory efforts, as well as our supply chain, will depend on future developments that are highly uncertain and cannot be predicted with confidence, such as the ultimate geographic spread of the disease, the duration of the outbreak, government actions, such as travel restrictions, quarantines and social distancing requirements in the U.S. and in other countries, business closures or business disruptions and the effectiveness of actions taken in the U.S. and in other countries to contain and treat the disease. Accordingly, we do not yet know the full extent of potential delays or impacts on our business, our clinical and regulatory activities, our research programs, healthcare systems or the global economy as a whole. However, these effects could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects, which may in turn also have the effect of heightening many of the other risks and uncertainties described elsewhere in this “Risk Factors” section.

Risks related to our business operations

Our gene therapy approach utilizes vectors derived from viruses, which may be perceived as unsafe or may result in unforeseen adverse events. Negative public opinion and increased regulatory scrutiny of gene therapy and genetic research may damage public perception of our product candidates or adversely affect our ability to conduct our business or obtain regulatory approvals for our product candidates.

Gene therapy remains a novel technology, with only a limited number of gene therapy products approved to date. Public perception may be influenced by claims that gene therapy is unsafe, and gene therapy may not gain the acceptance of the public or the medical community. In particular, our success will depend upon physicians specializing in the treatment of those diseases that our product candidates target prescribing treatments that involve the use of our product candidates in lieu of, or in addition to, existing treatments they are already familiar with and for which greater clinical data may be available. More restrictive government regulations or negative public opinion would have a negative effect on our business or financial condition and may delay or impair the development and commercialization of our product candidates or demand for any products we may develop. Adverse events in our clinical trials, even if not ultimately attributable to our product candidates (such as the many adverse events that typically arise from the conditioning process), or adverse events in other lentiviral gene therapy trials, and the resulting publicity could result in increased governmental regulation, unfavorable public perception, potential regulatory delays in the testing or approval of our potential product candidates, stricter labeling requirements for those product candidates that are approved and a decrease in demand for any such product candidates.

Increasing demand for compassionate use of our unapproved therapies could result in losses.

We are developing our autologous ex vivo gene therapies to address rare diseases for which there are currently limited or no available therapeutic options. Media attention to individual patients’ expanded access requests has resulted in the introduction and/or passage of legislation at the local and national level referred to as “Right to Try” laws which are intended to help enable patient access to unapproved therapies. Such legislation includes the Trickett Wendler, Frank Mongiello,

86

Jordan McLinn, and Matthew Bellina Right to Try Act of 2017, which was signed into law on May 30, 2018. New and emerging legislation regarding expanded access to unapproved drugs for life-threatening illnesses could negatively impact our business in the future.

A possible consequence of both activism and legislation in this area is the need for us to initiate an unanticipated expanded access program or to make our product candidates more widely available sooner than anticipated. We have limited resources and unanticipated trials or access programs could result in diversion of resources from our primary goals.

In addition, patients who receive access to unapproved drugs through compassionate use or expanded access programs have life-threatening illnesses and have exhausted all other available therapies. The risk for SAEs in this patient population is high which could have a negative impact on the safety profile of our product candidates, which could cause significant delays or an inability to successfully commercialize our product candidates, which could materially harm our business.

Our future results will suffer if we do not effectively manage our expanded operations as a result of our acquisition of Strimvelis, Libmeldy (OTL-200), OTL-103 for WAS, OTL-203 for MPS-I and OTL-300 for TDT or of future acquisitions or strategic transactions.

We acquired worldwide rights to Libmeldy (OTL-200), Strimvelis, OTL-103 for WAS and OTL-300 for TDT in April 2018 pursuant to the GSK Agreement, and worldwide rights to OTL-203 for MPS-I in May 2019 pursuant to an exclusive licensing agreement with Telethon-OSR. The GSK Agreement significantly changed the composition of our operations, markets and product candidate mix, and we are continuing to adapt our organization to support these acquisitions. For example, in May 2020, we announced a reduction of the investment in and scope of our OTL-101 and OTL-300 programs and, based on the reallocation of capital, we have determined to prioritize other programs, including research and development projects in less rare indications. Our future success depends, in part, on our ability to continue to address these changes, and, where necessary, to attract and retain new personnel that possess the requisite skills called for by these changes.

Our failure to adequately address the financial, operational or legal risks of our acquisition of the rights to Libmeldy, Strimvelis, OTL-103 for WAS, OTL-203 for MPS-I and OTL-300 for TDT, or any future acquisitions, license arrangements, or other strategic transactions related to our current or future product candidates could harm our business. Financial aspects of such future transactions that could alter our financial position, or operating results include:

Operational risks that could harm our existing operations or prevent realization of anticipated benefits from these transactions include:

Our future success depends, in part, upon our ability to manage our expansion opportunities. Integrating new operations into our existing business in an efficient and timely manner, successfully monitoring our operations, costs, regulatory compliance and customer relationships, and maintaining other necessary internal controls pose substantial challenges for us. As a result, we cannot assure that our expansion or acquisition opportunities will be successful, or that we will realize our expected operating efficiencies, cost savings, revenue enhancements, synergies or other benefits.

87

We face potential product liability, and, if successful claims are brought against us, we may incur substantial liability and costs. If the use of Libmeldy, Strimvelis or our product candidates harms patients, or is perceived to harm patients even when such harm is unrelated to our product candidates, our regulatory approvals could be revoked or otherwise negatively impacted and we could be subject to costly and damaging product liability claims.

The use of our product candidates in clinical trials and the sale of Strimvelis and planned sales of Libmeldy or any products for which we obtain marketing approval exposes us to the risk of product liability claims. Product liability claims might be brought against us by consumers, healthcare providers, pharmaceutical companies or others selling or otherwise coming into contact with our products. There is a risk that our product candidates may induce adverse events. For example, in October 2020, we were notified that a patient treated with Strimvelis under a compassionate use program in 2016 had been diagnosed with leukemia. Subsequent findings confirmed that the patient’s leukemia was due to insertional oncogenesis attributable to treatment with Strimvelis, though the CHMP concluded that the risk-benefit balance remains favorable. If we cannot successfully defend against product liability claims, including any claims related to treatment with Strimvelis, we could incur substantial liability and costs. In addition, regardless of merit or eventual outcome, product liability claims may result in:

We believe our product liability insurance coverage is sufficient in light of our current commercial and clinical programs; however, we may not be able to maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost or in sufficient amounts to protect us against losses due to liability. We intend to expand our insurance coverage each time we commercialize an additional product; however, we may be unable to obtain product liability insurance on commercially reasonable terms or in adequate amounts. On occasion, large judgments have been awarded in class action lawsuits based on drugs or medical treatments that had unanticipated adverse effects. A successful product liability claim or series of claims brought against us could adversely affect our results of operations and business.

Patients with the diseases targeted by certain of our product candidates are often already in severe and advanced stages of disease and have both known and unknown significant pre-existing and potentially life- threatening health risks. During the course of treatment, patients may suffer adverse events, including death, for reasons that may be related to our product candidates. Such events could subject us to costly litigation, require us to pay substantial amounts of money to injured patients, delay, negatively impact or end our opportunity to receive or maintain regulatory approval to market our products, or require us to suspend or abandon our commercialization efforts. Even in a circumstance in which we do not believe that an adverse event is related to our products, the investigation into the circumstance may be time-consuming or inconclusive. These investigations may interrupt our sales efforts, delay our regulatory approval process in other countries, or impact and limit the type of regulatory approvals our product candidates receive or maintain. As a result of these factors, a product liability claim, even if successfully defended, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Our internal computer systems, or those of our collaborators or other contractors or consultants, may fail or suffer security breaches, which could result in a material disruption of our product development programs.

Security incidents have become more prevalent across industries and may occur on our systems, or on the systems of our third parties service providers.  These security incidents may be caused by or result in but are not limited to security breaches, computer malware or malicious software, ransomware, computer hacking, denial of service attacks, security system control failures in our own systems or from service providers we use, email phishing, software vulnerabilities, social engineering, sabotage, drive-by downloads and the malfeasance of our or our service providers’ employees. Although we have taken a number of measures to detect, effectively remediate and prevent future phishing and other attacks and security threats, we cannot be certain that our efforts will be effective.

Despite our security measures, our internal computer systems and those of our current and any future collaborators and other contractors or consultants are vulnerable to damage from computer viruses, unauthorized access, natural disasters, terrorism, war and telecommunication and electrical failures. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and the related disruptions to our business and our collaborators’, contractors’ and consultants’ businesses may increase the risk of cyberattacks. If any cyberattack or data breach were to occur in the future and cause interruptions in our or our collaborators’, contractors’ or consultants’ operations, it could result in a material disruption of our development programs and our business operations,

88

whether due to a loss of our trade secrets or other proprietary information or other similar 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. To the extent that any disruption or security breach were to result in a loss of, or damage to, our data or applications, or inappropriate disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, we could incur liability, our competitive position could be harmed and the further development and commercialization of our product candidates could be delayed.

Our future success depends on our ability to retain key employees, consultants and advisors and to attract, retain and motivate qualified personnel.

We are highly dependent on principal members of our executive team and key employees, including our Chief Executive Officer and our President & Chief Operating Officer, the loss of whose services may adversely impact the achievement of our objectives. While we have entered into employment agreements with each of our executive officers, any of them could leave our employment at any time. We do not maintain “key person” insurance policies on the lives of these individuals or the lives of any of our other employees. The loss of the services of one or more of our current employees might impede the achievement of our research, development and commercialization objectives.

Recruiting and retaining other qualified employees, consultants and advisors for our business, including scientific and technical personnel, will also be critical to our success. There is currently a shortage of skilled executives in our industry, which is likely to continue. As a result, competition for skilled personnel, including in gene therapy research and vector manufacturing, is intense and the turnover rate can be high. We may not be able to attract and retain personnel on acceptable terms given the competition among numerous pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies for individuals with similar skill sets. In addition, failure to succeed in preclinical or clinical trials may make it more challenging to recruit and retain qualified personnel. The inability to recruit or the loss of the services of any executive, key employee, consultant or advisor may impede the progress of our research, development and commercialization objectives.

Our corporate restructuring and the associated headcount reduction may not result in anticipated savings, could result in total costs and expenses that are greater than expected and could disrupt our business, and we may experience difficulties in managing our current and any future restructurings.

In May 2020, we undertook an organizational restructuring that reduced our workforce by approximately 25%, including the closure of our Menlo Park, California office. We also decided to discontinue building out our leased manufacturing facility in Fremont, California, despite having devoted costs and resources to the project, which may not be recouped, and despite incurring wind down costs associated with abandoning the construction. We have recorded $5.7 million in non-cash impairment charges associated with the Fremont operating lease right-of-use asset, design costs classified as construction-in-process, and laboratory equipment at our Menlo Park facility. In December 2020, we entered into a sublease agreement with an unrelated third-party whereby we subleased the entire Fremont facility to such third party. The sublease is for the entire remaining term of lease.

Future growth would impose significant added responsibilities on members of management, including the need to identify, recruit, maintain and integrate additional employees. Due to our limited resources, we may not be able to effectively manage our operations or recruit and retain qualified personnel, which may result in weaknesses in our infrastructure and operations, risks that we may not be able to comply with legal and regulatory requirements, and loss of employees and reduced productivity among remaining employees. For example, the workforce reduction may negatively impact our clinical, regulatory, technical operations, and commercial functions, which would have a negative impact on our ability to successfully develop, and ultimately, commercialize our product candidates. Our future financial performance and our ability to develop our product candidates or additional assets will depend, in part, on our ability to effectively manage any future growth or restructuring, as the case may be.

Our employees, principal investigators, consultants and commercial partners may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including non-compliance with regulatory standards and requirements and insider trading.

We are exposed to the risk of fraud or other misconduct by our employees, principal investigators, consultants and commercial partners, CROs and CDMOs. It is not always possible to identify and deter misconduct by employees and other third parties, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to comply with these laws or regulations. Misconduct by these parties could include intentional failures to comply with the regulations of the FDA, EMA or of other foreign regulatory authorities, provide accurate information to the FDA, EMA and other foreign regulatory authorities, comply with healthcare fraud and abuse laws and regulations in the United States and abroad, report financial information or data accurately or disclose unauthorized activities to us. In particular, sales,

89

marketing and business arrangements in the healthcare 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. Such misconduct could also involve the improper use of information obtained in the course of clinical trials, which could result in regulatory sanctions and cause serious harm to our reputation. We have adopted a code of conduct applicable to all of our employees, but it is not always possible to identify and deter employee misconduct, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to 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 such as criminal and administrative penalties, damages, imprisonment, possible exclusion from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other federal healthcare programs, additional reporting requirements and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar agreement to resolve allegations of noncompliance with these laws, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, and curtailment of our operations.

Healthcare legislative reform measures and constraints on national budget social security systems may have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

Payors, whether domestic or foreign, or governmental or private, are developing increasingly sophisticated methods of controlling healthcare costs and those methods are not always specifically adapted for new technologies such as gene therapy and therapies addressing rare diseases such as those we are developing. In both the United States and certain foreign jurisdictions, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory changes to the health care system that could impact our ability to sell our products profitably. In particular, in 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, or collectively, the ACA, was enacted, which, among other things, subjected biologic products to potential competition by lower-cost biosimilars; addressed a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for drugs that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted or injected; increased the minimum Medicaid rebates owed by most manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program; extended the Medicaid Drug Rebate program to utilization of prescriptions of individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations; subjected manufacturers to new annual fees and taxes for certain branded prescription drugs; created a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program, in which manufacturers must agree to offer 50% (increased to 70% pursuant to the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, effective as of January 1, 2019) point-of-sale discounts off negotiated prices of applicable brand drugs to eligible beneficiaries during their coverage gap period, as a condition for the manufacturer’s outpatient drugs to be covered under Medicare Part D; and provided incentives to programs that increase the federal government’s comparative effectiveness research.

Some of the provisions of the ACA have yet to be fully implemented, while certain provisions have been subject to judicial and Congressional challenges. While Congress has not passed comprehensive repeal legislation, two bills affecting the implementation of certain taxes under the ACA have been signed into law. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, or Tax Act, includes a provision that decreased the tax-based shared responsibility payment imposed by the ACA on certain individuals who fail to maintain qualifying health coverage for all or part of a year, commonly referred to as the “individual mandate,” to $0, effective January 1, 2019. On December 14, 2018, a federal district court in Texas ruled the individual mandate is a critical and inseverable feature of the ACA, and therefore, because it was repealed as part of the Tax Act, the remaining provisions of the ACA are invalid as well. On December 18, 2019, the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals held that the individual mandate is unconstitutional and remanded the case to the lower court to reconsider its earlier invalidation of the full ACA. On March 2, 2020, the United States Supreme Court granted the petitions for writs of certiorari to review this case and held oral arguments on November 10, 2020. Pending review, the ACA remains in effect, but it is unclear at this time what effect these developments will have on the status of the ACA.

Further, since January 2017, President Trump signed two Executive Orders designed to delay the implementation of certain provisions of the ACA or otherwise circumvent some of the requirements for health insurance mandated by the ACA. One Executive Order directs federal agencies with authorities and responsibilities under the ACA to waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation of any provision of the ACA that would impose a fiscal burden on states or a cost, fee, tax, penalty or regulatory burden on individuals, healthcare providers, health insurers, or manufacturers of pharmaceuticals or medical devices. The second Executive Order terminates the cost-sharing subsidies that reimburse insurers under the ACA. The Trump administration concluded that cost-sharing reduction, or CSR, payments to insurance companies required under the ACA have not received necessary appropriations from Congress and announced that it will discontinue these payments immediately until those appropriations are made. Several state Attorneys General filed suit to stop the administration from terminating the subsidies, but their request for a restraining order was denied by a federal judge in California on October 25, 2017. On August 14, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in two separate cases that the federal government is liable for the full amount of unpaid CSRs for the years preceding and including 2017. For CSR claims made by health insurance companies for years 2018 and later, further litigation will be required to determine the amounts due, if any. Further, on June 14, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that the federal government was not required to pay more than $12 billion in ACA risk corridor payments to third-party payors who

90

argued were owed to them. This decision was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which on April 27, 2020, reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s decision and remanded the case to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, concluding the government has an obligation to pay these risk corridor payments under the relevant formula. The effects of this gap in reimbursement on third-party payors, the viability of the ACA marketplace, providers, and potentially our business, are not yet known. In December 2018, the CMS published a final rule permitting further collections and payments to and from certain ACA qualified health plans and health insurance issuers under the ACA risk adjustment program in response to the outcome of the federal district court litigation regarding the method CMS uses to determine this risk adjustment. Since then, the ACA risk adjustment program payment parameters have been updated annually. In addition, CMS published a final rule that would give states greater flexibility in setting benchmarks for insurers in the individual and small group marketplaces, which may have the effect of relaxing the essential health benefits required under the ACA for plans sold through such marketplaces. Congress may consider other legislation to replace elements of the ACA.

Additionally, in January 2018, President Trump signed a continuing resolution on appropriations for fiscal year 2018 that delayed the implementation of certain ACA-mandated fees, including the so-called “Cadillac” tax on certain high cost employer-sponsored insurance plans, the annual fee imposed on certain high cost employer-sponsored insurance plans, the annual fee imposed on certain health insurance providers based on market share, and the medical device exercise tax on non-exempt medical devices. However, on December 20, 2019, President Trump signed into law the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act (H.R. 1865), which repealed the Cadillac tax, the health insurance provider tax, and the medical device excise tax.  It is impossible to determine whether similar taxes could be instated in the future. Further, the BBA, among other things, amends the ACA, effective January 1, 2019, to increase from 50 percent to 70 percent the point-of-sale discount that is owed by pharmaceutical manufacturers who participate in Medicare Part D and to close the coverage gap in most Medicare drug plans, commonly referred to as the “donut hole.” Congress also could consider subsequent legislation to replace elements of the ACA that are repealed. Thus, the full impact of the ACA, any law replacing elements of it, and the political uncertainty surrounding any repeal or replacement legislation on our business remains unclear. In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted. In August 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, created measures for spending reductions by Congress. A Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, tasked with recommending a targeted deficit reduction of at least $1.5 trillion for the years 2013 through 2021, was unable to reach required goals, thereby triggering the legislation’s automatic reduction to several government programs. This includes aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect in April 2013, and will remain in effect through 2030 unless additional Congressional action is taken; however, pursuant to the CARES Act, and subsequent legislation, these reductions are suspended from May 1, 2020 through March 31, 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In January 2013, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, was signed into law, which, among other things, further reduced Medicare payments to several providers, including hospitals and cancer treatment centers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years.

Additionally, there has been increasing legislative and enforcement interest in the United States with respect to specialty drug pricing practices. Specifically, there have been several recent U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, reduce the cost of prescription drugs under Medicare, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs. At the federal level, the Trump administration’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2021 includes a $135 billion allowance to support legislative proposals seeking to reduce drug prices, increase competition, lower out-of-pocket drug costs for patients, and increase patient access to lower-cost generic and biosimilar drugs. On March 10, 2020, the U.S. government sent “principles” for drug pricing to Congress, calling for legislation that would, among other things, cap Medicare Part D beneficiary out-of-pocket pharmacy expenses, provide an option to cap Medicare Part D beneficiary monthly out-of-pocket expenses, and place limits on pharmaceutical price increases. Further, the Trump administration previously released a “Blueprint”, or plan, to lower drug prices and reduce out of pocket costs of drugs that contains additional proposals to increase drug manufacturer competition, increase the negotiating power of certain federal healthcare programs, incentivize manufacturers to lower the list price of their products, and reduce the out of pocket costs of drug products paid by consumers. HHS has already started the process of soliciting feedback on some of these measures and, at the same, is immediately implementing others under its existing authority. For example, in May 2019, CMS issued a final rule to allow Medicare Advantage Plans the option of using step therapy, a type of prior authorization, for Part B drugs beginning January 1, 2020. This final rule codified CMS’s policy change that was effective January 1, 2019. In addition, there has been several changes to the 340B drug pricing program, which imposes ceilings on prices that drug manufacturers can charge for medications sold to certain health care facilities. On December 27, 2018, the District Court for the District of Columbia invalidated a reimbursement formula change under the 340B drug pricing program, and CMS subsequently altered the FYs 2019 and 2018 reimbursement formula on specified covered outpatient drugs (“SCODs”). The court ruled this change was not an “adjustment” which was within the Secretary’s discretion to make but was instead a fundamental change in the reimbursement calculation. However, most recently, on July 31, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit overturned the district court’s decision and found

91

that the changes were within the Secretary’s authority. On September 14, 2020, the plaintiffs-appellees filed a Petition for Rehearing En Banc (i.e., before the full court), but was denied on October 16, 2020. It is unclear how these developments could affect covered hospitals who might purchase our future products and affect the rates we may charge such facilities for our approved products in the future, if any.

Further, on July 24, 2020 and September 13, 2020, President Trump signed several Executive Orders aimed at lowering drug pricing that seek to implement several of the administration's proposals. The FDA also released a final rule on September 24, 2020, which went into effect on November 30, 2020, providing guidance for states to build and submit importation plans for drugs from Canada. Additionally, on November 20 2020 CMS issued an Interim Final Rule implementing the Most Favored Nation, or MFN, Model  under which  Medicare Part B reimbursement rates will be calculated for certain drugs and biologicals based on the lowest price drug manufacturers receive in Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries with a similar gross domestic product per capita.  The MFN Model regulations mandate participation by identified Part B providers and will apply in all U.S. states and territories for a seven-year period beginning January 1, 2021 and ending December 31, 2027.  The Interim Final Rule has not been finalized and is subject to revision and challenge. Additionally, on November 20, 2020, HHS finalized a regulation removing safe harbor protection for price reductions from pharmaceutical manufacturers to plan sponsors under Part D, either directly or through pharmacy benefit managers, unless the price reduction is required by law. The rule also creates a new safe harbor for price reductions reflected at the point-of-sale, as well as a safe harbor for certain fixed fee arrangements between pharmacy benefit managers and manufacturers. Although a number of these, and other proposed measures may require authorization through additional legislation to become effective, and the Biden administration may reverse or otherwise change these measures, Congress has indicated that it will continue to seek new legislative measures to control drug costs.

At the state level, legislatures are increasingly passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, or restrictions on certain product access, and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, which, in some cases, are designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing.

There have been, and likely will continue to be, legislative and regulatory proposals at the foreign, federal and state levels directed at broadening the availability of healthcare and containing or lowering the cost of healthcare. We cannot predict the initiatives that may be adopted in the future. The continuing efforts of the government, insurance companies, managed care organizations and other payors of healthcare services to contain or reduce costs of healthcare and/or impose price controls may adversely affect:

Any denial in coverage or reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government programs may result in a similar denial or reduction in payments from private payors, which may adversely affect our future profitability.

We are subject to the UK Bribery Act 2010, or the Bribery Act, the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, as amended, or the FCPA, and other anti-corruption laws, as well as export control laws, import and customs laws, trade and economic sanctions laws and other laws governing our operations.

Our operations are subject to anti-corruption laws, including the Bribery Act, the FCPA, the U.S. domestic bribery statute contained in 18 U.S.C. §201, the U.S. Travel Act, and other anti-corruption laws that apply in countries where we do business. The Bribery Act, the FCPA and these other laws generally prohibit us and our employees and intermediaries from authorizing, promising, offering, or providing, directly or indirectly, improper or prohibited payments, or anything else of value, to government officials or other persons to obtain or retain business or gain some other business advantage. Under the Bribery Act, we may also be liable for failing to prevent a person associated with us from committing a bribery offense. We and our commercial partners operate in a number of jurisdictions that pose a high risk of potential Bribery Act or FCPA violations, and we participate in collaborations and relationships with third parties whose corrupt or illegal activities could potentially subject us to liability under the Bribery Act, FCPA or local anti-corruption laws, even if we do not explicitly authorize or have actual knowledge of such activities. In addition, we cannot predict the nature, scope or effect of future regulatory requirements to which our international operations might be subject or the manner in which existing laws might be administered or interpreted.

92

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

There is no assurance that we will be completely effective in ensuring our compliance with all applicable anti-corruption laws, including the Bribery Act, the FCPA or other legal requirements, including Trade Control laws. If we are not in compliance with the Bribery Act, the FCPA and other anti-corruption laws or Trade Control laws, we may be subject to criminal and civil penalties, disgorgement and other sanctions and remedial measures, and legal expenses, which could have an adverse impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations and liquidity. Likewise, any investigation of any potential violations of the Bribery Act, the FCPA, other anti-corruption laws or Trade Control laws by United Kingdom, United States or other authorities could also have an adverse impact on our reputation, our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We may be subject, directly or indirectly, to federal and state healthcare fraud and abuse laws, false claims laws health information privacy and security laws, and other health care laws and regulations. If we are unable to comply, or have not fully complied, with such laws, we could face substantial penalties.

If we obtain FDA approval for any of our product candidates and begin commercializing those products in the United States, our operations will be directly, or indirectly through our prescribers, customers and purchasers, subject to various federal and state fraud and abuse laws and regulations, including, without limitation, the federal Health Care Program Anti-Kickback Statute, the federal civil and criminal False Claims Act and Physician Payments Sunshine Act and regulations. These laws will impact, among other things, our proposed sales, marketing and educational programs. In addition, we may be subject to patient privacy laws by both the federal government and the states in which we conduct our business. The laws that will affect our operations include, but are not limited to:

93

94

Recent events in the UK may further complicate our data protection compliance efforts in Europe. Following the UK’s withdrawal from the EU on January 31, 2020 and the end of the transitional arrangements agreed between the UK and EU as of January 1st, 2021, the GDPR has been incorporated into UK domestic law by virtue of section 3 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and amended by the Data Protection, Privacy and Electronic Communications (Amendments etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (‘UK GDPR’). UK-based organizations doing business in the EU will need to continue to comply with the EU GDPR. Further, there is uncertainty with regard to how data transfers to and from the UK will be regulated. Additionally, we are subject to state and foreign equivalents of each of the healthcare laws and regulations described above, among others, some of which may be broader in scope and may apply regardless of the payor. Many U.S. states have adopted laws similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and False Claims Act, and may apply to our business practices, including, but not limited to, research, distribution, sales or marketing arrangements and claims involving healthcare items or services reimbursed by non-governmental payors, including private insurers. In addition, some states have passed laws that require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the April 2003 Office of Inspector General Compliance Program Guidance for Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and/or the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America’s Code on Interactions with Healthcare Professionals. Several states also impose other marketing restrictions or require pharmaceutical companies to make marketing or price disclosures to the state and require the registration of pharmaceutical sales representatives. State and foreign laws, including for example the European Union General Data Protection Regulation, which became effective May 2018 also govern the privacy and security of health information in some circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not preempted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts. There are ambiguities as to what is required to comply with these state requirements and if we fail to comply with an applicable state law requirement we could be subject to penalties. Finally, there are state and foreign laws governing the privacy and security of health information, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not preempted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts.

In the event we decide to conduct clinical trials or continue to enroll subjects in our ongoing or future clinical trials, we may be subject to additional privacy restrictions. The collection, use, storage, disclosure, transfer, or other processing of personal data regarding individuals in the European Economic Area, including personal health data, is subject to the EU General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR, which became effective on May 25, 2018. The GDPR is wide-ranging in scope and imposes numerous requirements on companies that process personal data, including requirements relating to processing health and other sensitive data, obtaining consent of the individuals to whom the personal data relates, providing information to individuals regarding data processing activities, implementing safeguards to protect the security and confidentiality of personal data, providing notification of data breaches, and taking certain measures when engaging third-party processors. The GDPR also imposes strict rules on the transfer of personal data to countries outside the European Economic Area, including the United States, and permits data protection authorities to impose large penalties for violations of the GDPR, including potential fines of up to €20 million or 4% of annual global revenues, whichever is greater. The GDPR also confers a private right of action on data subjects and consumer associations to lodge complaints with supervisory authorities, seek judicial remedies, and obtain compensation for damages resulting from violations of the GDPR. In addition, the GDPR includes restrictions on cross-border data transfers. The GDPR may increase our responsibility and liability in relation to personal data that we process where such processing is subject to the GDPR, and we may be required to put in place additional mechanisms to ensure compliance with the GDPR, including as implemented by individual countries. Compliance with the GDPR will be a rigorous and time-intensive process that may increase our cost of doing business or require us to change our business practices, and despite those efforts, there is a risk that we may be subject to fines and penalties, litigation, and reputational harm in connection with our European activities. In addition, further to the United Kingdom’s exit from the EU (“Brexit”) on January 31, 2020 and the expiry of the subsequent transition period on December 31, 2020, the GDPR has been brought into UK law as the ‘UK GDPR’; however, there may be further developments about the regulation of particular issues such as UK-EU data transfers. A bridging mechanism is currently in place between the UK and the EU to enable the free flow of data until an adequacy decision by the European Commission regarding the UK can be put in place. However, if we engage in personal data processing activities that cause us to be subject to UK data protection law, we may be required to take steps to ensure the lawfulness of our data transfers in the future.

Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of the statutory exceptions and safe harbors available, it is possible that some of our business activities could be subject to challenge and may not comply under one or more of such laws, regulations, and guidance. Law enforcement authorities are increasingly focused on enforcing fraud and abuse laws, and it is possible that some of our practices may be challenged under these laws. Efforts to ensure that our current and future business arrangements with third parties, and our business generally, will comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations will involve substantial costs. If our operations, including our arrangements with physicians and other healthcare providers, some of whom receive share options as compensation for services provided, are found to be in violation of any of such laws or any other governmental regulations that apply to us, we may be subject to penalties, including, without limitation, administrative, civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, exclusion from participation in federal and state healthcare programs (such as Medicare and Medicaid), and imprisonment, as well as additional reporting obligations and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or other agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our financial results.

95

If we or our CDMOs and CROs fail to comply with environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, we could become subject to fines or penalties or incur costs that could have a material adverse effect on the success of our business.

We and third parties such as our CDMOs and CROs are subject to numerous environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, including those governing laboratory procedures and the handling, use, storage, treatment and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes. Our operations involve the use of hazardous and flammable materials, including chemicals and biological materials. Our operations also produce hazardous waste products. We generally contract with third parties for the disposal of these materials and wastes. We cannot eliminate the risk of contamination or injury from these materials. In the event of contamination or injury resulting from our use of hazardous materials, we could be held liable for any resulting damages, and any liability could exceed our resources. We also could incur significant costs associated with civil or criminal fines and penalties. Furthermore, environmental laws and regulations are complex, change frequently and have tended to become more stringent. We cannot predict the impact of such changes and cannot be certain of our future compliance. In addition, we may incur substantial costs in order to comply with current or future environmental, health and safety laws and regulations. These current or future laws and regulations may impair our research, development or production efforts. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations also may result in substantial fines, penalties or other sanctions.

Although we maintain workers’ compensation insurance to cover us for costs and expenses we may incur due to injuries to our employees resulting from the use of hazardous materials or other work-related injuries, this insurance may not provide adequate coverage against potential liabilities. In addition, we may incur substantial costs in order to comply with current or future environmental, health and safety laws and regulations. These current or future laws and regulations may impair our research, development or production efforts. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations also may result in substantial fines, penalties or other sanctions or liabilities, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

As a company based outside of the United States, our business is subject to economic, political, regulatory and other risks associated with international operations.

As a company based partly in the United Kingdom and EU countries, our business is subject to risks associated with conducting business outside of the United States. Many of our suppliers and clinical trial relationships are located outside the United States. Accordingly, our future results could be harmed by a variety of factors, including:

96

Risks related to our intellectual property

We may become subject to claims that we are infringing certain third party patents, for example, patents relating to lentiviral vectors, or other third party intellectual property rights, any of which may prevent or delay our development and commercialization efforts and have a material adverse effect on our business.

Our commercial success depends in part on avoiding infringing, misappropriating and otherwise violating the patents and other intellectual property and proprietary rights of third parties. There is a substantial amount of litigation, both within and outside the United States, involving patent and other intellectual property rights in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, including patent infringement lawsuits, and administrative proceedings such as interferences, inter partes review and post grant review proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, and opposition proceedings before foreign patent offices. Numerous U.S. and foreign issued patents and pending patent applications, which are owned or controlled by third parties, including our competitors, exist in the fields in which we are pursuing products and product candidates. As the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries expand and more patents are issued, the risk increases that our products and product candidates may be subject to claims of infringement of the patent rights of third parties.

Third parties may assert that we or our licensors are employing their proprietary technology without authorization. There may be third party patents or patent applications with claims to materials, formulations, methods of manufacture or methods for treatment relating to our products and product candidates and, because patent applications can take many years to issue, there may be currently pending third party patent applications which may later result in issued patents, in each case that our products and product candidates, their manufacture or use may infringe or be alleged to infringe.

Parties making patent infringement 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 products or product candidates. Defense of these claims, including demonstrating non-infringement, invalidity or unenforceability of the respective patent rights in question, regardless of their merit, is time-consuming, would involve substantial litigation expense and would be a substantial diversion of employee resources from our business. For example, in order to successfully challenge the validity of any U.S. patent in federal court, we would need to overcome a presumption of validity. This is a high burden requiring us to present clear and convincing evidence as to the invalidity of any such U.S. patent claim, and we can provide no assurance that a court of competent jurisdiction would invalidate the claims of any such U.S. patent. We may not have sufficient resources to bring these actions to a successful conclusion. There could also be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments.

In the event that a holder of any such patents seeks to enforce its patent rights against us with respect to one or more of our products or product candidates, and our defenses against the infringement of such patent rights are unsuccessful, we may be precluded from commercializing such products and product candidates, even if approved, without first obtaining a license to some or all of these patents, which may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Moreover, we may be required to pay significant fees and royalties to secure a license to the applicable patents. Such a license may only be non-exclusive, in which case our ability to stop others from using or commercializing technology and products similar or identical to ours may be limited. Furthermore, we could be liable for damages to the holders of these patents, which may be significant and could include treble damages if we are found to have willfully infringed such patents. In the event that a challenge to these patents were to be unsuccessful or we were to become subject to litigation or unable to obtain a license on commercially reasonable terms with respect to these patents, it could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We are aware of third-party issued patents and patent applications relating to the lentiviral vectors used in the manufacture or use of one or more our product candidates and/or relating to one or more of our product candidates. If these patent rights were enforced against us, we believe that we have defenses against any such action, including that these patents would not be infringed by our product candidates and/or that these patents are not valid. However, if these patents were enforced against us and defenses to such enforcement were unsuccessful, unless we obtain a license to these patents, which may not be available on commercially reasonable terms, or at all, we could be liable for damages and precluded from commercializing any products and product candidates that were ultimately held to infringe these patents, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

97

Even in the absence of a finding of infringement, we may need to obtain licenses from third parties to advance our research or allow commercialization of our products and product candidates. We may fail to obtain any of these licenses at a reasonable cost or on reasonable terms, or at all. In that event, we would be unable to further develop and commercialize our products and product candidates. Claims that we have misappropriated the confidential information or trade secrets of third parties could have a similar negative impact on our business. Any of the foregoing could materially adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

In addition, our trade secrets may otherwise become known or be independently discovered by competitors. Competitors and other third parties could purchase our products and product candidates and attempt to replicate some or all of the competitive advantages we derive from our development efforts, willfully infringe, misappropriate or otherwise violate our intellectual property rights, design around our protected technology or develop their own competitive technologies that fall outside of our intellectual property rights. If any of our trade secrets were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor or other third party, we would have no right to prevent them, or those to whom they communicate it, from using that technology or information to compete with us. If our trade secrets are not adequately protected or sufficient to provide an advantage over our competitors, our competitive position could be adversely affected, as could our business. Additionally, if the steps taken to maintain our trade secrets are deemed inadequate, we may have insufficient recourse against third parties for misappropriating our trade secrets.

We are highly dependent on intellectual property and data licensed from third parties to develop and commercialize our products and product candidates and our development and commercialization abilities are subject, in part, to the terms and conditions of licenses granted to us by such third parties.

We are highly dependent on the intellectual property and data licensed to us by third parties that are important or necessary to the development of our technology and products and product candidates, including technology related to the manufacture and use of our products and product candidates. In particular, we do not own any patents or patent applications and have not in-licensed any issued patents related to Strimvelis, Libmeldy or any of our lead product candidates. We have in-licensed one U.S. patent application and a counterpart European patent application, know-how and data from UCLA and UCL Business plc, or UCLB, relating to OTL-101 for ADA-SCID. In addition, we have in-licensed certain know-how and data from GSK and Telethon-OSR, relating to Strimvelis, OTL-103 for WAS, Libmeldy, and OTL-300 for TDT, certain know-how and data from Telethon-OSR relating to OTL-203 for MPS-I, and certain other intellectual property for our clinical and preclinical programs. Any termination of these license rights could result in the loss of significant rights and could harm or prevent our ability to commercialize our products and product candidates.

Although our license rights from The Regents of the University of California, University College London, GSK, and Telethon-OSR, are exclusive, they are limited to particular fields, such as ADA-SCID, MLD, WAS or TDT, and are subject to certain retained rights. Absent an amendment or additional agreement, we may not have the right to use the in-licensed intellectual property, data, or know-how for one of our programs in another program. Furthermore, the licenses (including sublicenses) that we have or may enter into in the future may not provide 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, products and product candidates. As a result, we may not be free to commercialize certain of our products or product candidates in fields or territories of interest to us. Furthermore, if the licenses are not exclusive in territories of interest to us, we may be unable to prevent competitors from developing and commercializing competitive products in territories included in our licenses. Licenses (including sublicenses) to additional third-party technology that may be required for our development programs may not be available in the future or may not be available on commercially reasonable terms, or at all, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

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 third parties. Therefore, we cannot be certain that these patents and applications will be prosecuted, maintained and enforced in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business. If our licensors fail to maintain such patents, or lose rights to those patents or patent applications, the rights we have licensed may be reduced or eliminated and our right to develop and commercialize any of our products and product candidates that are the subject of such licensed rights could be adversely affected.

Our current license agreements impose, and we expect that future license agreements that we may enter into will impose, various obligations, including diligence and certain payment obligations. If we fail to satisfy our obligations, the licensor may have the right to terminate the agreement. Disputes may arise between us and any of our licensors regarding intellectual property subject to such agreements and other issues. Such disputes over intellectual property that we have licensed or the terms of our license agreements may prevent or impair our ability to maintain our current arrangements on acceptable terms, or at all, or may impair the value of the arrangement to us. Any such dispute could have a material adverse effect on our business. If we cannot maintain a necessary license agreement or if the agreement is terminated, we may be unable to successfully develop and commercialize the affected products and product candidates. Termination of our license agreements or reduction or elimination of our rights under them may result in our having to negotiate a new or reinstated agreement, which may not be available to us on equally favorable terms, or at all, which may mean we are unable to develop

98

or commercialize the affected product or product candidate or cause us to lose our rights under the agreement. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business.

If we are unable to obtain and maintain patent and other intellectual property protection for our products and product candidates, or if the scope of the patent and other intellectual property protection obtained is not sufficiently broad, our competitors could develop and commercialize products similar or identical to ours, and our ability to successfully commercialize our products and product candidates may be adversely affected.

Our ability to compete effectively will depend, in part, on our ability to maintain the proprietary nature of our technology and manufacturing processes. We rely on manufacturing and other know-how, patents, trade secrets, license agreements and contractual provisions to establish our intellectual property rights and protect our products and product candidates. These legal means, however, afford only limited protection and may not adequately protect our rights. We currently do not own any patents or patent applications and have not in-licensed any issued patents related to Strimvelis, Libmeldy or OTL-103. Many of our products and product candidates are in-licensed from third parties. Accordingly, in some cases, the availability and scope of potential patent protection is limited based on prior decisions by our licensors or the inventors, such as decisions on when to file patent applications or whether to file patent applications at all. Our or our licensors’ failure to obtain, maintain, enforce or defend such intellectual property rights, for any reason, could allow third parties, in particular, other established and better financed gene therapy companies having established development, manufacturing and distribution capabilities, to make competing products or impact our ability to develop, manufacture and market our products and product candidates, even if approved, on a commercially viable basis, if at all, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

In particular, we rely primarily on trade secrets, know-how and other unpatented technology, which are difficult to protect. Although we seek such protection in part by entering into confidentiality agreements with our vendors, employees, consultants and others who may have access to proprietary information, we cannot be certain that these agreements will not be breached, adequate remedies for any breach would be available, or our trade secrets, know-how and other unpatented proprietary technology will not otherwise become known to or be independently developed by our competitors. If we are unsuccessful in protecting our intellectual property rights, sales of our products may suffer and our ability to generate revenue could be severely impacted.

We currently do not own any issued patents related to Strimvelis, Libmeldy or our lead product candidates. Certain intellectual property related to Strimvelis, Libmeldy and all of our product candidates are in-licensed from third parties but we have not in-licensed any issued patents related to Strimvelis, Libmeldy or any of our product candidates, except for OTL-101 for which we have in-licensed a U.S. patent and its counterpart European patent from The Regents of the University of California and University College London. In certain situations and as considered appropriate, we and our licensors have sought, and we intend to continue to seek to protect our proprietary position by filing patent applications in the United States and, in at least some cases, one or more countries outside the United States relating to current and future products and product candidates that are important to our business. However, we cannot predict whether the patent applications currently being pursued will issue as patents, whether the claims of any resulting patents will provide us with a competitive advantage or prevent competitors from designing around our claims to develop competing technologies in a non-infringing manner, or whether we will be able to successfully pursue patent applications in the future relating to our current or future products and product candidates. Moreover, the patent application and approval process is expensive and time-consuming. We may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner. Furthermore, we, or any future partners, collaborators, or licensees, may 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. Therefore, we may miss potential opportunities to seek additional patent protection.

It is possible that defects of form in the preparation or filing of patent applications may exist, or may arise in the future, for example with respect to proper priority claims, inventorship, claim scope, or requests for patent term adjustments. If we fail to establish, maintain or protect such patents and other intellectual property rights, such rights may be reduced or eliminated. If there are material defects in the form, preparation, prosecution or enforcement of our patents or patent applications, such patents may be invalid and/or unenforceable, and such applications may never result in valid, enforceable patents. Any of these outcomes could impair our ability to prevent competition from third parties, which may have an adverse impact on our business.

Other parties, many of whom have substantially greater resources and have made significant investments in competing technologies, have developed or may develop technologies that may be related or competitive with our approach, and may have filed or may file patent applications and may have been issued or may be issued patents with claims that overlap or conflict with our patent applications, either by claiming the same compositions, formulations or methods or by claiming subject matter that could dominate our patent position. In addition, the laws of foreign countries may not protect our rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States. As a result, any patents we may obtain in the future may not provide us with adequate and continuing patent protection sufficient to exclude others from commercializing products similar to our products and product candidates.

99

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

Filing, prosecuting, maintaining, defending and enforcing patents on products and product candidates in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and our intellectual property rights in some countries outside the United States could be less extensive than those in the United States. There can be no assurance that we will obtain or maintain patent rights in or outside the United States under any future license agreements. 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 even in jurisdictions where we and our licensors pursue patent protection. Consequently, we and our licensors may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in all countries outside the United States, even in jurisdictions where we and our licensors pursue patent protection, or from selling or importing products made using our inventions in and into the United States or other jurisdictions. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we and our licensors have not pursued and obtained patent protection to develop their own products and, further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we have patent protection, but enforcement is not as strong as that in the United States. These products may compete with our products and product candidates and our 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, trade secrets and other intellectual property protection, particularly those relating to biotechnology products, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents or marketing of competing products in violation of our proprietary rights generally. Proceedings to enforce our patent rights, even if obtained, in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and our patent applications at risk of not issuing and could provoke third parties to assert claims against us. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop or license.

Issued patents covering our products and product candidates could be found invalid or unenforceable if challenged in court or in administrative proceedings. We may not be able to protect our trade secrets in court.

If one of our licensing partners or we initiate legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent covering one of our products or product candidates, should such a patent issue, the defendant could counterclaim that the patent covering our product or product candidate is invalid or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity or unenforceability are commonplace. Grounds for a validity challenge could be an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, including lack of novelty, obviousness, written description or non-enablement. Grounds for an unenforceability assertion could be an allegation that someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld information material to patentability from the USPTO, or made a misleading statement, during prosecution. Third parties also may raise similar claims before administrative bodies in the United States or abroad, even outside the context of litigation. Such mechanisms include re-examination, post grant review, inter partes review and equivalent proceedings in foreign jurisdictions. An adverse determination in any of the foregoing proceedings could result in the revocation or cancellation of, or amendment to, our patents in such a way that they no longer cover our products or product candidates. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. With respect to the validity question, for example, we cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior art, of which the patent examiner and we or our licensing partners were unaware during prosecution. If a defendant or third party were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity or unenforceability, we could lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on one or more of our products and product candidates. Such a loss of patent protection could have a material adverse impact on our business.

In addition to the protection afforded by patents, we rely on trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect proprietary know-how that is not patentable or that we elect not to patent, processes for which patents are difficult to enforce and any other elements of our product candidate discovery and development processes that involve proprietary know-how, information or technology that is not covered by patents. However, trade secrets can be difficult to protect and some courts inside and outside the United States are less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets. We seek to protect our proprietary technology and processes, in part, by entering into confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants, scientific advisors, and contractors. We cannot guarantee that we have entered into such agreements with each party that may have or have had access to our trade secrets or proprietary technology and processes. We also seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our data and trade secrets by maintaining physical security of our premises and physical and electronic security of our information technology systems. While we have confidence in these individuals, organizations and systems, agreements or security measures may be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies for any breach.

100

If we do not obtain patent term extension and data exclusivity for our products and product candidates, our business may be materially harmed.

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. non-provisional filing date. Various extensions may be available, but the life of a patent, and the protection it affords, is limited. Even if patents covering our products and product candidates are obtained, once the patent life has expired for a product or product candidate, we may be open to competition from competitive products. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidates are commercialized. As a result, our owned and licensed patent portfolio may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing products and product candidates similar or identical to ours.

In the future, if we obtain an issued patent covering one of our present or future product candidates, depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of any FDA marketing approval of such product candidates, such patent may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, or Hatch-Waxman Amendments. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit a patent extension term of up to five years as compensation for patent term lost during the FDA regulatory review process. A patent term extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval, only one patent may be extended and only those claims covering the approved drug, a method for using it or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. A patent may only be extended once and only based on a single approved product. However, we may not be granted an extension because of, for example, failure to obtain a granted patent before approval of a product candidate, failure to exercise due diligence during the testing phase or regulatory review process, failure to apply within applicable deadlines, failure to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents or otherwise our failure to satisfy applicable requirements. Moreover, the applicable time period or the scope of patent protection afforded 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, our competitors may obtain approval of competing products following our patent expiration, and our revenue could be reduced, possibly materially. In addition, we do not control the efforts of our licensors to obtain a patent term extension, and there can be no assurance that they will pursue or obtain such extensions to patents that we may license from them.

Some intellectual property which we have in-licensed may have been discovered through government funded programs and thus may be subject to federal regulations such as “march-in” rights, certain reporting requirements, and a preference for U.S. industry. Compliance with such regulations may limit our exclusive rights, and limit our ability to contract with non-U.S. manufacturers.

Some of the intellectual property rights we have licensed , including rights licensed to us by UCLA relating to our OTL-101 product candidate for ADA-SCID, may have been generated through the use of U.S. government and California state funding and may therefore be subject to certain federal and state laws and regulations. As a result, the U.S. government may have certain rights to intellectual property embodied in our current or future products and product candidates pursuant to the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980. These U.S. government rights in certain inventions developed under a government-funded program include a non-exclusive, non-transferable, irrevocable worldwide license to use inventions for any governmental purpose. In addition, the U.S. government has the right to require us to grant exclusive, partially exclusive, or non-exclusive licenses to any of these inventions to a third party if it determines that: (i) adequate steps have not been taken to commercialize the invention; (ii) government action is necessary to meet public health or safety needs; or (iii) government action is necessary to meet requirements for public use under federal regulations (also referred to as “march-in rights”). The U.S. government also has the right to take title to these inventions if we, or the applicable licensor, fail to disclose the invention to the government and fail to file an application to register the intellectual property within specified time limits. Intellectual property generated under a government funded program is also subject to certain reporting requirements, compliance with which may require us or the applicable licensor to expend substantial resources. In addition, the U.S. government requires that products embodying the subject invention or produced through the use of the subject invention be manufactured substantially in the United States. The manufacturing preference requirement can be waived if the owner of the intellectual property can show that reasonable but unsuccessful efforts have been made to grant licenses on similar terms to potential licensees that would be likely to manufacture substantially in the United States or that under the circumstances domestic manufacture is not commercially feasible. This preference for U.S. manufacturers may limit our ability to contract with non-U.S. product manufacturers for products covered by such intellectual property. With respect to state funding, specifically funding via the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine, or CIRM, the grantee has certain obligations and the state or CIRM has certain rights. For example, the grantee has an obligation to share intellectual property, including research results, generated by CIRM-funded research, for research use in California.

101

Intellectual property rights and regulatory exclusivity rights do not necessarily address all potential threats.

The degree of future protection afforded by our intellectual property rights is uncertain because intellectual property rights have limitations, and may not adequately protect our business or permit us to maintain our competitive advantage. For example: