0001730463false2025FY00-0000000True11P3YP2Yiso4217:USDxbrli:sharesiso4217:USDxbrli:sharesiso4217:GBPxbrli:sharesxbrli:pureautl:segmentautl:financialInstrumentautl:performanceObligationautl:securityiso4217:GBPautl:paymentautl:unitautl:voteautl:manufacturingSuiteautl:contractutr:sqftautl:renewalOptionautl:directorautl:batchiso4217:EUR00017304632025-01-012025-12-310001730463dei:AdrMember2025-01-012025-12-310001730463autl:OrdinarySharesMember2025-01-012025-12-3100017304632025-06-3000017304632026-03-2600017304632025-10-012025-12-3100017304632025-12-3100017304632024-12-310001730463autl:OrdinarySharesMember2025-12-310001730463autl:OrdinarySharesMember2024-12-310001730463autl:DeferredSharesMember2025-12-310001730463autl:DeferredSharesMember2024-12-310001730463autl:DeferredClassBSharesMember2025-12-310001730463autl:DeferredClassBSharesMember2024-12-310001730463autl:DeferredClassCSharesMember2024-12-310001730463autl:DeferredClassCSharesMember2025-12-310001730463us-gaap:ProductMember2025-01-012025-12-310001730463us-gaap:ProductMember2024-01-012024-12-310001730463us-gaap:LicenseMember2025-01-012025-12-310001730463us-gaap:LicenseMember2024-01-012024-12-3100017304632024-01-012024-12-310001730463autl:OrdinarySharesMemberus-gaap:CommonStockMember2023-12-310001730463autl:DeferredSharesMemberus-gaap:CommonStockMember2023-12-310001730463autl:DeferredClassBSharesMemberus-gaap:CommonStockMember2023-12-310001730463autl:DeferredClassCSharesMemberus-gaap:CommonStockMember2023-12-310001730463us-gaap:AdditionalPaidInCapitalMember2023-12-310001730463us-gaap:AccumulatedOtherComprehensiveIncomeMember2023-12-310001730463us-gaap:RetainedEarningsMember2023-12-3100017304632023-12-310001730463autl:OrdinarySharesMemberus-gaap:CommonStockMember2024-01-012024-12-310001730463us-gaap:AdditionalPaidInCapitalMember2024-01-012024-12-310001730463us-gaap:AccumulatedOtherComprehensiveIncomeMember2024-01-012024-12-310001730463us-gaap:RetainedEarningsMember2024-01-012024-12-310001730463autl:OrdinarySharesMemberus-gaap:CommonStockMember2024-12-310001730463autl:DeferredSharesMemberus-gaap:CommonStockMember2024-12-310001730463autl:DeferredClassBSharesMemberus-gaap:CommonStockMember2024-12-310001730463autl:DeferredClassCSharesMemberus-gaap:CommonStockMember2024-12-310001730463us-gaap:AdditionalPaidInCapitalMember2024-12-310001730463us-gaap:AccumulatedOtherComprehensiveIncomeMember2024-12-310001730463us-gaap:RetainedEarningsMember2024-12-310001730463us-gaap:AdditionalPaidInCapitalMember2025-01-012025-12-310001730463autl:OrdinarySharesMemberus-gaap:CommonStockMember2025-01-012025-12-310001730463us-gaap:AccumulatedOtherComprehensiveIncomeMember2025-01-012025-12-310001730463us-gaap:RetainedEarningsMember2025-01-012025-12-310001730463autl:OrdinarySharesMemberus-gaap:CommonStockMember2025-12-310001730463autl:DeferredSharesMemberus-gaap:CommonStockMember2025-12-310001730463autl:DeferredClassBSharesMemberus-gaap:CommonStockMember2025-12-310001730463autl:DeferredClassCSharesMemberus-gaap:CommonStockMember2025-12-310001730463us-gaap:AdditionalPaidInCapitalMember2025-12-310001730463us-gaap:AccumulatedOtherComprehensiveIncomeMember2025-12-310001730463us-gaap:RetainedEarningsMember2025-12-310001730463us-gaap:OfficeEquipmentMember2025-12-310001730463srt:MinimumMemberus-gaap:EquipmentMember2025-12-310001730463srt:MaximumMemberus-gaap:EquipmentMember2025-12-310001730463us-gaap:FurnitureAndFixturesMember2025-12-310001730463autl:StrategicCollaborationAndFinancingAgreementMember2024-12-310001730463autl:StrategicCollaborationAndFinancingAgreementMember2025-12-310001730463autl:BioNTechLiabilityMember2024-12-310001730463autl:BioNTechLiabilityMember2025-12-310001730463dei:AdrMembersrt:MinimumMemberus-gaap:MeasurementInputExpectedTermMember2025-01-012025-12-310001730463us-gaap:EmployeeStockOptionMember2025-01-012025-12-310001730463us-gaap:ProductMembercountry:US2025-01-012025-12-310001730463us-gaap:ProductMembercountry:US2024-01-012024-12-310001730463autl:RebatesMember2024-12-310001730463autl:ChargebackMember2024-12-310001730463autl:RebatesMember2025-01-012025-12-310001730463autl:ChargebackMember2025-01-012025-12-310001730463autl:RebatesMember2025-12-310001730463autl:ChargebackMember2025-12-310001730463us-gaap:LicenseMembercountry:US2025-01-012025-12-310001730463us-gaap:LicenseMembercountry:US2024-01-012024-12-310001730463us-gaap:LicenseMembersrt:EuropeMember2025-01-012025-12-310001730463us-gaap:LicenseMembersrt:EuropeMember2024-01-012024-12-310001730463us-gaap:LicenseMemberautl:BioNTechMember2024-01-012024-12-310001730463us-gaap:LicenseMemberautl:BioNTechMember2025-01-012025-12-310001730463autl:BioNTechMemberautl:LicenseAndOptionsMember2025-12-310001730463autl:TechnologyOptionsMemberautl:BioNTechMember2025-01-012025-12-310001730463autl:ModernaTXIncMemberus-gaap:LicenseMember2021-06-220001730463autl:ModernaTXIncMemberus-gaap:LicenseMember2021-06-222021-06-220001730463autl:ModernaTXIncMemberus-gaap:LicenseMember2025-01-012025-12-310001730463us-gaap:RoyaltyMember2024-01-012024-12-310001730463us-gaap:RoyaltyMember2025-01-012025-12-310001730463us-gaap:MoneyMarketFundsMember2025-12-310001730463us-gaap:MoneyMarketFundsMemberus-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel1Member2025-12-310001730463us-gaap:MoneyMarketFundsMemberus-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel2Member2025-12-310001730463us-gaap:MoneyMarketFundsMemberus-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel3Member2025-12-310001730463us-gaap:ForeignGovernmentDebtSecuritiesMember2025-12-310001730463us-gaap:ForeignGovernmentDebtSecuritiesMemberus-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel1Member2025-12-310001730463us-gaap:ForeignGovernmentDebtSecuritiesMemberus-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel2Member2025-12-310001730463us-gaap:ForeignGovernmentDebtSecuritiesMemberus-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel3Member2025-12-310001730463us-gaap:CorporateDebtSecuritiesMember2025-12-310001730463us-gaap:CorporateDebtSecuritiesMemberus-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel1Member2025-12-310001730463us-gaap:CorporateDebtSecuritiesMemberus-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel2Member2025-12-310001730463us-gaap:CorporateDebtSecuritiesMemberus-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel3Member2025-12-310001730463us-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel1Member2025-12-310001730463us-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel2Member2025-12-310001730463us-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel3Member2025-12-310001730463us-gaap:CommercialPaperMember2025-12-310001730463us-gaap:CommercialPaperMemberus-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel1Member2025-12-310001730463us-gaap:CommercialPaperMemberus-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel2Member2025-12-310001730463us-gaap:CommercialPaperMemberus-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel3Member2025-12-310001730463us-gaap:CorporateDebtSecuritiesMember2025-12-310001730463us-gaap:CorporateDebtSecuritiesMemberus-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel1Member2025-12-310001730463us-gaap:CorporateDebtSecuritiesMemberus-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel2Member2025-12-310001730463us-gaap:CorporateDebtSecuritiesMemberus-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel3Member2025-12-310001730463us-gaap:ForeignGovernmentDebtSecuritiesMember2025-12-310001730463us-gaap:ForeignGovernmentDebtSecuritiesMemberus-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel1Member2025-12-310001730463us-gaap:ForeignGovernmentDebtSecuritiesMemberus-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel2Member2025-12-310001730463us-gaap:ForeignGovernmentDebtSecuritiesMemberus-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel3Member2025-12-310001730463us-gaap:USTreasuryBillSecuritiesMember2025-12-310001730463us-gaap:USTreasuryBillSecuritiesMemberus-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel1Member2025-12-310001730463us-gaap:USTreasuryBillSecuritiesMemberus-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel2Member2025-12-310001730463us-gaap:USTreasuryBillSecuritiesMemberus-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel3Member2025-12-310001730463us-gaap:MoneyMarketFundsMember2024-12-310001730463us-gaap:MoneyMarketFundsMemberus-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel1Member2024-12-310001730463us-gaap:MoneyMarketFundsMemberus-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel2Member2024-12-310001730463us-gaap:MoneyMarketFundsMemberus-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel3Member2024-12-310001730463us-gaap:CommercialPaperMember2024-12-310001730463us-gaap:CommercialPaperMemberus-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel1Member2024-12-310001730463us-gaap:CommercialPaperMemberus-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel2Member2024-12-310001730463us-gaap:CommercialPaperMemberus-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel3Member2024-12-310001730463us-gaap:ForeignGovernmentDebtSecuritiesMember2024-12-310001730463us-gaap:ForeignGovernmentDebtSecuritiesMemberus-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel1Member2024-12-310001730463us-gaap:ForeignGovernmentDebtSecuritiesMemberus-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel2Member2024-12-310001730463us-gaap:ForeignGovernmentDebtSecuritiesMemberus-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel3Member2024-12-310001730463us-gaap:USTreasuryBillSecuritiesMember2024-12-310001730463us-gaap:USTreasuryBillSecuritiesMemberus-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel1Member2024-12-310001730463us-gaap:USTreasuryBillSecuritiesMemberus-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel2Member2024-12-310001730463us-gaap:USTreasuryBillSecuritiesMemberus-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel3Member2024-12-310001730463us-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel1Member2024-12-310001730463us-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel2Member2024-12-310001730463us-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel3Member2024-12-310001730463us-gaap:CommercialPaperMember2024-12-310001730463us-gaap:CommercialPaperMemberus-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel1Member2024-12-310001730463us-gaap:CommercialPaperMemberus-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel2Member2024-12-310001730463us-gaap:CommercialPaperMemberus-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel3Member2024-12-310001730463us-gaap:CorporateDebtSecuritiesMember2024-12-310001730463us-gaap:CorporateDebtSecuritiesMemberus-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel1Member2024-12-310001730463us-gaap:CorporateDebtSecuritiesMemberus-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel2Member2024-12-310001730463us-gaap:CorporateDebtSecuritiesMemberus-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel3Member2024-12-310001730463us-gaap:ForeignGovernmentDebtSecuritiesMember2024-12-310001730463us-gaap:ForeignGovernmentDebtSecuritiesMemberus-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel1Member2024-12-310001730463us-gaap:ForeignGovernmentDebtSecuritiesMemberus-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel2Member2024-12-310001730463us-gaap:ForeignGovernmentDebtSecuritiesMemberus-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel3Member2024-12-310001730463us-gaap:USTreasuryBillSecuritiesMember2024-12-310001730463us-gaap:USTreasuryBillSecuritiesMemberus-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel1Member2024-12-310001730463us-gaap:USTreasuryBillSecuritiesMemberus-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel2Member2024-12-310001730463us-gaap:USTreasuryBillSecuritiesMemberus-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel3Member2024-12-310001730463us-gaap:CommercialPaperMemberautl:DebtSecuritiesAvailableForSaleMemberautl:ContractualMaturityWithinOneYearMember2025-12-310001730463us-gaap:CorporateDebtSecuritiesMemberautl:DebtSecuritiesAvailableForSaleMemberautl:ContractualMaturityWithinOneYearMember2025-12-310001730463us-gaap:ForeignGovernmentDebtSecuritiesMemberautl:DebtSecuritiesAvailableForSaleMemberautl:ContractualMaturityWithinOneYearMember2025-12-310001730463us-gaap:USTreasuryBillSecuritiesMemberautl:DebtSecuritiesAvailableForSaleMemberautl:ContractualMaturityWithinOneYearMember2025-12-310001730463autl:DebtSecuritiesAvailableForSaleMember2025-12-310001730463us-gaap:CommercialPaperMemberautl:DebtSecuritiesAvailableForSaleMemberautl:ContractualMaturityWithinOneYearMember2024-12-310001730463us-gaap:CorporateDebtSecuritiesMemberautl:DebtSecuritiesAvailableForSaleMemberautl:ContractualMaturityWithinOneYearMember2024-12-310001730463us-gaap:ForeignGovernmentDebtSecuritiesMemberautl:DebtSecuritiesAvailableForSaleMemberautl:ContractualMaturityWithinOneYearMember2024-12-310001730463us-gaap:USTreasuryBillSecuritiesMemberautl:DebtSecuritiesAvailableForSaleMemberautl:ContractualMaturityWithinOneYearMember2024-12-310001730463us-gaap:CorporateDebtSecuritiesMemberautl:DebtSecuritiesAvailableForSaleMemberautl:ContractualMaturityWithinOneThroughFiveYearsMember2024-12-310001730463us-gaap:USTreasuryBillSecuritiesMemberautl:DebtSecuritiesAvailableForSaleMemberautl:ContractualMaturityWithinOneThroughFiveYearsMember2024-12-310001730463autl:DebtSecuritiesAvailableForSaleMember2024-12-310001730463us-gaap:CommercialPaperMemberautl:DebtSecuritiesAvailableForSaleMember2025-12-310001730463us-gaap:CorporateDebtSecuritiesMemberautl:DebtSecuritiesAvailableForSaleMember2025-12-310001730463us-gaap:CommercialPaperMemberautl:DebtSecuritiesAvailableForSaleMember2024-12-310001730463us-gaap:CorporateDebtSecuritiesMemberautl:DebtSecuritiesAvailableForSaleMember2024-12-310001730463us-gaap:ForeignGovernmentDebtSecuritiesMemberautl:DebtSecuritiesAvailableForSaleMember2024-12-310001730463us-gaap:USTreasuryBillSecuritiesMemberautl:DebtSecuritiesAvailableForSaleMember2024-12-310001730463us-gaap:EquipmentMember2025-12-310001730463us-gaap:EquipmentMember2024-12-310001730463us-gaap:OfficeEquipmentMember2024-12-310001730463us-gaap:FurnitureAndFixturesMember2024-12-310001730463us-gaap:LeaseholdImprovementsMember2025-12-310001730463us-gaap:LeaseholdImprovementsMember2024-12-310001730463us-gaap:AssetUnderConstructionMember2025-12-310001730463us-gaap:AssetUnderConstructionMember2024-12-310001730463us-gaap:IntellectualPropertyMember2025-12-310001730463us-gaap:IntellectualPropertyMember2024-12-310001730463autl:UCLBusinessplcMemberus-gaap:IntellectualPropertyMember2024-11-082024-11-080001730463autl:UCLBusinessplcMemberus-gaap:IntellectualPropertyMember2025-01-012025-12-310001730463autl:BlackstoneMember2021-11-062021-11-060001730463autl:BlackstoneMember2021-11-012021-11-300001730463autl:BlackstoneMember2021-11-0600017304632022-12-012022-12-310001730463autl:BlackstoneMember2022-12-310001730463autl:BlackstoneMember2024-12-310001730463us-gaap:InvestorMemberautl:BioNTechMemberautl:InitialADSsRepresentingOrdinarySharesMember2025-01-012025-12-310001730463us-gaap:EstimateOfFairValueFairValueDisclosureMemberus-gaap:InvestorMemberautl:BioNTechMemberautl:InitialADSsRepresentingOrdinarySharesMember2025-01-012025-12-310001730463us-gaap:InvestorMemberautl:BioNTechMemberautl:SubsequentADSsRepresentingOrdinarySharesMember2025-01-012025-12-310001730463us-gaap:EstimateOfFairValueFairValueDisclosureMemberus-gaap:InvestorMemberautl:BioNTechMemberautl:SubsequentADSsRepresentingOrdinarySharesMember2025-01-012025-12-310001730463us-gaap:InvestorMemberautl:BioNTechMemberautl:BioNTechLicenseAndOptionsAgreementMember2025-01-012025-12-310001730463us-gaap:EstimateOfFairValueFairValueDisclosureMemberus-gaap:InvestorMemberautl:BioNTechMemberautl:BioNTechLicenseAndOptionsAgreementMember2025-01-012025-12-310001730463us-gaap:InvestorMemberautl:BioNTechMemberautl:LiabilityRelatedToTheSaleOfFutureRoyaltiesAndSalesMilestonesNetMember2025-01-012025-12-310001730463us-gaap:EstimateOfFairValueFairValueDisclosureMemberus-gaap:InvestorMemberautl:BioNTechMemberautl:LiabilityRelatedToTheSaleOfFutureRoyaltiesAndSalesMilestonesNetMember2025-01-012025-12-310001730463us-gaap:InvestorMemberautl:BioNTechMemberautl:LicenseRevenueMember2025-01-012025-12-310001730463us-gaap:EstimateOfFairValueFairValueDisclosureMemberus-gaap:InvestorMemberautl:BioNTechMemberautl:LicenseRevenueMember2025-01-012025-12-310001730463us-gaap:InvestorMemberautl:BioNTechMemberautl:ManufacturingCommercialServicesAgreementMCSAMember2025-01-012025-12-310001730463us-gaap:EstimateOfFairValueFairValueDisclosureMemberus-gaap:InvestorMemberautl:BioNTechMemberautl:ManufacturingCommercialServicesAgreementMCSAMember2025-01-012025-12-310001730463autl:BioNTechMemberus-gaap:InvestorMember2025-01-012025-12-310001730463us-gaap:EstimateOfFairValueFairValueDisclosureMemberus-gaap:InvestorMemberautl:BioNTechMember2025-01-012025-12-310001730463autl:BioNTechMember2025-01-012025-12-310001730463autl:BioNTechLicenseAndOptionsAgreementMember2025-12-310001730463autl:BioNTechMemberautl:ObeCelProductMember2024-02-062024-02-060001730463autl:BioNTechMemberautl:ObeCelProductMember2024-02-060001730463autl:BioNTechMemberautl:ObeCelProductMember2024-02-012024-02-290001730463autl:AmericanDepositarySharesUnderBlackstoneAgreementMember2021-11-060001730463autl:OrdinarySharesRepresentedByADSsUnderBlackstoneAgreementMemberautl:OrdinarySharesMember2021-11-0600017304632021-11-060001730463dei:AdrMembersrt:MinimumMemberus-gaap:MeasurementInputExpectedTermMember2021-11-062021-11-060001730463dei:AdrMember2021-11-062021-11-0600017304632021-11-062021-11-060001730463us-gaap:InvestorMemberautl:BlackstoneMemberautl:WarrantsMember2021-11-062021-11-060001730463autl:OrdinarySharesMember2022-06-3000017304632018-06-262018-06-260001730463autl:DeferredSharesMember2018-06-260001730463autl:DeferredClassBSharesMember2018-06-260001730463autl:DeferredClassCSharesMember2018-06-260001730463autl:OrdinarySharesMemberautl:PublicStockOfferingMember2024-02-122024-02-120001730463autl:OrdinarySharesMemberautl:PublicStockOfferingMember2024-02-120001730463autl:BioNTechMemberautl:OrdinarySharesMember2024-02-060001730463autl:OrdinarySharesMember2024-02-132024-02-130001730463autl:OrdinarySharesMember2024-02-130001730463autl:BioNTechMember2024-02-132024-02-130001730463autl:BioNTechMemberautl:OrdinarySharesMember2024-02-130001730463autl:BioNTechMemberautl:OrdinarySharesMember2024-02-132024-02-130001730463autl:A2018EquityIncentivePlanMemberautl:OrdinarySharesMember2018-06-300001730463autl:A2018EquityIncentivePlanNewMemberautl:OrdinarySharesMember2018-06-300001730463autl:A2018EquityIncentivePlanSharesAvailableUnder2017PlanMemberautl:OrdinarySharesMember2018-06-300001730463autl:A2018EquityIncentivePlanMember2018-06-012018-06-300001730463autl:A2018EquityIncentivePlanMember2018-06-300001730463autl:A2018EquityIncentivePlanNewMemberautl:OrdinarySharesMember2025-12-310001730463us-gaap:EmployeeStockOptionMemberus-gaap:ShareBasedCompensationAwardTrancheOneMemberautl:A2018PlanAnd2017PlanMember2025-01-012025-12-310001730463us-gaap:EmployeeStockOptionMemberus-gaap:ShareBasedCompensationAwardTrancheTwoMemberautl:A2018PlanAnd2017PlanMember2025-01-012025-12-310001730463autl:A2018PlanAnd2017PlanMemberus-gaap:RestrictedStockUnitsRSUMember2025-01-012025-12-310001730463autl:A2025EmployeeSharePurchasePlanMember2025-05-310001730463autl:A2025InducementPlanMember2025-03-270001730463autl:A2025InducementPlanMember2025-12-310001730463autl:A2025InducementPlanMember2025-01-012025-12-310001730463autl:A2025InducementPlanMemberus-gaap:ShareBasedCompensationAwardTrancheOneMember2025-01-012025-12-310001730463autl:A2025InducementPlanMemberus-gaap:ShareBasedCompensationAwardTrancheTwoMember2025-01-012025-12-310001730463srt:MinimumMemberus-gaap:EmployeeStockOptionMember2025-01-012025-12-310001730463srt:MaximumMemberus-gaap:EmployeeStockOptionMember2025-01-012025-12-310001730463srt:MinimumMemberus-gaap:EmployeeStockOptionMember2024-01-012024-12-310001730463srt:MaximumMemberus-gaap:EmployeeStockOptionMember2024-01-012024-12-310001730463us-gaap:EmployeeStockOptionMember2024-01-012024-12-310001730463us-gaap:EmployeeStockOptionMember2025-12-310001730463us-gaap:PerformanceSharesMember2025-01-012025-12-310001730463us-gaap:PerformanceSharesMember2024-01-012024-12-310001730463us-gaap:RestrictedStockUnitsRSUMember2025-12-310001730463us-gaap:RestrictedStockUnitsRSUMemberus-gaap:ShareBasedCompensationAwardTrancheOneMember2021-03-012021-03-310001730463us-gaap:RestrictedStockUnitsRSUMemberus-gaap:ShareBasedCompensationAwardTrancheTwoMember2021-03-012021-03-310001730463us-gaap:RestrictedStockUnitsRSUMember2022-09-012022-09-300001730463us-gaap:RestrictedStockUnitsRSUMember2025-09-012025-09-300001730463us-gaap:RestrictedStockUnitsRSUMember2022-03-012022-03-310001730463us-gaap:RestrictedStockUnitsRSUMember2024-12-310001730463us-gaap:RestrictedStockUnitsRSUMember2025-01-012025-12-310001730463us-gaap:RestrictedStockUnitsRSUMember2024-01-012024-12-310001730463us-gaap:ResearchAndDevelopmentExpenseMember2025-01-012025-12-310001730463us-gaap:ResearchAndDevelopmentExpenseMember2024-01-012024-12-310001730463us-gaap:SellingGeneralAndAdministrativeExpensesMember2025-01-012025-12-310001730463us-gaap:SellingGeneralAndAdministrativeExpensesMember2024-01-012024-12-310001730463us-gaap:CostOfSalesMember2025-01-012025-12-310001730463us-gaap:CostOfSalesMember2024-01-012024-12-310001730463us-gaap:RestrictedStockUnitsRSUMember2025-01-012025-12-310001730463us-gaap:RestrictedStockUnitsRSUMember2024-01-012024-12-310001730463us-gaap:EmployeeStockOptionMember2025-01-012025-12-310001730463us-gaap:EmployeeStockOptionMember2024-01-012024-12-310001730463us-gaap:WarrantMember2025-01-012025-12-310001730463us-gaap:WarrantMember2024-01-012024-12-310001730463autl:UCLBusinessplcMember2014-09-012014-09-300001730463autl:UCLBusinessplcMember2016-03-012016-03-3100017304632016-03-012016-03-310001730463autl:UCLBusinessplcMember2018-03-012018-03-3100017304632020-12-310001730463autl:UCLBusinessplcMemberautl:RegulatoryApprovalMember2025-12-310001730463autl:UCLBusinessplcMemberautl:ProductSalesMember2025-12-310001730463autl:UCLBusinessplcMemberautl:NetSalesLevelsMember2025-12-310001730463autl:ProductSalesMembersrt:MinimumMember2025-12-310001730463autl:ProductSalesMembersrt:MaximumMember2025-12-310001730463autl:UCLBusinessplcMemberautl:RegulatoryMilestoneMember2024-11-080001730463autl:UCLBusinessplcMember2025-01-012025-12-310001730463autl:MiltenyiBiotechB.V.Co.KGMiltenyiMember2024-01-012024-12-310001730463country:US2025-01-012025-12-310001730463country:US2024-01-012024-12-310001730463us-gaap:ForeignTaxJurisdictionOtherMember2025-01-012025-12-310001730463us-gaap:ForeignTaxJurisdictionOtherMember2024-01-012024-12-3100017304632023-03-310001730463autl:MediaWorksFifthFloorIncludingLaboratorySpaceMember2019-01-310001730463autl:MediaWorksFifthFloorIncludingLaboratorySpaceMember2019-01-012019-01-310001730463autl:ManufacturingSpaceInEnfieldUnitedKingdomMemberus-gaap:BuildingMember2019-02-280001730463autl:ManufacturingSpaceInEnfieldUnitedKingdomMemberus-gaap:BuildingMember2021-03-310001730463autl:ManufacturingSpaceInEnfieldUnitedKingdomMemberus-gaap:BuildingMember2021-10-012021-10-310001730463autl:LaboratoryAndOfficeSpaceInGaithersburgMarylandMember2021-09-300001730463autl:ManufacturingSuiteInStevenageUnitedKingdomMember2023-09-190001730463us-gaap:GeneralAndAdministrativeExpenseMember2025-01-012025-12-310001730463us-gaap:GeneralAndAdministrativeExpenseMember2024-01-012024-12-310001730463us-gaap:CapitalAdditionsMember2025-12-310001730463autl:ReagentsAndDisposablesMember2025-12-310001730463autl:CardinalHealth105LLCCardinalHealthMember2024-04-252024-04-250001730463country:GB2025-12-310001730463country:GB2024-12-310001730463country:US2025-12-310001730463country:US2024-12-310001730463srt:EuropeMember2025-12-310001730463srt:EuropeMember2024-12-310001730463autl:ReportableSegmentMember2025-01-012025-12-310001730463autl:ReportableSegmentMember2024-01-012024-12-310001730463autl:BlackstoneMemberautl:AutolusMember2021-11-060001730463autl:BlackstoneCollaborationAgreementMember2025-12-310001730463autl:BlackstoneCollaborationAgreementMember2025-01-012025-12-310001730463autl:BlackstoneCollaborationAgreementMember2024-01-012024-12-310001730463autl:BioNTechMemberautl:AutolusMember2024-02-2800017304632024-02-280001730463autl:BioNTechAgreementsMember2025-12-310001730463autl:BioNTechAgreementsMember2025-01-012025-12-310001730463autl:BioNTechAgreementsMember2024-01-012024-12-310001730463us-gaap:RelatedPartyMember2024-02-120001730463autl:FidelityManagementResearchCompanyLLCMemberus-gaap:RelatedPartyMember2025-12-310001730463autl:DeepTrackCapitalLPMemberus-gaap:RelatedPartyMember2025-12-310001730463us-gaap:SubsequentEventMember2026-01-212026-01-21

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549


FORM			10-K

x ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025

o TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

for the transition period from to

Commission file number: 001-38547

Autolus Therapeutics plc

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)

England and Wales

Not applicable

(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)

(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)

The Mediaworks

191 Wood Lane,

London,

W12 7FP

United Kingdom

(44) 20

3829 6230

(Address of principal executive offices)

(Registrant's telephone number, including area code)

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


Title of each class	Trading Symbol(s)	Name of each exchange on which registered
American Depositary Shares, each representing one ordinary share, nominal value of $0.000042 per share	AUTL	The Nasdaq Global Select Market
Ordinary shares, nominal value $0.000042 per share*	*	The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC*


*						Not for trading, but only in connection with the listing of the American Depositary Shares on The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC.

Securities registered or to be 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 o No x

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Yes o No x

Table of contents

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 x No o

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 x No o

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

Large accelerated filer

Accelerated filer

Non-accelerated filer

Smaller reporting company

Emerging growth company

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. o

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

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

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act).

Yes o No x

As of June 30, 2025, the aggregate market value of voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates of the registrant was approximately $548,891,288 based on the closing sale price on that date of $2.28 per ADS. Shares held by each executive officer and director and by each other person who may be deemed to be an affiliate of the Registrant have been excluded from this computation. The determination of affiliate status for this purpose is not necessarily a conclusive determination for other purposes.

As of March 26, 2026, there were 266,143,286 of the registrant’s ordinary shares (including in the form of ADSs), with a nominal value of $0.000042 per share, outstanding.

Table of contents

EXPLANATORY NOTE

Autolus Therapeutics plc (the “Company”), a corporation organized under the laws of England and Wales, qualifies as a “foreign private issuer,” as defined in Rule 3b-4 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) in the United States (“US”). The Company has voluntarily elected to file annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and current reports on Form 8-K with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) instead of filing on the reporting forms available to foreign private issuers.

Although the Company has voluntarily chosen to file periodic reports, current reports and registration statements on U.S. domestic issuer forms, the Company intends to maintain its status as a foreign private issuer. Accordingly, as a foreign private issuer, the Company remains exempt from the U.S. federal proxy rules pursuant to Section 14 of the Exchange Act and Regulations 14A and 14C thereunder, Regulation FD, and its officers, directors, and principal shareholders are not subject to the short-swing profit disclosure and recovery provisions contained in Section 16 of the Exchange Act.

TABLE OF CONTENTS


		Page
PART I		7

Item 1.	Business	7
Item 1A.	Risk Factors	48
Item 1B.	Unresolved Staff Comments	100
Item 1C.	Cybersecurity	100
Item 2.	Properties	102
Item 3.	Legal Proceedings	102
Item 4.	Mine Safety Disclosures	102

PART II		103

Item 5.	Market for Registrant's Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities	103
Item 6.	[Reserved]	104
Item 7.	Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations	104
Item 7A.	Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk	120
Item 8.	Financial Statements and Supplementary Data	121
Item 9.	Changes in and Disagreements With Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosures	121
Item 9A.	Controls and Procedures	121
Item 9B.	Other Information	122
Item 9C.	Disclosure Regarding Foreign Jurisdiction that Prevent Inspections	122

PART III		123

Item 10.	Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance	123
Item 11.	Executive Compensation	130
Item 12.	Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owner and Management and Related Stockholder Matters	138
Item 13.	Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence	140
Item 14.	Principal Accounting Fees and Services	143

PART IV		145

Item 15.	Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules	145
Item 16.	Form 10-K Summary	147
Signatures		147

Table of contents

GENERAL INFORMATION

All references in this Annual Report on Form 10-K (the “Annual Report”) to “Autolus,” the “Company,” “we,” “us” and “our” refer to Autolus Therapeutics plc and its consolidated subsidiaries, except where the context otherwise requires.

Autolus, AUCATZYL® and our other trademarks or service marks appearing in this Annual Report are our property. Solely for convenience, the trademarks and trade names in this Annual Report we referred to without the ® and TM symbols, but such references should not be construed as any indicator that their respective owners will not assert, to the fullest extent under applicable law, their rights thereto. Products or service names of other companies mentioned in this Annual Report may be trademarks, trade names or service marks of their respective owners.

SPECIAL NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Annual Report contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), and Section 21E of the Exchange Act, that relate to future events or to our future operations or financial performance. Any forward-looking statement involves known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause our actual results, levels of activity, performance or achievements to differ materially from any future results, levels of activity, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statement. In some cases, forward-looking statements are identified by the words “anticipate,” “believe,” “continue,” “could,” “estimate,” “expect,” “future,” “goals,” “intend,” “likely,” “may,” “might,” “ongoing,” “objective,” “plan,” “potential,” “predict,” “project,” “seek,” “should,” “strategy,” “target,” “will” and “would” or the negative of these terms, or other comparable terminology intended to identify statements about the future, although not all forward-looking statements contain these identifying words. 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 contained in this Annual Report are based upon information available to us as of the date of this Annual Report and, while we believe we have a reasonable basis for each forward-looking statement contained in this Annual Report, we caution you that these statements are based on a combination of facts and factors currently known by us and our expectations of the future, about which we cannot be certain. Forward-looking statements include statements about:

•the therapeutic potential and expected clinical benefits of AUCATZYL/obe-cel (obecabtagene autoleucel) for adult patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (“r/r B-ALL”);

•our ability to generate revenues from AUCATZYL, which is dependent upon maintaining significant market acceptance among physicians, patients and healthcare payors;

•our ability to maintain regulatory approval of AUCATZYL in the US, European Union (“EU”) and United Kingdom (“U.K.”) to obtain and maintain regulatory approval for obe-cel for adult r/r B-ALL in additional territories and the timing thereof, and to obtain and maintain regulatory approval of our other product candidates in the indications for which we plan to develop them, and any related restrictions, limitations or warnings in the label of an approved drug or therapy;

•our expectations regarding the commercialization and marketing of AUCATZYL for adult r/r B-ALL, including expanding into additional territories and the related timing of reaching patients in such territories;

•the development of our commercial product and product candidates, including statements regarding the initiation, timing, progress and the results of clinical studies or trials and related preparatory work, the period during which the results of the trials will become available and our research and development programs;

•our estimates regarding expenses, future revenue, capital requirements and needs for additional financing;

•our commercialization, marketing and manufacturing capabilities and strategy for AUCATZYL, including our ability to successfully recruit and retain sales and marketing personnel and to successfully build the market for AUCATZYL;

•our expectations about the willingness of healthcare providers to recommend AUCATZYL to people with adult r/r B-ALL;

•the impacts of public health crises and their effects on our operations and business, including interruption of key clinical trial activities, such as clinical trial site monitoring, access to capital, and potential disruption in the operations and business of third-party manufacturers, clinical sites, contract research organizations (“CROs”), other service providers and collaborators with whom we conduct business;

•our expectations regarding our ability to obtain and maintain intellectual property protection and our ability to license additional intellectual property relating to our product candidates from third parties and to comply with our existing license agreements;

•our plans to research, develop, manufacture and commercialize our product candidates;

•the potential benefits of our commercial product and product candidates;

•the timing or likelihood of regulatory filings and approvals for our product candidates, along with regulatory developments in the US, EU, U.K. and other foreign countries;

Table of contents

•the size and growth potential of the markets for our commercial product and product candidates, if approved, and the rate and degree of market acceptance of our commercial product and product candidates, including reimbursement that may be received from payors;

•our need for and ability to obtain additional funding, on favorable terms or at all,

•our plans to collaborate, or statements regarding our current collaborations with BioNTech SE (“BioNTech”) and others;

•our license and option agreement with BioNTech, including our potential to receive milestone payments and royalties under the agreement;

•our ability to attract collaborators with development, regulatory and commercialization expertise;

•our ability to identify, recruit and retain qualified employees and key personnel;

•our ability to contract with third-party suppliers and manufacturers and their ability to perform adequately;

•the scalability and commercial viability of our manufacturing methods and processes;

•the success of competing therapies that are or may become available;

•whether we are classified as a Passive Foreign Investment Company (“PFIC”), for current and future periods;

•additional costs and expenses related to our decision to voluntarily comply with certain U.S. domestic issuer reporting obligations before we are required to do so; and

•any other factors which may impact our financial results or future trading prices of our American Depositary Shares (“ADSs”), and the impact of securities analysts’ reports on these prices.

Although we believe that the expectations reflected in these forward-looking statements are reasonable, these statements relate to our strategy, future operations, future financial position, future revenue, projected costs, prospects, plans, objectives of management and expected market growth, and involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors including, without limitation, risks, uncertainties and assumptions regarding the impact of macroeconomic events, including inflation, changes in interest rates, tariffs, changes in trade policies, political changes, general market conditions and the impacts of the war in Ukraine, conflicts in the Middle East and Europe, and global geopolitical tensions, on our business, operations, strategy, goals and anticipated timelines, our ongoing and planned preclinical activities, our ability to initiate, enroll, conduct or complete ongoing and planned clinical trials, our timelines for regulatory submissions and our financial position that may cause our actual results, levels of activity, performance or achievements to be materially different from any future results, levels of activity, performance or achievements expressed or implied by these forward-looking statements. You are urged to carefully review the disclosures we make concerning these risks and other factors that may affect our business and operating results in this Annual Report. You are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date of this document. Except as required by law, we do not intend, and undertake no obligation, to update any forward-looking information to reflect events or circumstances.

RISK FACTOR SUMMARY

Our business is subject to a number of risks and uncertainties, including those risks discussed more fully in Part I, Item 1A., Risk Factors in this Annual Report. These risks include, among others, the following:

•We are an early commercial stage biopharmaceutical company and have incurred significant losses since our inception. We expect to continue to incur losses for the foreseeable future.

•AUCATZYL and any other product candidates, if approved, may fail to achieve the degree of market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors and others in the medical community necessary for commercial success, thereby limiting our potential to generate revenue.

•If we are unable to fully develop our sales, marketing and distribution capability on our own, or enter into sales, marketing and distribution agreements with third parties, we may not be successful in commercializing AUCATZYL, or our other product candidates, if and when approved.

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

•We will need additional funding to successfully commercialize AUCATZYL and to complete the development of and commercialize our other product candidates, which may not be available on acceptable terms, if at all.

•We have incurred substantial obligations under license and collaboration agreements, which could impair our flexibility and access to other capital and adversely affect our financial position, and our business would be adversely affected if we were unable to meet our obligations under these and similar future agreements.

•If we are unable to advance our product candidates through clinical development, obtain regulatory approval and ultimately commercialize our product candidates, or experience significant delays in doing so, our business will be materially harmed.

Table of contents

•Our proprietary, next-generation T cell programming technologies, our modular approach for engineering T cells and our manufacturing platform for our programmed T cell product candidates, represent emerging approaches to cancer treatment that face significant challenges and hurdles.

•We collaborate with third parties in the research, development and commercialization of certain of our product candidates. If our collaborators do not perform as expected or if we are unable to maintain existing or establish additional collaborations, our ability to develop and commercialize our product candidates may be adversely affected.

•We may form or seek strategic alliances or enter into additional licensing arrangements in the future, and we may not realize the benefits of such alliances or licensing arrangements.

•Our future success is highly dependent on the regulatory approval of our current clinical-stage programmed T cell product candidates and our preclinical programs. All of our product candidates will require significant clinical or preclinical testing before we can seek regulatory approval for and launch a product commercially. Post‑approval regulatory burden has increased, and may continue to increase, as regulators are increasingly granting approvals contingent on the performance of costly post marketing clinical trials, sometimes focused on long‑term data. These requirements make the maintenance of regulatory approvals and label expansions for our products increasingly expensive, and further heighten the risk of recalls, product withdrawals, changes to product specifications, loss of market share, and loss of revenue and profitability.

•Adverse side effects or other safety risks associated with our product candidates could delay or preclude approval, cause us to suspend or discontinue clinical trials, cause us to abandon product candidates, could limit the commercial profile of an approved label, or could result in significant negative consequences following any potential marketing approval.

•If the clinical trials of any of our product candidates fail to demonstrate safety and efficacy to the satisfaction of the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”), the European Medicines Agency (“EMA”) and the European Commission, or other comparable regulatory authorities, or do not otherwise produce favorable results, we may incur additional costs or experience delays in completing, or ultimately be unable to complete, the development and commercialization of our product candidates.

•We may not be able to successfully create and scale our own manufacturing infrastructure for supply of our requirements of programmed T cell product candidates for use in clinical trials and for commercial sale.

•Our product candidates are biologics and the manufacture of our product candidates is complex and we may encounter difficulties in production, particularly with respect to process development or scaling-out of our manufacturing capabilities. If we encounter such difficulties, our ability to provide supply of our product candidates for clinical trials or our products for patients, if approved, could be delayed or stopped.

•We operate in a rapidly changing industry and face significant competition, which may result in others discovering, developing or commercializing products before or more successfully than we do.

•If we are unable to obtain and maintain patent protection for our T cell programming technologies and product candidates, or if the scope of the patent protection obtained is not sufficiently broad, our competitors could develop and commercialize technology and biologics similar or identical to ours, and our ability to successfully commercialize our technology and product candidates may be impaired.

•As an English public limited company, certain capital structure decisions will require shareholder approval, which may limit our flexibility to manage our capital structure.

•General market conditions and macroeconomic trends, including those driven by geopolitical tension, supply chain disruptions, market volatility, inflation, fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates, political changes, and changes in trade policies, among other factors, could materially and adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

•Failure or perceived failure to comply with existing or future laws, regulations, contracts, self-regulatory schemes, standards, and other obligations related to data privacy and security (including security incidents) could harm our business. Compliance or the actual or perceived failure to comply with such obligations could increase the costs of our products, limit their use or adoption, and otherwise negatively affect our operating results and business.

Table of contents

PART I

Item 1. Business

Business Overview

We are an early commercial-stage biopharmaceutical company developing, manufacturing and delivering next-generation T cell therapies and candidates for the treatment of cancer and autoimmune diseases. Using our broad suite of proprietary and modular T cell programming technologies, we are engineering precisely targeted and controlled T cell therapies that are designed to better recognize target cells, break down their defense mechanisms and eliminate target cells. We believe our programmed T cell therapies have the potential to be best-in-class and offer patients substantial benefits over the existing standard of care, including the potential for cure in some patients. In November 2024, the United States Food and Drug Administration (the “FDA”) approved our biologics license application (“BLA”) for the marketing of AUCATZYL (obecabtagene autoleucel, also known as obe-cel) in the United States for the treatment of adult patients (18 years and older) with relapsed or refractory B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (“r/r B-ALL”). The commercial launch and first sale of AUCATZYL in the United States occurred in January 2025. The United Kingdom Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (“MHRA”) granted AUCATZYL conditional marketing authorization in April 2025. In November 2025, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (“NICE”) recommended AUCATZYL for use in the National Health Service (“NHS”) in England and Wales as a treatment option for adult patients (age 26 and older) with r/r B-ALL. We launched AUCATZYL in the United Kingdom in January 2026, and it is available through routine commissioning by the NHS. In July 2025, the European Commission (“EC”) granted marketing authorization for AUCATZYL in adult patients (age 26 and older) with r/r B-ALL. Evaluation of potential pricing and feasibility of market entry opportunities in certain European Union (“EU”) countries is ongoing; however, at this time, launch in the EU is on hold and we do not anticipate any EU sales of AUCATZYL in 2026.

AUCATZYL is a B-lymphocyte antigen CD19 (“CD19”) chimeric antigen receptor (“CAR”) T cell therapy. AUCATZYL is designed with a fast target binding off-rate to minimize excessive activation of the programmed T cells. Adult r/r B- ALL is an extremely aggressive type of blood cancer with a high unmet medical need in the treatment of patients once they relapse, where historically patients suffer from poor outcomes. AUCATZYL is manufactured at our dedicated commercial manufacturing site, the Nucleus, in Stevenage, U.K. We intend for the Nucleus to meet the global supply demands of AUCATZYL, with Cardinal Health 105, LLC serving as our commercial distribution partner in the US.

In addition to AUCATZYL/obe-cel for the treatment of adult r/r B-ALL, we are advancing obe-cel in other oncology indications including pediatric B-ALL and B-NHL. Data from the Phase 1b cohort of the ongoing Phase 1b/2 CATULUS trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of obe-cel in pediatric B-ALL and B-NHL patients was presented at the American Society of Hematology (“ASH”) Annual Meeting in December 2025. Data show the safety profile of obe-cel in pediatric patients is consistent with that previously reported in adults, with low rates of high-grade cytokine release syndrome (“CRS”) and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (“ICANS”). Overall response rate (“ORR”) was high at 95%, and nearly 90% of responders had ongoing remission at data cut-off. Enrollment into the Phase 2 cohort is ongoing, and in October 2025, the FDA granted regenerative medicine advanced therapy (“RMAT”) designation to obe-cel for the treatment of pediatric patients with r/r B-ALL. We expect to have Phase 2 cohort of the trial fully enrolled in the first half of 2027.

Obe-cel is also being developed for the treatment of autoimmune indications, and we have initiated a Phase 1 trial in patients with severe, refractory systemic lupus erythematosus (“SLE”). Data from the ongoing Phase 1 CARLYSLE trial evaluating obe-cel in patients with severe refractory systemic lupus erythematosus was presented at the ASH Annual Meeting in December 2025. The data showed deep, durable responses in patients receiving the 50 million obe-cel CAR t-cell dose level, and initial data suggest substantial early improvement in three patients dosed with obe-cel at 100 million dose level. All patients show deep B-cell depletion after infusion, suggesting an immune reset. Nine patients were evaluable for safety, and no ICANS or high-grade CRS were observed. The Company has advanced obe-cel into a Phase 2 potentially pivotal study known as LUMINA in patients with severe, refractory lupus nephritis (“LN”). We are advancing obe-cel into clinical development in progressive multiple sclerosis (“MS”) and in October 2025, we have dosed our first patients in a Phase 1 dose escalation clinical trial, with initial data expected to be reported at the end of 2026.

Our T cell programming technologies allow us to tailor our therapies to address the specific disease we are targeting and introduce new programming modules into a patient’s T cells to give those T cells improved properties to better recognize target cells and overcome fundamental disease defense mechanisms. Cancers in particular thrive on their ability to fend off T cells by evading recognition by T cells and by establishing other defense mechanisms, such as checkpoint inhibition, and creating a hostile microenvironment. We believe our leadership in T cell programming technologies will provide us with a competitive advantage as we look to develop future generations of T cell therapies targeting both hematological cancers, solid tumors and autoimmune diseases, including potential products that could have a sufficient tolerability profile to enable use in outpatient settings.

Table of contents

Our Pipeline

Our current clinical-stage pipeline comprises four programs being developed in eight hematological and solid tumor indications and two autoimmune indications. Our current pipeline is below:

Our product pipeline is built on our core principles of modular innovation with protein-based cell programming focused on advanced targeting, pharmacological control and enhancement of activity. After identifying a target, we select the suite of programming modules that we believe is best suited to target that particular disease based on the latest clinical data and the results of our research. The particular modules selected may vary, and not every product candidate, including our current product candidates, contain all categories of modules. A viral vector is then used to introduce combinations of these modules into the DNA of the T cells.

The diagram below shows how our programming modules relate to our product candidates.

Our programs have been highly tailored and specifically engineered via our proprietary modules, and have the potential to be truly differentiated assets that could address limitations of current treatments and provide innovative options for patients.

Table of contents

Our Strategy

Our strategic priorities include:

•Continue building upon United States and United Kingdom commercialization of AUCATZYL for adult r/r B-ALL.

•Optimize our manufacturing operations to improve gross margin, and innovate on a next-generation manufacturing platform.

•Evaluate the potential pricing and feasibility of market entry opportunities in certain EU countries.

•Develop obe-cel for treatment of potential additional indications, including pediatric r/r B-ALL, LN and MS.

Programmed T Cell Therapies

Chimeric Antigen Receptors (“CARs”)

We use CARs to reprogram our T cell product candidates. These receptors combine the antigen recognition domain of an antibody with the activation and costimulatory domains from the T cell receptor to rearm a patient’s T cells to recognize and kill target cells.

CAR T Cell Production

We have developed our own proprietary viral vector and semi-automated cell manufacturing processes to engineer a patient's T cells with the CAR and other programming modules. We believe that this autologous approach has the potential to be both the safest and most therapeutically effective approach to manufacturing CAR T cells.

Table of contents

Our technological approach is the development of advanced T cell engineering components designed to directly address clinical challenges. A focus in our early-stage pipeline is incorporation of multiple components in a single product.

Programmed T Cell Therapies for the Treatment Cancers

Cancers originate from individual cells that have developed mutations in essential cellular programs, driving increased cell division and growth. A key control mechanism to detect and eliminate such cells is the patient’s own T cells. T cells are a type of white blood cells used by the human immune system to defend the body against infectious pathogens and cancerous cells. Using their T cell receptor like a molecular scanner, T cells are able to discriminate between normal human cells and ones that contain a mutation that alters their function. If the T cell recognizes an altered cell, it becomes activated and kills that particular cell. For a cancer to grow to the detriment of the patient, cancer cells evolve mechanisms to evade recognition by, or establish other defenses against, T cells.

In recent years we have seen the emergence of cancer immunotherapy, in which treatments harness the power of a patient’s immune system to combat their disease.

Cancer immunotherapy treatment requires the activation and expansion of cancer-specific T cells, which kill cancer cells by recognizing antigen targets expressed on cancer cells. Studies have shown that tumors develop escape mechanisms that prevent T cell-mediated destruction through immune checkpoint proteins, which shut down antitumor immunity. Clinical trials have shown that treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors can restore T cell activity and results in durable clinical responses. Several anti-PD1 and anti-PD-L1 antibodies are approved for the treatment of various solid tumors, and Pembrolizumab is also approved in relapsed/refractory classical Hodgkin’s disease or primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma. However, none of the immune checkpoint inhibitors are currently approved in other hematologic indications. While these approaches collectively represented major advances in cancer treatment, they all lack active redirection of the patient’s T cells to the cancer, eventually limiting clinical activity.

More recently, redirected T cell therapies that are designed to give the patient’s T cells a new specificity to recognize cancer cells have been developed. The first approved product of this class is a bi-specific T cell engager called blinatumomab (Blincyto®) from Amgen Inc. Blinatumomab targets the CD19 antigen on the surface of B cells and cancers derived from B cells. Blinatumomab is approved for the treatment of B-ALL.

More recently, genetically programmed redirected T cell therapies have been approved. These include the CD19 targeting  therapies Kymriah®, Yescarta®, Tecartus®, and Breyanzi®, developed by Novartis AG, Kite Pharma, Inc. and Bristol Myers Squibb Inc., respectively, for the treatments of B-ALL and B-NHL. All four of these therapies showed high response rates and, in a subset of patients, prolonged treatment effects. For those patients experiencing a relapse, the common causes for relapse are insufficient survival of the programmed T cells, loss of the CD19 target on the cancer cells and upregulation of checkpoint inhibitor PD-L1 on the cancer cells.

Table of contents

In view of the limitations of current therapies, there remains a critical unmet medical need for improved T cell therapies. We believe that improving efficacy and durability over the products currently on the market or in development for the treatment of cancers requires addressing target antigen loss, countering checkpoint inhibition and adding novel targets to expand the range of indications amenable to programmed T cell therapy. We believe our commercial product and our clinical-stage product candidates and our approach to T cell programming have the potential to address these limitations.

Existing T cell immunotherapies, including CAR T therapies, have shown significant efficacy in hematological malignancies; however, the extent and duration of the treatment effects and disease remission are yet to be fully defined. Optimizing the targeting module of a programmed T cell may enhance its effect and safety. Also, in response to targeted therapies, cancer cells often mutate and cease to express the antigen the therapy was designed to recognize.

This loss of target antigen leads to patient relapse. Additionally, numerous challenges, including lack of T cell persistence and upregulation of checkpoint inhibitors, represent significant hurdles that need to be addressed by new therapies. T cell immunotherapies also have the capacity to elicit toxicities including CRS, neurologic toxicity and the elimination of normal cells via on-target off tumor recognition. Further, manufacturing T cells can be prohibitively costly if the manufacturing process is not appropriately designed to support parallel processing and automation. Finally, realization of the potential of this approach across a broad range of solid tumor types will require multiple technology solutions in order to address limitations of the current generation of therapies.

Emerging Promise of T Cell Immunotherapies for the Treatment Autoimmune Diseases

Autoimmune diseases are the result of an immune system that is overactive, causing it to attack and damage the patient’s own tissues. Autoimmune diseases can affect multiple organs throughout the body and can be life threatening in some cases. The presence of autoreactive B cells that produce autoreactive antibodies--antibodies that attack the body’s own tissues--are a common feature of these diseases. As such, therapeutic approaches that deplete B cells have had some clinical success. These B cell depletion approaches, such as the antibodies that target CD20 (Rituximab, Ocrelizumab and Ofatumumab,) and BAFF (Belimumab) are approved for the treatment of autoimmune diseases including systemic lupus erythematosus and multiple sclerosis. These antibody-based approaches have shown limited efficacy, typically limiting the progression of the autoimmune disease rather than ameliorating the disease completely. These therapies also require long-term administration and can have serious side effects.

Recently a small academic clinical trial conducted by Mackensen and colleagues from the University of Erlangen in Germany has shown that targeting CD19 with CAR T therapies can profoundly improve outcomes for patients with lupus and other autoimmune diseases. CD19 is a B cell specific antigen that is highly expressed on B cells including malignant B cells that cause cancers like B-ALL and autoreactive B cells that are a common feature of autoimmune disease. In this academic clinical trial, treatment of 15 autoimmune disease patients with a single dose of autologous CD19 CAR T cells resulted in rapid and durable responses in patients. These patients all had advanced disease, with multi-organ involvement and were refractory to current therapies. The treatment showed potential transformational clinical benefit, with all patients in remission or with major reductions in symptoms with a median follow up of 15 months. Toxic effects were manageable and mostly mild.

CD19 CAR T cell therapy shows the potential for superior efficacy compared to B cell depleting antibodies. It may be possible that CD19 is a better target than CD20 or BAFF, as it is expressed more broadly on the autoreactive plasma cells and plasma blasts as well as B cells. Additionally, CAR T cells may be better at depleting the B cells than the antibodies, as they can penetrate into all tissues, including some that antibodies cannot reach.

The future promise of CAR T cell therapy for autoimmune diseases will be driven by efficacy, safety and cost effectiveness. Existing CD19 CAR T cell therapies are effective at treating B-cell malignancies; however, the extent and duration of the treatment effects and disease remission as well as the potential for toxicities including CRS and neurologic toxicity varies considerably between the different approved treatments. Differences in efficacy and safety are likely to be seen between different CD19 CAR T cell therapy approaches for autoimmune diseases, and optimizing the CD19 targeting module may be important for enhancing efficacy and safety. Further, manufacturing T cells can be prohibitively costly if the manufacturing process is not appropriately designed to support parallel processing and automation.

Our Solution: Advanced T Cell Programming

Advanced Targeting Technologies

We have developed advanced antigen targeting technologies to improve the ability of our programmed T cell therapies to selectively identify and target cancer cells and to deliver a sustained antitumor effect. These targeting technologies include fast off-rate CARs, novel targets, high avidity spacers, dual-targeting and pattern recognition.

Table of contents

Fast Off-Rate CARs

We have designed programmed T cells with fast off-rate binders. These fast off-rate kinetics are similar to the behaviour of naturally occurring T cells. Obe-cel has this enhanced kinetic profile, which, when compared to data reported for other CAR T cell product candidates in clinical development for ALL that use high affinity binders, appears to result in reduced Cytokine Release Syndrome and in increased T cell engraftment. We use Fast Off-Rate CARs targeting CD19 in our obe-cel, AUTO1/22 and AUTO8 programs.

Dual-Targeting CARs

Relapse due to target antigen loss or down regulation is a major cause of treatment failure in CAR T cell therapy. We have developed product candidates that target two antigens on a cancer cell and are designed to reduce the chances for relapse due to antigen escape. Evidence suggests that it may also improve a response in those patients with low levels of expression of a target antigen on their cancer cells. We use Dual Targeting CARs in our AUTO1/22 and AUTO8 programs.

Pharmacological Control of T Cell Activity

Management of toxicity is a critical step in the successful application of programmed T cell therapies. We have developed multiple technologies designed to pharmacologically control T cell activity in the event a patient suffers certain serious adverse events related to the T cell therapy. Safety switches are designed to selectively eliminate the programmed T cells following administration of a pharmacological agent, whilst tuneable or controllable CAR T cells allow the activity of T cell therapy to be dialled down following administration of a pharmacological agent.

Rituximab Safety Switch (RQR8)

The RQR8 safety switch is designed to selectively eliminate the programmed T cells by the administration of the commercially available monoclonal antibody rituximab. Once administered, rituximab binds to the engineered CD20 epitopes on the surface of the programmed T cell and triggers cell death. We use the RQR8 safety switch in our AUTO4, AUTO5 and AUTO6NG programs.

Rapamycin Safety Switch (RapaCasp9)

The RapaCasp9 safety switch is designed to selectively eliminate the programmed T cells by the administration of the commercially available drug rapamycin. Once administered, rapamycin heterodimerises caspase 9 via FRB and FKBP to activate a cell death cascade and selectively eliminate the programmed T cells.

Tetracycline Controllable CAR (TetCAR)

TetCAR is a controllable CAR T cell system designed to reversibly dampen the activity of the programmed T cells by the administration of the commercially available antibiotic tetracycline to a patient. Once administered, tetracycline temporarily dislocates the CAR signalling domain from the cancer antigen binding domain leading to deactivation of the T cell therapy. Activity is then restored on clearance of the pharmacological agent from the patient.

Tumor Microenvironment Shielding

Tumor cells and other cells in the tumor microenvironment can debilitate antitumor immune responses. Proteins expressed on tumor cells can trigger inhibitory receptors on T cells to block their ability to eliminate the tumor. Secretion of TGFβ by the tumor and other cells can shut down the activity of a T cell therapy. We have developed technologies designed to shield our programmed T cells from these immunosuppressive pathways.

Checkpoint Shielding (dSHP2)

Immune checkpoint receptors act through a common signalling pathway inside the T cell that prevents normal T cell activation. We have developed a modified version of an adaptor protein, SHP2, that in preclinical studies has been shown to efficiently counteract the inhibition of T cells resulting from the PD-L1/PD-1 interaction. In addition, it is designed to simultaneously disarm multiple inhibitory receptors on the cancer cell. We use the dSHP shielding module in our AUTO6NG program.

Enhanced Activity

One of the challenges of targeting some solid tumors is the lack of such easily accessible stimulation for programmed T cells, leading to poor persistence and a weak antitumor activity. Co-administration with cytokines can boost T cell activity and persistence. Certain cytokines can potentiate the antitumor of the T cell therapy by recruiting and activating other immune cells to kill the tumor.

However, systemic or local administration of cytokines can be toxic, therefore we have developed programming modules that are designed to harness the enhanced activity of cytokines whilst avoiding the potential for toxicities.

Table of contents

Chimeric Cytokine Receptors (CCRs)

The CCR is a programming module that is designed to deliver a cytokine signal directly inside T cells without administration or secretion of cytokines themselves. We use proteins from an antibody structure to stably heterodimerize two cytokine signalling domains together to deliver a proliferative and survival signal into our T cells. Preclinical data has demonstrated the potential for the CCR to improve the persistence and activity of CAR T cell therapy against solid tumors. We use the CCR enhanced activity module in AUTO6NG.

Host Immune System Recruitment (ssIL12)

IL-12 is a potent antitumor cytokine that mediates the activity of many different antitumor immune cells. The majority of clinical studies involving treatment of patients with IL-12 were associated with severe systemic side effects mediated by high levels of IFNγ. Our ssIL12 module is designed to secrete very low levels of IL-12 from our T cells and our preclinical data demonstrates the potential for ssIL12 to provide antitumor activity without systemic toxicity.

Engineering survival signal (Fas-TNFR)

CAR T cells have shown remarkable efficacy against hematological cancers, but their effectiveness in solid tumors has been limited by inhibitory factors expressed by the tumor or its microenvironment. One such inhibitory factor is Fas ligand (“FasL”), which binds to the Fas receptor (CD95) on the surface of an activated T cell and triggers the CAR T cell to die by apoptosis. Our Fas chimeras consist of the extracellular domain of Fas fused to the intracellular domain from different TNF receptor superfamily members. Expression of these chimeras in a CAR T cell not only blocks apoptosis triggered by FasL, but results in co-stimulation, which promotes CAR T cell survival and proliferation.

Our Commercial Product: AUCATZYL for Adult r/r B-ALL

AUCATZYL/obe-cel, formerly known as AUTO1, is a gene therapy product consisting of autologous T cells that are transduced with a lentiviral vector to express a novel anti-CD19 Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CD19 (CAT) CAR). The transduced T cells express second-generation CARs in which the CD19 CAR construct uses 41BB-ζ and CD3- ζ endodomains.

CD19 is an ideal target for a CAR T cell therapy as it is a cell surface marker for B-precursor cells and B-lymphocytes that is present on most B cell malignancies. CD19 is also a cell surface marker expressed broadly on the autoreactive B-cells and plasma cells that are associated with autoimmune diseases such as lupus. Upon CD19 directed CAR T cell therapies, it also leads to B-cell aplasia which can be used as a pharmacodynamic marker. CD19 CAR T cell therapies have proven effective in treating B-cell leukaemias, B-cell lymphoma and early evidence suggest they are effective in treating b-cell mediated autoimmune diseases. Efficacy is dependent on engraftment and expansion of the CAR T cells. However, rapid activation and expansion of CAR T cells can result in CRS and/or ICANS, which in some cases can be life-threatening, particularly for elderly patients and patients with comorbidities that have a poor tolerance for toxicity. Furthermore, excessive activation of CAR T cells can lead to cell exhaustion and limit their engraftment and expansion, which may impact the initial efficacy and durability of therapeutic effect. Obe-cel is an autologous therapy in which a patient’s T cells are genetically modified to express a novel CD19-specific binder designed to reduce side effects observed with this class of therapeutics.

AUCATZYL/obe-cel recognizes and interacts with the CD19 target with a fast off-rate enabled by the novel CAT scFv binding domain. This property allows the AUCATZYL/obe-cel cells to efficiently recognize target cells, inject cytotoxic proteins to initiate the natural self-destruction process present in all human cells and then rapidly disengage from them in order to engage the next target cell, a process also known as serial killing. Rapid disengagement from the target antigen is expected to minimize excessive activation of the programmed T cells, reduce toxicity and may also reduce T cell exhaustion.

Table of contents

Clinical Development of Obe-cel in Adult ALL

Background of Adult ALL

According to the American Cancer Society, adult ALL was predicted to affect approximately 6,500 adults in the United States in 2023. Combination chemotherapy enables 90% of adult patients to experience complete remission (“CR”). However, the majority of these remissions are not long-lasting in adult patients. Despite this initial CR, and in contrast to pediatric ALL, the prognosis of adult ALL is still poor and has not changed significantly during the last two decades, with long-term remission rates limited to 30-40%. Approximately 50% of all adult ALL patients will relapse, and data from the Medical Research Council’s UKALL12/ECOG 2993 study, published in 2007, found that five-year overall survival (“OS”), rate in adults who relapse following standard multi-agent chemotherapy is 7%. In a published 2016 retrospective analysis conducted by the Group for Research on Adult Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia on adult patients (age 18-63) in France, Belgium and Switzerland relapsing after first-line pediatric-inspired therapy, the overall survival at 2 and 5 years was 19.3% (14–24%) and 13.3% (8–18%), respectively. The only curative option for relapsed or refractory ALL consists of achieving a second CR by salvage therapy followed by an allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (“allo-HSCT”). Without allo-HSCT, a subsequent relapse occurs in nearly all patients. However, less than half of patients achieve a second CR, and therefore only a subset will be eligible for this procedure. Even then, less than one-third of patients receiving the transplant are expected to sustain long-term disease-free survival. Further, allo-HSCT is associated with severe morbidity and significant mortality. Many patients with relapsed or refractory ALL will have been maximally treated with chemotherapy, and often do not achieve a second CR in order to be eligible for allo-HSCT.

Two targeted monoclonal based therapies have been approved in a number of jurisdictions, including the United States and the EU, for the treatment of adult ALL: blinatumomab and inotuzumab ozogamicin. Both of these therapies achieve high CR rates, but durability is limited. In a randomized Phase 3 clinical trial of blinatumomab in heavily pretreated B-cell precursor ALL, the blinatumomab arm achieved a CR rate of 44%, of which 76% also achieved MRD-negative CR, and the median duration of remission was 7.3 months. The median OS in those patients, though significantly improved compared to chemotherapy, was still only 7.7 months. Similarly, in a Phase 3 clinical trial of inotuzumab ozogamicin, a higher percentage of patients achieved MRD-negative CR when treated with inotuzumab compared to standard-of-care chemotherapy, but the median duration of remission was 4.6 months and median OS was equally short with 7.7 months.

On October 1, 2021 the FDA approved the use of the CAR T cell therapy brexucabtagene autoleucel (“Tecartus”) for adults with B-cell precursor ALL that has not responded to treatment (refractory) or has returned after treatment (relapsed). The European Commission approved Tecartus for adults aged 26 and over with relapsed or refractory B-cell precursor ALL in September 2022.

On November 8, 2024 the FDA approved the use of obe-cel for the treatment of adults with r/r B-ALL.

Obe-cel Phase 1b/2 Clinical Trial in Adult ALL (FELIX Trial)

We initiated the FELIX study, a Phase 1b/2 clinical trial of obe-cel for the treatment of adult r/r B-Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia, in 2020. The data were published in the New England Journal of Medicine in December 2024.

The published data were from a pooled analysis of data from all patients across all cohorts in the FELIX Phase 1b/2 study. Of the 153 r/r B-ALL patients enrolled in the FELIX study, 127 (83.0%) received at least one obe-cel infusion and were evaluable. Eligible patients underwent leukapheresis, and bridging therapy, except blinatumomab, was permitted at the investigator’s discretion. Obe-cel was administered in a bone marrow (“BM”) burden adjusted split dose following lymphodepletion, with a BM mandated prior to lymphodepletion to guide dosing. The second obe-cel dose was given in the absence of severe/unresolved toxicity.

The primary end point was overall remission (“CR/CRi”). In the pivotal cohort of patients, (cohort IIA (n=94)), the CR/CRi for patients who received at least one infusion of obe-cel was 76.6%. Across all infused patients (n=127), of the 91/127 with ≥5% BM blasts pre-lymphodepletion, the CR/CRi was 74.7%. Median response duration for all infused patients was 21.2 months. Median event-free survival (EFS) was 11.9 months and the estimated 6- and 12-month event-free survival rates were 65.4% and 49.5%, respectively. BM burden pre-lymphodepletion correlated with median event-free survival; patients with low (<5% BM blasts), intermediate (≥5–≤75% blasts), and high (>75% blasts) BM burden had event-free survival rates at 12 months of 68.0%, 54.9% and 25.0%, respectively.

Median overall survival (“OS”) was 15.6 months and estimated 6- and 12-month overall survival rates were 80.3% and 61.1%, respectively. BM burden pre-lymphodepletion correlated with overall survival; patients with low, intermediate, and high BM burden had an overall survival rate at 12 months of 71.5%, 58.7% and 55.0%, respectively. BM burden before enrollment also influenced event-free and overall survival.

Of the 127 patients infused (pooled across all study cohorts), 99 patients responded. Of the responders, 18 patients (18.2%) proceeded to allo-Stem Cell Transplant (“allo-SCT”) while in remission at a median of 101 days post-obe-cel infusion. In 6/18 (33.3%), this was a second allo-SCT.

Median duration of CAR T persistence by droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) in peripheral blood was 17.8 months.

Table of contents

Obe-cel was associated with minimal immunotoxicity. CRS and ICANS rates (Grade ≥3) were 2.4% and 7.1%, respectively. Overall, 87 (68.5%) patients developed CRS, and 29 (22.8) developed ICANS. Severe ICANS post-obe-cel were seen as largely limited to patients with high BM burden pre-lymphodepletion. Intensive care unit admissions occurred in 20 (15.7%) patients for a median of 5.5 days (range: 1−37) of which 7 of the 20 patients were admitted due to immunotoxicity management (5 ICANS, 2 CRS).

Most recently at the European Hematology Association annual meeting in 2025, longer term follow up data from the FELIX study were presented. At the updated median follow up of 32.8 months, 38.4% of responders were in ongoing remission without consolidative allo-SCT or other therapies. The 24-month probability of Event Free Survival was 43%, and for Overall Survival was 46%, with an emerging long-term plateau observed. A substantial subset of patients benefit from standalone treatment with obe-cel, achieving long-term remission. No new safety signals or Grade ≥3 secondary malignancies were observed at the extended follow-up. These results suggest that obe-cel may be a definitive treatment for some patients with r/r B-ALL.

Obe-cel Phase 1 Clinical Trial in Adult ALL (ALLCAR19 Trial)

In the first quarter of 2018, our academic partner University College London (“UCL”) initiated a single-arm, open label, multi-center Phase 1 clinical trial of obe-cel, named the ALLCAR19 trial, in patients aged 16 to 65 years with high-risk, relapsed or refractory CD19 positive B-lineage ALL. The clinical trial was conducted at sites in the United Kingdom. The trial enrolled patients with a high tumor burden; 45% of treated patients had 50% or greater bone marrow blasts. In the trial, 20 patients received obe-cel; product for 14 of those patients was manufactured using a semi-automated, fully-enclosed process. The therapy was well tolerated, with no patients experiencing Grade 3 or higher CRS. Three patients (15%), all of whom had high leukemia burden (>50% blasts), experienced Grade 3 ICANS that resolved swiftly with steroids. Of the 20 patients evaluable for efficacy, 17 patients (85%) achieved minimum residual disease (“MRD”)-negative CR at one month.

A pooled analysis of long-term follow-up data from ALLCAR19 and FELIX Phase 1b Studies were presented at the ASH, meeting in December 2023. Data from the pooled analysis of r/r B-ALL patients (n=36) treated with obe-cel in the ALLCAR19 and FELIX Phase 1b studies showed high remission rates of 81% (29/36). After a median follow-up of 3 years and without subsequent transplant, 41% of patients continued in complete remission. The estimated EFS rate with censoring of subsequent transplant or new treatment was 45% at 36 months; all patients in ongoing remission were MRD negative at last assessment and median duration of response was not reached.

Regulatory Status and Plans

The US FDA granted marketing approval for obe-cel on November 8, 2024 under the brand name AUCATZYL for the treatment of r/r B-ALL. The approval is based on data from the Phase 2 cohort of FELIX study. The MHRA granted AUCATZYL conditional marketing authorization in April 2025 for Adult Patients (≥ 18 years) with r/r B-ALL. In November 2025, NICE recommended AUCATZYL for use in the National Health Service (“NHS”) in England and Wales as a treatment option for adult patients (≥26 years) with r/r B-ALL. We launched AUCATZYL in the United Kingdom in January 2026, and it is available through routine commissioning by the NHS. On 17 July 2025, the European Commission (“EC”) granted marketing authorization for AUCATZYL in adult patients (age 26 and older) with r/r B-ALL. Evaluation of potential pricing and feasibility of market entry opportunities in certain European Union (“EU”) countries is ongoing; however, at this time, launch in the EU is on hold and the Company does not anticipate any EU sales of AUCATZYL in 2026.

Commercialization Strategy for AUCATZYL

We have retained worldwide commercial rights for AUCATZYL. We plan to expand our global commercialization capabilities over time such that we are able to commercialize any product candidate in a broader number of countries over time, but with a focus on achieving an early presence in the US and the U.K. We may pursue strategic collaborations with third parties in order to maximize the commercial potential of AUCATZYL.

Having achieved marketing approval for AUCATZYL for the treatment of patients with r/r B-ALL in the US, U.K and parts of Europe, we are expanding upon our commercial launch in those countries. In addition to the standard sales & marketing elements and medical affairs activities required to successfully commercialize an oncology/hematology product, there are several additional requirements needed for effectively commercializing CAR-T cell therapies, including bespoke processes for distribution, patient scheduling, center engagement and a dedicated treatment center service hub. The product may be administered only by authorized centers that are specialized in hematology and have the necessary infrastructure and capabilities for administering CAR-T therapies.

In December 2024, AUCATZYL was added to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network®, (“NCCN”) Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology, (“NCCN Guidelines®”), for the treatment of adult r/r B-ALL. The NCCN is a not-for-profit alliance of 30 leading cancer centers devoted to patient care, research, and education. The NCCN Guidelines are a comprehensive set of guidelines detailing the sequential management decisions and interventions that currently apply to 97% of cancers affecting patients in the US and are intended to ensure that all patients receive preventive, diagnostic, treatment, and supportive services that reflect the latest evidence in oncological patient care.

Table of contents

See “Risk Factors–Risks Related to our Intellectual Property–Third parties may initiate legal proceedings alleging that we are infringing their intellectual property rights, the outcome of which would be uncertain and could significantly harm our business.”

Our Manufacturing and Logistics Capabilities

We are devoting significant resources to process development and manufacturing in order to ensure high quality and reliable product supply to patients, as well as to reduce our per unit manufacturing costs and time to market for AUCATZYL and any of our programmed T cell product candidates for which we obtain regulatory approval.

The manufacture and delivery of programmed T cell therapies to patients involves complex, integrated processes, including harvesting T cells from patients, manufacturing viral vectors with nucleic acid content encoded with our programming modules, manufacturing programmed T cells using the viral vectors ex vivo, multiplying the T cells to obtain the desired dose, and ultimately infusing the T cells back into a patient’s body.

Commercial success in T cell therapies requires a manufacturing process that is reliable, scalable and economical. We have established a manufacturing process that is scalable and serves as a manufacturing platform designed to support rapid development of our programmed T cell therapy product candidates through clinical trial phases and regulatory approval processes. We are using a semi-automated, fully enclosed system for cell manufacturing, which is designed to provide a common platform suitable for manufacturing all of our product candidates. This platform allows for parallel processing having the ability to scale for commercial supply in a controlled environment at an economical cost. We have established reliable and consistent viral vector production and viral transduction processes further, also a key to our process reproducibility and reliability.

Our manufacturing and logistics process is designed to ensure that product integrity is maintained during shipment along with accurate tracking and tracing of shipments. We are expanding internal manufacturing and supply capabilities as well as the use of expert service providers on maturing our vein-to-vein logistics in support of commercial operations. Chain of identity and chain of custody electronic systems are in place to ensure transport and processing reliability.

Our manufacturing and commercialization strategy requires a fully integrated vein-to-vein product delivery cycle. Having established manufacturing processes suitable for commercialization early in the development of AUCATZYL has allowed us to focus on expanding manufacturing capacity during our commercial launch. Our purpose-built facility, the Nucleus, is located in Stevenage, U.K and covers 70,000 square feet. This facility, which has a global reach, can meet our near and mid-term clinical and commercial needs allowing ample time for expanding our manufacturing footprint when needed. In March 2024, the Nucleus facility obtained a Manufacturer’s Importation Authorization (MIA) together with the accompanying Good Manufacturing Practice (“GMP”) certificate. These licenses enable us to manufacture both commercial and clinical autologous drug products in the facility. The Nucleus provides multiple clean rooms, QC labs, warehouse and administrative space and is being fitted out in a phased manner as demand requires. At full capacity, we expect the Nucleus facility to provide manufacturing capacity for approximately 2,500 batches annually. Our plan is to establish our manufacturing infrastructure in a manner that would minimize logistical complexities and costs for all regions going forward.

We believe our scalable closed-system manufacturing process, along with our proprietary and modular T cell programming technologies, would be challenging and costly for potential competitors to replicate.

Our Manufacture and Delivery Performance

Data on manufacturing and delivery performance for obe-cel in the FELIX clinical trial were published in the New England Journal of Medicine in December 2024. The FELIX study successfully demonstrated the robust operability of obe-cel manufacturing, QC and logistics processes, meeting target V2C (time from leukapheresis to quality release) and V2D (time from leukapheresis to delivery of product to the hospital). Median V2C and V2D times were 21 and 24 days, respectively. All apheresis starting material was successfully processed despite the multitude of constraints posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. In total, 96% of manufactured obe-cel batches reached their target dose of 410 x 106 CAR T cells. Further optimization and improvements made during the study increased reliability, consistency, and precision of the manufacturing process, and supported the development of the Nucleus manufacturing facility with greater production capacity. Commercially in 2025 we achieved ≥90% manufacturing success rate.

Manufacturing Agreements with Third Parties

We obtain viral vector for commercial supply of AUCATZYL and for late stage clinical trials from our partner AGC Biologics. We also have manufacturing agreements with other contract manufacturing and development organizations for early phase vector manufacturing. All vector manufacturing is done in accordance with current Good Manufacturing Practice (“cGMP”) in compliant manufacturing facilities. The manufacturing agreements governing the external supply arrangements also provide for access to services including quality management systems, qualified persons for product release, office space, frozen storage and warehousing services.

Table of contents

In March 2018, we entered into a strategic, long-term supply agreement with Miltenyi Biotec GmbH (“Miltenyi”), for the supply of Miltenyi’s CliniMACS Prodigy instruments, reagents and disposables for the manufacture of our programmed T cell therapies, including for pre-clinical, clinical and commercial production of AUCATZYL, as well as the provision of related support services. We amended the supply agreement most recently in September 2023. The supply agreement sets forth procedures to ensure continuity of supply to us of Miltenyi’s products, both during the clinical phase and commercial phases of our product candidates. After the initial ten-year term of the agreement, we have two separate options to renew the agreement, each for an additional five-year term. The supply agreement contains customary termination provisions, allowing for termination by a party upon the other party’s uncured material breach, upon the other party’s bankruptcy or insolvency or upon the other party being subject to an extended period of force majeure events. We may also terminate the supply agreement upon advance written notice, if we decide to suspend or discontinue the development or commercialization of our product candidates. The supply agreement is governed under the laws of Germany.

Competition for AUCATZYL

There are two direct in class competitors to AUCATZYL approved for the treatment of adult patients with r/r B-ALL: the autologous CAR therapies Tecartus and Kymriah. Tecartus is approved for use in adult B-ALL and Kymriah is approved for use in adolescents and young adults (i.e., patients up to the age of 25). We believe AUCATZYL has a differentiated safety profile and shows potential for longer term outcomes when compared to these current approved therapies.

In addition, it is possible that companies could take other autologous CAR T cell products forward in adult ALL or allogeneic “off-the-shelf” CAR T cell therapies could be developed which would be considered direct competitors. Allogeneic products are in early development in indications other than B-ALL, and, because these products are not made from the patient's own cells, they might be more convenient to deliver, without the need to wait for a product to be manufactured (typical manufacturing times for autologous products are currently 18-25 days). However, this class of product has not shown the same levels of durable activity and the products in clinical trials are therefore likely to require periodic repeat dosing as opposed to autologous products, which allow for the therapy to be given as a one-time treatment.

Our Product Candidates for the Treatment of Hematological Cancers and Autoimmune Diseases

Our clinical-stage product candidates targeting hematological cancers are obe-cel, AUTO1/22 and AUTO8. Additionally, obe-cel is also being explored as a potential therapeutic approach targeting certain autoimmune diseases.

Obe-cel for the Treatment of Pediatric ALL, B-NHL and other B-cell malignancies

In addition to AUCATZYL/obe-cel for the treatment of adult r/r B-ALL, we are advancing obe-cel in other oncology indications including pediatric B-ALL and B-NHL, for which we have initiated the Phase 1b/2 CATULUS trial.

Background of Pediatric ALL

According to the American Cancer Society, B-ALL is most common in childhood, peaking between two and four years of age. As per the National Cancer Institute Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results statistics database, there are approximately 3,400 new cases of pediatric B-ALL diagnosed in the United States each year.

The current standard of care for both pediatric and adult B-ALL patients is a standard regimen of combination chemotherapy. Pediatric patients typically respond well to the complex first-line chemotherapy treatment. According to the American Cancer Society, the five-year survival rate for children with B-cell ALL is more than 85% overall. In pediatric populations, blinatumomab has demonstrated efficacy both in patients with relapsed or refractory disease, as well as a component of frontline combination therapy for newly diagnosed patients. The recently published COG AALL1731 trial was a randomized phase 3 trial evaluating the benefit of the addition of blinatumomab to standard chemotherapy in patients with National Cancer Institute (NCI) standard-risk B-ALL. With a median follow-up of 2.5 years, 3-year DFS was 96.0% ± 1.2% among patients randomized to receive blinatumomab with chemotherapy, compared with 87.9% ± 2.1% in the chemotherapy-alone group (Gupta et al., NEJM 2025).

However, 10 to 20% of pediatric B-cell ALL patients relapse with chemotherapy-resistant disease. These patients are re-treated with intensive chemotherapy, and those that respond may proceed to receive an allogenic stem cell transplant (“SCT”). However, SCT can be associated with significant long-term morbidity due to the risk of treatment associated developmental impairments, developing graft-versus-host disease, and transplant-related mortality, although the risk of death have declined with better post-transplant management.

Table of contents

A phase 3 trial conducted in Europe enrolled children with high risk first relapse of B-ALL (relapse at <18 months after diagnosis or marrow relapse at ≥18 months from diagnosis but <6 months after completion of therapy). Those achieving an M1 (<5% blasts) or M2 (≥5 but <25% blasts) marrow after reinduction therapy were treated with 2 cycles of standard consolidation chemotherapy and were then randomized to receive either blinatumomab or consolidation chemotherapy before planned allogeneic HSCT. In total, 108 patients were randomized before early termination of enrollment because of meeting prespecified criteria finding benefit of blinatumomab (Locatelli et al., JAMA 2021;325;(9):843-854. doi:10.1001/jama.2021.0987). With a median follow-up of 44 months, blinatumomab demonstrated improved EFS across subgroups and improved OS (HR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.17-0.69) (Locatelli et al.., Leukemia 37, 222–225 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41375-022-01770-3). In parallel, the COG performed a similar randomized AALL1331 phase 3 study in patients with high-risk (marrow relapse < 36 months after initial diagnosis or isolated EMD relapse <18 months after initial diagnosis) or intermediate risk first relapse. As in the European trial, randomization was terminated early because of the combination of findings of higher disease-free survival (DFS), OS, and MRD clearance, as well as lower toxicity in the blinatumomab arm compared with the chemotherapy arm (Hall AG and Rau RE, Blood Adv 2025; https://doi.org/10.1182/bloodadvances.2024014043). With a median follow-up of 2.9 years, 2-year DFS in the blinatumomab arm was 54.4% vs 39.0% in the chemotherpay arm (HR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.47-1.03) and OS in the blinatumomab arm was 71.3% vs 58.4% in the chemotherarpy arm (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.39-0.98) (Brown PA et al., JAMA 2021;325;(9):833-842. doi:10.1001/jama.2021.0669).

Patients with high-risk clinical or genetic features including gene abnormalities, as well as those who have an inadequate response to initial chemotherapy, may not respond well with the current available treatments for B-cell ALL (including SCT), some of these patients will have a five-year OS rate of approximately 15%. Additionally, long-term survival rates are only approximately 10 to 20% among patients receiving a second SCT and negligible in those unable to proceed to a second transplant.

There is still a significant unmet medical need in pediatric patients with high-risk relapsed or refractory B-cell ALL. CD19 CAR T cell therapies have been developed for these patients. The CD19 CAR T therapy, Kymriah, however, is not approved in patients with first relapse. In the approved indication in refractory patients or patients up to 25 years of age in second or later relapse, Kymriah has shown approximately 80% of complete molecular response rate. However, at six months after treatment, approximately 40% of the patients relapsed and the majority of the relapses were CD19 negative disease, with approximately two-thirds of relapses determined to have been due to loss of CD19 on the target cells in one study.

CD19 CAR T cell therapies have been tested in pediatric B-ALL patients and have shown sustained responses without allo-HSCT. In adult ALL, however, one of the major challenges has been severe toxicity, including death due to CAR T cell-mediated toxicity observed in the clinical trials of these products. Obe-cel has been designed to reduce toxicity but still sustain durable CRs.

Obe-cel Phase 1b Clinical Trial in Pediatric B-ALL

In December 2023, Autolus initiated the Phase 1b CATULUS trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of obe-cel in pediatric patients with r/r B-ALL and r/r B-NHL. This is a single-arm, open label, multicentre trial enrolling patients aged 18 and younger.

The CATULUS trial is a single-arm, open-label, multi-center Phase 1 study enrolling high-risk patients under age 18 with r/r B-ALL that is primary refractory, in high-risk first relapse, or in second or later relapse. At the ASH annual meeting in December 2025 initial data from the study were presented. The safety profile of obe-cel in pediatric patients was consistent with that previously reported in adults, with low rates of high-grade CRS and ICANS (both 8.7%). The ORR was high at 95.5% (n=21), with 90.9% (n=20) achieving complete response (CR). Twenty patients were in ongoing remission at data cut-off with a median follow-up of 8.8 months. These preliminary findings support further exploration of obe-cel in pediatric R/R B-ALL.Currently, the Phase 2 pivotal expansion cohort is open for enrollment in the US, UK and Spain.

In October 2025, FDA granted regenerative medicine advanced therapy (RMAT) designation to obe-cel for the treatment of pediatric patients with r/r B-ALL. The RMAT designation is a program created under the 21st Century Cures Act to accelerate development and regulatory review of regenerative medicine therapies, including cell therapies, intended to treat serious or life-threatening diseases.

The data reported from the CATULUS trial are consistent with previous data reported in the academic UCL-led CARPALL trial in patients aged 24 years or younger with high-risk relapsed or refractory CD19 positive B-ALL, which were published in the journal Nature Medicine in 2019.

Obe-cel Phase 1 Clinical Trial in other B-cell malignancies (ALLCAR19 and CAROUSEL Trials)

The ALLCAR19 clinical trial has also been expanded to include three additional cohorts with a total of 40 patients:

•10 patients with r/r DLBCL (including transformed FL, but not Richter’s transformation);

•10 patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell CLL / small lymphocytic leukemia; and

•20 patients with relapsed or refractory indolent B-NHL (either FL, MCL or marginal zone lymphoma).

Our collaborators at UCL have submitted a full manuscript of all 40 patients treated in the extension cohorts to the journal Blood in January 2026. The abstract of this manuscript states the following:

Table of contents

•40 received obe-cel (10 patients per disease group). No patients experienced ≥grade 3 cytokine release syndrome and 1/40 (3%) experienced grade 3 neurotoxicity. Overall response rate was 36/39 (92%). PFS at 6 and 12 months was 87% (95% confidence interval [CI], 72–94) and 76% (95% CI, 60–87), respectively. Excellent expansion (geometric mean Cmax: 113,047 copies/µg genomic DNA) and CAR T persistence were observed (19/23 patients alive and progression-free at last follow-up). Obe-cel has a good safety profile, high remission rates and durable responses in r/r adult B-cell cancers beyond B-ALL. Preliminary data support further development of obe-cel for these indications.

•The median follow-up of the entire extension cohorts was 24.2 months (range, 1.3–48.4).

The median follow-up for the different cohorts was as follows:

•DLBCL: Median observed follow-up post-infusion was 36.1 months (range, 1.4-39.4).

•FL: Median follow-up from infusion was 47.8 months (range, 18.2-48.4).

•MCL: Median follow-up from infusion was 18.8 months (range, 3.9-48.0).

•CLL/SLL: Median observed follow-up from infusion was 15.1 months (range, 1.3-36.5).

UCL has also initiated a Phase 1 exploratory trial (CAROUSEL) of obe-cel in patients with relapsed or refractory PCNSL. CAROUSEL is evaluating the feasibility of generating obe-cel and safety of administration in this patient population. UCL presented initial data at the EHA meeting in June 2022. Expansion of obe-cel was observed in the peripheral blood by qPCR, with persistence in all treated patients at last follow-up. No Grade 3 or greater CRS was observed using intravenous (“IV”) or intra-ventricular obe-cel administration. Two cases of Grade 3 ICANS were reported following IV infusion, whereby the first patient had several neurological deficits that evolved despite ICANS treatment and were compatible with progressive PCNSL, as confirmed with the month 1 MRI scan, and the second patient had neurological deficits that improved with steroids/anakinra. We observed encouraging response rates in six patients evaluable for efficacy following IV administration of obe-cel. The ORR was four out of six patients (67%), with 2 CRs and 2 PRs. These four responding patients are without disease progression at the last follow up date. Two patients died from progressive PCNSL while part of the study. We expect to report longer follow-up from this trial and enrolment of additional patients is ongoing.

Obe-cel for Lupus and Other Autoimmune Diseases

In addition to advancing AUCATZYL/obe-cel for oncology indications, we are advancing obe-cel for the treatment of autoimmune diseases. We have initiated a Phase 1 clinical trial in patients with severe, refractory systemic lupus erythematosus. We have initiated a Phase 2 clinical trial in patients with severe, refractory lupus nephritis and we have initiated a Phase 1 clinical trial in patients with progressive Multiple Sclerosis.

Background of Systemic lupus erythematosus (“SLE”) and lupus nephritis (“LN”)

SLE is an autoimmune disease characterized by the formation of autoantibodies and immune complex–mediated inflammation and organ damage, including the skin, joints, central nervous system, heart, lung, and kidneys. Disease severity changes over time with periods of no disease activity alternated by periods with disease flares/relapses. In some cases SLE can be life threatening and chronic disease can be life shortening. The disease onset is generally between the ages of 20 and 40, and it affects predominantly women. The estimated prevalent population of SLE patients in the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, France Spain, Italy and Japan is approximately 550,000 patients, of which approximately 60% (330,000 patients) experience moderate to severe disease. Roughly 15% will be refractory to standard therapies; potentially addressable by CAR T therapy.

Currently available treatments are not curative and are associated with certain safety concerns. Many patients require life-long immunosuppression, often with high-dose corticosteroids, cyclophosphamide, or mycophenolate mofetil, which reduce inflammation by non-specifically targeting the immune system. This results in low-level disease activity in only 25–44% of patients in the long term, while sustained complete remission is rare. Approximately 10% of patients with LN, a form of the disease associated with kidney organ damage, develop end-stage renal disease in 5 years. Side effects of the current treatment strategies include infections in the short term and risk for malignancy and cardiovascular disease in the long term, contributing to the reduced life expectancy of patients with SLE. These outcomes, together with the inability to reverse disease progression support the need for developing better strategies to treat SLE.

Autoreactive B cells with autoantibody formation play a key role in the pathogenesis of SLE. However, B cell depleting agents, such as the anti-CD20 antibody rituximab, did not statistically improve clinical outcomes compared to placebo in randomized studies in SLE and LN. Three different biologics have recently been approved in SLE:

•Belimumab, an anti-BAFF/BLyS monoclonal antibody, has been approved as add-on therapy in adult patients with active, autoantibody-positive SLE with a high degree of disease activity despite standard therapy.

•Anifrolumab, a type I interferon (“IFN”) receptor antagonist, has also been approved in the United States and EU and is indicated as an add-on for the treatment of adult patients with moderate to severe SLE who are receiving standard therapy.

Table of contents

•Obinutuzumab, a next-generation anti-CD20 B-cell depleting IgG, has been approved by the FDA for patients with LN in combination with standard of care therapy.

Despite these approvals, some patients have insufficient response, lack of response, or lack of sustained response and are at risk for further organ damage despite standard therapy. Hence, challenges remain with treatment-resistant disease.

Another strategy to induce deeper depletion of the B cell compartment originates from the highly effective treatment of patients with B cell malignancies using CD19 CAR T cells. A clinical study by Mackensen and colleagues published in 2023 showed a deep depletion of CD19+ B cells and plasma blasts in SLE-affected tissues could trigger an immune reset that could allow the cessation of immunosuppressive treatment in patients with SLE. In this study, autologous T cells from 8 patients with SLE were transduced with a lentiviral anti-CD19 CAR vector, expanded and reinfused at a dose of 1×10x6 CAR T cells per kg body weight into the patients after lymphodepletion with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide. CAR T cells expanded in vivo and led to deep depletion of B cells with improvement of clinical symptoms and normalization of laboratory parameters including seroconversion of anti-ds DNA antibodies. Remission of SLE according to standard criteria was achieved in all patients after 3 months, and drug-free remission was maintained during longer follow-up after CAR T cell administration.

Based on the important role of B cells in the SLE disease pathogenesis and the preliminary evidence of safety and activity of CD19 CAR T cell therapy in this disease, we have hypothesized that treatment with a single infusion of obe-cel may have the potential to eliminate the malfunctioning autoreactive B cells and ameliorate disease in SLE patients in a similar fashion. We believe obe-cel's potential advantages over other autoimmune therapies that are approved or in development include its differentiated mechanism of action via its fast-off rate CD19 binder, the existing clinical data and approval in r/r B-ALL and our established manufacturing and commercial capabilities. In particular, the favorable safety profile in adult r/r B-ALL observed in the FELIX study, with low rates of high-grade CRS and ICANS in the cancer setting, have the potential to drive acceptability of a cell therapy approach in the rheumatology setting. Additionally, the fast-off rate kinetics observed with obe-cel show increased T-cell engraftment and profound B-cell depletion in B-cell malignancies. These properties have the potential to drive a deeper cut into CD19+ B cells and plasma blasts in SLE-affected tissues, and could potentially trigger an immune reset in patients. Obe-cel is the only autologous CD19 CAR T-cell therapy being developed for lupus with an approval in another indication. We expect that data supporting the safety and manufacture of obe-cel in r/r B-ALL could potentially be useful to support the development of obe-cel in autoimmune indications. Finally, our established commercial systems and manufacturing infrastructure for AUCATZYL/obe-cel could be leveraged to support an autoimmune indication.

Clinical Development in SLE, LN and other Autoimmune Diseases

Obe-cel in SLE and LN

The CARLYSLE trial is a single-arm, open-label, Phase 1 trial to determine the safety, tolerability, and preliminary efficacy of obe-cel in patients with severe, refractory SLE. The primary goal of this trial is to confirm the fixed dose of obe-cel in adult SLE patients.

Data from the ongoing Phase 1 CARLYSLE study evaluating obe-cel in patients with severe refractory systemic lupus erythematosus was presented at the ASH Annual Meeting in December 2025. Nine adult patients were infused with obe-cel, including six at the 50M dose and three at the 100M dose.

Obe-cel was well tolerated in all patients. No dose limiting toxicities (DLTs) or cases of ICANS were observed at the 50M dose. Grade one cytokine release syndrome (CRS) was observed in three patients at the 50M dose and three patients at the 100M dose. Hypertension was observed in five patients at the 50M dose, with three of those patients having pre-existing history of hypertension. A case of transient Grade three liver toxicity was observed in one patient of the 100M cohort.

At the 50M dose, three patients (50%) achieved CRR (Complete Renal Response) and five patients (83%) achieved DORIS (Definition of Remission in SLE) with a median onset of 5.1 months (range: 4.9–8.9), without evidence of new disease activity at a median of 12 months of follow up (range: 8.5–16.3). All non-renal manifestations of the disease resolved by month four. Urinary protein creatinine (UPC) ratio levels decreased over time, demonstrating significant decline or absence of disease activity. Data show high peak expansion and deep B cell aplasia consistent with known obe-cel characteristics in oncology indications. Peak expansion was reached at a median of 10 days (range: 9–13). The median time to loss of CAR T-cell persistence based on Kaplan-Meier analysis was 3.0 months. The B-cell reconstitution profiles suggest that obe-cel may induce a reset of pathologic autoimmunity.

Emerging data in the 100M cohort is consistent with the 50M adult cohort, and evaluation is ongoing.

Table of contents

We have recently transitioned this program into a Phase 2 potentially pivotal study known as LUMINA, following successful preliminary results from the Phase 1 CARLYSLE trial. 50M has been selected as the recommended Phase 2 dose. The objective of the study is to assess the safety and effectiveness of a single infusion of obe-cel in patients with severe, refractory systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) with active lupus nephritis (LN) in participants age 12-65. The endpoints will be the proportion of participants achieving a complete renal response (signs of kidney inflammation disappearing) and DORIS. The study is a single-arm, open-label trial involving approximately 30 participants . Autolus has aligned with FDA on a Phase 2 trial design in LN and potential registrational path to approval. The LUMINA Phase 2 trial is now enrolling.

Furthermore, additional evidence of CD19 CAR T cell treatment in other autoimmune diseases has been shown by others, including efficacy in patients with idiopathic inflammatory myositis, systemic sclerosis, myasthenia gravis and multiple sclerosis. Depending on the outcome of the dose confirmation study in SLE, we intend to investigate obe-cel in additional autoimmune disease indications. Other autoimmune indications include patients with MS. The phase 1 study in MS (BOBCAT) is currently ongoing.

Obe-cel in progressive multiple sclerosis (“MS”)

Background to progressive MS

In MS, the body’s immune system attacks the myelin sheath or the cells that produce and maintain it (demyelination). This attack causes an inflammation and injury to the myelin sheath. Ultimately, the nerve fibers and the myelin sheath surrounds are damaged. In general, the myelin sheath protects nerves in the brain and spinal cord. MS encompasses relapsing-remitting MS (“RRMS”), in which a patient may recover either partially or fully, and progressive MS (“PMS”) (either primary PMS (“PPMS”) or secondary PMS (“SPMS”)), in which a patient’s condition steadily declines. SPMS is associated with higher incidence of hospitalization, as well as greater functional impairment and MS symptom severity than RRMS. PPMS and SPMS are pathophysiologically similar and exhibit similar rates of disease progression. RRMS and PMS (either PPMS or SPMS) can be further categorized as either active or non-active. While demyelination is the fundamental pathophysiologic feature of MS, axonal injury and neurodegeneration play important roles in clinical manifestations and development of progressive disability. There is no cure for MS and new approaches to treating the disease are needed.

In 2021, there were 1.89 million people in the world living with MS according to Global Burden of Disease Study 2021. This corresponds to 23.9 cases per 100,000 population. North America and Western Europe sustained the highest prevalence, incidence, DALYs (disability-adjusted life years) and mortality due to MS. The prevalence of MS in United States was also fairly high (126/100,000), with northern states having higher prevalence rates compared to the southern states.

Currently available therapies are generally effective at treating relapses and relapse-associated worsening, while disability progression meeting the criteria of Progression Independent of Relapse Activity (“PIRA”) is not effectively treated. Different pathological processes may be involved, and those underlying PIRA are likely to be confined largely to the CNS compartment, which is inaccessible to most available treatments.

Approved treatments for RRMS, which may also be used in some regions such as the United States to treat patients with active (relapsing) SPMS, have the potential for serious long-term safety concerns, e.g., risk of progressive multifocal eukoencephalopathy following treatment with diroximel fumarate, natalizumab, or ocrelizumab; risk of congestive heart failure and secondary acute myeloid leukemia following treatment with mitoxantrone hydrochloride; and increased risks of infection, liver injury, and fetal risk following treatment with cladribine or siponimod. These medications have shown low levels of reduction in disability progression for SPMS, and none are approved in patients with non-active SPMS. Cladribine is recommended as second-line treatment due to its risks. Only one drug, the anti-CD20 B cell-depleting agent ocrelizumab, has been approved for PPMS based on a modest 6% absolute reduction in confirmed disability progression. Ocrelizumab is also effective in reducing relapses in RRMS and active SPMS, but has warnings and precautions for risk of infection, infusion reaction, and malignancy. Even with the advent of new therapies, there is still a large MS patient population with a significant unmet need for agents that are effective in reducing progression but have fewer safety risks than existing therapies. This includes patients with PMS, particularly those with non-active disease (without clear relapses for up to two years), and patients exhibiting PIRA.

B cell depletion has proven to be an effective approach for initial treatment of MS, as demonstrated by the efficacy of disease-modifying mAbs targeting the B cell surface antigen CD20, e.g., rituximab, ocrelizumab, ofatumumab, and ublituximab. The hypothesized mechanism is an eradication of autoreactive B cell clones and a reset of B cell immunity. However, depletion of circulating B cells by mAbs has limited therapeutic efficacy as they cannot access autoreactive B cells within lymphatic organs, inflamed tissues, and the CNS, leading to incomplete B cell depletion.

The surface antigen CD19 is expressed on a wide spectrum of B cells and B cell precursor cells as well as plasmablasts, which is not the case for other B cell surface antigens (e.g., CD20). Obecabtagene autoleucel (obe-cel/AUTO1; AUCATZYL®) targets CD19 and thus has a broader effect on B cells than existing CD20-targeting therapies. In order for a drug to be efficient in PMS, it has to cross the blood-brain barrier (BBB) in its active form and directly exert its action upon the CNS inflammatory cells (microglia, astrocyte, oligodendrocyte). Anti-CD20 mAbs do not readily cross the BBB to target.

Table of contents

CD19-targeting chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells, such as obe-cel, can penetrate the CNS compartment and act on pathological cells inside, and therefore have the potential to be a highly effective new treatment modality for MS. In contrast to monoclonal antibodies, CAR T cells can penetrate actively the blood-brain barrier (BBB). We know that obe-cel penetrateds the BBB as evidenced in the FELIX study. Similarly, other CD19 CAR T cells also penetrate the BBB.

Preclinical experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis murine models provide further support for the use of CD19-targeting CAR T cell therapies in patients with MS. Early trials of CD19-directed CAR T cell administration in patients with refractory, progressive MS showed an acceptable safety profile. CAR T cell presence, expansion, and relative enrichment were observed in the cerebrospinal fluid, with no events of Grade ≥ 2 CRS or ICANS. Intrathecal antibody reduction indicated expansion-dependent effects of CAR T cells on CD19+ target cells in the CNS. Overall, although long-term follow-up data are required, these early results are encouraging and demonstrate that further exploration of CAR T therapy in this indication is warranted.

Obe-cel Phase 1 Clinical Trial in MS

Autolus is advancing obe-cel into initial clinical development in progressive MS. The first patient in the BOBCAT trial was dosed in October 2025. This Phase 1 trial, expected to include up to 18 adult patients, will evaluate the safety, tolerability, and preliminary efficacy of obe-cel in participants with refractory progressive forms of multiple sclerosis. The primary endpoint is to assess safety and tolerability of obe-cel. Key secondary endpoints include evaluating the preliminary efficacy of obe-cel using change from baseline in standard efficacy measures. We plan to provide updates on the initial Phase 1 data in late 2026.

AUTO1/22 Our Programmed T Cell Therapy for the Treatment of ALL, other B-cell malignancies

Introduction to AUTO1/22

AUTO1/22 is a dual-targeting CAR T which builds on the obe-cel approach utilizing the same CD19 CAR, alongside a novel CD22 CAR designed to reduce antigen negative relapse of disease. Antigen negative relapse is a common cause of relapse in patients with pediatric ALL.

AUTO1/22 Phase 1 Clinical Trial in Pediatric ALL (CARPALL Trial)

We commenced a Phase 1 clinical trial in pediatric patients with relapsed or refractory ALL with our dual expressing CAR product candidate, AUTO1/22 in late 2020. In a publication in Blood in October 2023, we presented data demonstrating a high level of activity, with 83% of patients (10 of 12 patients evaluated) experiencing MRD negative complete remissions, and a favorable tolerability profile in a very challenging patient population. Patients on study were high risk, with 4 patients who had failed prior CD19 CAR therapy, 3 patients with a CD19-negative disease component, 3 patients with non-CNS EMD and 6 patients who had received prior blinatumomab.

Of 10 responding patients, 5 had emergence of MRD (2) or frank relapse (3) with CD19 and CD22 expressing disease associated with loss of CAR T-cell persistence. Importantly, there were no cases of relapse due to antigen-negative escape, with a median follow-up of 8.7 months. Overall survival was 75% at 6 and 12 months. Six and 12-month event free survival (EFS) were 75% and 60% respectively.

Our collaborators at UCL are currently evaluating an alternative manufacturing process and initiated an extension to the CARPALL Phase 1 clinical trial in a cohort of pediatric patients with relapsed or refractory ALL in 2025. We expect that they will report the first data from this study in late 2026.

AUTO8: Our Multiple Myeloma and Light Chain Amyloidosis Program

Introduction to AUTO8

AUTO8 is a next-generation product candidate for multiple myeloma and Amyloid Light-chain (“AL”) amyloidosis. AUTO8 comprises two independent CARs for the multiple myeloma targets, BCMA and CD19. We have developed an optimized BCMA CAR which is designed for improved killing of target cell that express BCMA at low levels. This has been combined with fast off-rate CD19 CAR from obe-cel. We believe that the design of AUTO8 has the potential to induce deep and durable responses and extend the durability of effect over other approved BCMA CARs and those currently in development.

Background of Multiple Myeloma

According to data from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2020, there were approximately 156,000 new cases of multiple myeloma and 113,000 deaths in 2019. The American Cancer Society estimates that in the United States in 2024, approximately 35,780 new cases will be diagnosed and approximately 12,540 deaths are expected to occur from multiple myeloma. With currently available treatments the five-year survival rate is approximately 58%.

Table of contents

Treatment choices for multiple myeloma vary with the aggressiveness of the disease and related prognostic factors. Newly diagnosed patients in good physical health with active disease generally receive high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplantation (“ASCT”). Eligibility for ASCT is established primarily by age and comorbidities. When transplantation is not an option, treatment traditionally consists of systemic chemotherapy, with adjunctive use of radiation.

The therapeutic landscape of multiple myeloma has changed significantly in the past decade with the introduction of novel immunomodulatory agents, such as lenalidomide, as well as monoclonal antibodies, such as daratumumab, and proteasome inhibitors, including bortezomib and carfilzomib. The past decade has also seen major progress in the understanding of the molecular oncogenesis of plasma cell neoplasms, which has significantly influenced the clinical management of multiple myeloma. Despite these major advances, most cases of multiple myeloma have remained incurable. A considerable number of multiple myeloma patients ultimately experience a final tumor relapse without any additional, effective treatment option. Patients with relapsed or refractory disease typically have a poor prognosis.

Recently approved therapeutic approaches include products that target BCMA on multiple myeloma cells, including redirected T cell therapies such as T cell engagers and CAR T cell therapies. Despite recent progress, there remains significant unmet clinical need among patients with multiple myeloma. We believe our programmed T cell product candidate, AUTO8, with its dual-targeting approach, has the potential to lead to higher levels of efficacy and durability of effect compared to other products and redirected T cell therapies that bind to BCMA alone.

Background to light chain (“AL”) amyloidosis

AL amyloidosis is a rare, acquired disorder characterized by the abnormal folding and deposition of light chains, which are fragments of antibodies, as amyloid fibrils in vital organs. These light chains are produced by a clone of abnormal plasma cells in the bone marrow. The deposited amyloid causes organ dysfunction and damage, primarily to the heart and kidneys, but also affecting other organs and tissues. Early diagnosis is crucial to prevent end-stage organ damage, and current available treatments, such as daratumumab, aim to control the light chain-producing plasma cells to slow or halt disease progression and improve quality of life.

BCMA CAR T-cell therapies, originally developed for multiple myeloma, have shown promising initial safety and efficacy in AL amyloidosis patients including rapid reduction of the disease biomarkers and organ responses in clinical trials. The therapeutic approach has the potential to eliminate the disease-causing plasma cells by targeting the cause of the disease potentially offers longer term outcomes for these patients.

Clinical Development of AUTO8

In collaboration with UCL, we commenced a Phase 1 clinical trial in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma in March 2022. The phase 1 study is an iterative, staggered design trial with two separate parallel cohorts for direct comparison of the BCMA CAR alone and AUTO8 (the BCMA CAR in combination with the CD19 CAR from obe-cel). As of November 13, 2023 (data cut-off), 11 patients have been infused with either BCMA CAR at 50 million (n=3) or 150 million (n=3) cells, or AUTO8 at 50 million (n=3) or 150 million (n=2). At a median follow-up of 6 months we observed 100% ORR, with 3 PR, 1 VGPR, 7 CR/sCR (all evaluable MRD negative). Two patients remained in ongoing sCR > 12 months. No cases of ICANS or CRS ≥ Gr 3 were observed across all subjects during the period. While persistence data from the dual targeting cohort is immature, it demonstrates expansion of three CAR populations and suggests a trend to increased persistence of D8 BCMA CAR expressing T cells. The study is ongoing and continues to recruit patients.

In collaboration with UCL, we commenced a Phase 1 clinical trial in patients with relapsed or refractory AL amyloidosis. We dosed the first patient on the study in October 2025 and we expect to report the first data from this study in late 2026.

Our Solid Tumor Programs

Solid tumors present a particular challenge to CAR T cell therapies, since solid tumors tend to fend off T cells with upregulation of checkpoint inhibition and a hostile microenvironment. In addition, contrary to hematological cancer cells that are readily accessible to programmed T cells in the circulating blood of a patient, solid tumors are more difficult for programmed T cells to track down in sufficient numbers to impact the disease. In addition, the persistence of programmed T cells tends to be limited, which also leads to a reduced effect on solid tumor cells. In addition to the programs we are currently pursuing described below, we intend to continue to evaluate other possible solid tumor indications.

Table of contents

AUTO6: Our Neuroblastoma Program

Introduction to AUTO6 and AUTO6NG

Under our license agreement with University College of London Business Ltd. (“UCLB”), we have been granted an exclusive, worldwide license to AUTO6 (1RG-CART), a programmed T cell product candidate targeting the glycosphingolipid GD2. Cancer Research UK (“CRUK”) has completed an exploratory Phase 1 clinical trial of AUTO6 in pediatric patients with neuroblastoma. We are developing a next-generation product candidate, which we refer to as AUTO6NG, incorporating additional programming modules designed to improve efficacy, safety and persistence of AUTO6.

Background of Neuroblastoma

Neuroblastoma is a cancer that develops from immature nerve cells found in several areas of the body, and most commonly arises in and around the adrenal glands, which have similar origins to nerve cells and sit atop the kidneys. However, neuroblastoma can also develop in other areas of the abdomen and in the chest, neck and near the spine, where groups of nerve cells exist. Neuroblastoma most commonly affects children age five or younger, though it may rarely occur in older children. According to the American Cancer Society, there are approximately 700 to 800 new cases of neuroblastoma each year in the United States.

Preclinical Studies of AUTO6/6NG

In preclinical in vitro studies, AUTO6 selectively, effectively and efficiently killed GD2-expressing tumor cells while sparing cells that did not express GD2. In addition, the RQR8 safety switch activation by rituximab was tested in vitro, where the addition of rituximab was shown to activate the safety switch and eliminate the programmed T cells from the culture, and residual cells did not possess any intrinsic anti-GD2 activity. This safety switch activation was also observed in vivo in a mouse model, where the murine analogue of rituximab was able to deplete the GD2-targeting programmed T cell product candidate from the bone marrow, blood, lymph node and spleen of animals that had previously been engrafted with programmed T cells.

In 2016, in collaboration with Cancer Research UK’s Centre for Drug Development we initiated a single-arm Phase 1 dose escalation trial of AUTO6 in relapsed or refractory neuroblastoma at two pediatric cancer centers in the U.K. The trial evaluated the safety and efficacy of AUTO6. In 2020 the data from the AUTO6 Phase 1 clinical trial was published in Science Translational Medicine. The results from the study showed that AUTO6 can induce rapid regression of bulky disease in a solid tumor setting without inducing on-target, off-tumor toxicity, despite dose dependent CAR T expansion. CAR T cell expansion was observed in all 6 patients treated at the higher cell dose cohorts in this Phase 1 study. Three of these six patients demonstrated evidence of transient CAR T cell activity, including CRS, and regression of soft tissue and BM disease activity.

The GD2 binder used in AUTO6 has been designed to minimize on-target, off-tumor neurotoxicity associated with GD2 expression at low levels in pain fibers and the brain. Despite the presence of clear CAR T cell activity, no neurotoxicity was observed. The publication also suggests that, whilst AUTO6 is a valid and safe strategy for targeting neuroblastoma, further modifications are required to promote CAR T cell persistence and induce deeper and more durable responses for these patients.

In November 2019, we reported preclinical data of AUTO6NG. Building on AUTO6, in AUTO6NG we introduced additional programming modules in order to help the programmed T cells persist in and withstand the hostile tumor microenvironment. AUTO6NG is a programmed T cell therapy incorporating the GD2-targeted CAR T and RQR8 safety switch from AUTO6 but also incorporating three additional programming modules: (i) an IL7 CCR designed to increase persistence, (ii) a dominant negative TGFbRII protein designed to block inhibitor signals from TGFb and (iii) a truncated SHP2 protein designed to block inhibitor signals from PD1. These modules are delivered, or transduced, into the T cells via two viral vectors. Both single- and dual-transduced CAR T cells were evaluated in vitro for antitumor activity, cytokine secretion, T cell proliferation, survival, and resistance to immunosuppressive pathways.

The addition of these three modules in the AUTO6NG product candidate significantly augmented its function by extending T cell persistence and rendering modified T cells resistant to TGFb- and PD1/PDL1-driven immune inhibition when compared to AUTO6 in vitro. Additionally, intravenous delivery of AUTO6NG in mice with established tumor burden exhibited potent antitumor activity and extended survival, whereas AUTO6 showed no activity in that model.

We presented new preclinical data for AUTO6NG in June 2020 at the American Association for Cancer Research Virtual Annual Meeting 2020. GD2 was evaluated as a therapeutic CAR T target antigen in small cell lung cancer (“SCLC”). We observed that AUTO6 alone has demonstrated efficacy in an in vitro SCLC model; however, successful tumor targeting alone was not sufficient to drive meaningful in vivo efficacy in the same SCLC model. We presented new preclinical data demonstrating the ability to target GD2 in SCLC cell line models in vitro, and the requirement for enhancing modules, designed to overcome TME suppressive mechanisms, to drive superior in vivo efficacy in a SCLC mouse model. The data suggests that AUTO6NG can overcome the immune suppressive mechanisms in the TME.

Table of contents

Clinical Development Strategy of AUTO6NG

GD2 is expressed in numerous pediatric and adult tumors including neuroblastoma, osteosarcoma, soft tissue sarcoma, melanoma, astrocytoma and SCLC. A Phase 1 clinical trial of AUTO6NG in r/r neuroblastoma was initiated in December 2023 in collaboration with UCL. This study is currently enrolling patients.

Commercialization and Manufacturing Plans for our Clinical-Stage Programs

We are developing our clinical-stage programs for the treatment of patients with late-stage or rare hematological cancers and solid tumors, most of whom are treated in specialized treatment centers or hospitals. With our experience in gene therapy, transplantation and oncology, we aim to provide high levels of service and scientific engagement at these treatment centers, and to pilot and establish systems necessary for product delivery by the time of launch. By focusing on these centers, we can begin to build our commercialization capabilities with limited resources. We are also planning to advance obe-cel in autoimmune indications, and plan to leverage our established clinical and commercial manufacturing infrastructure, including our purpose-built manufacturing facility, the Nucleus.

We have retained worldwide commercial rights for our product candidates. We plan to expand our global commercialization capabilities over time such that we are able to commercialize any product candidate in a broader number of countries over time, but with a focus on achieving an early presence in the US, U.K. and parts of Europe, i.e. countries where we have obtained a regulatory approval. We may pursue strategic collaborations with third parties in order to maximize the commercial potential of our product candidates. Under the terms of the License and Option Agreement with BioNTech, BioNTech currently has an option to co-promote or co-commercialize AUTO6NG. We generally expect to launch any of our products that receive regulatory approval in the United States first, followed by the U.K., EU and subsequently in other major markets to the extent commercially feasible. BioNTech's product option for AUTO1/22 was not exercised and has expired, so we have regained full rights to commercialize AUTO 1/22.

In addition to the Nucleus, which is currently used exclusively for commercial manufacture of AUCATZYL, we maintain separate manufacturing capabilities for our clinical-stage programs. For clinical trial supply, we have established cell and vector manufacturing capacity at the Cell and Gene Therapy Catapult in Stevenage, U.K., where we maintain a cell manufacturing suite.

Our early-stage programs such as AUTO1/22 and AUTO6NG are manufactured in collaboration with the UCL study teams. However, phase-appropriate process development activities have been initiated within our laboratories in order to leverage our existing manufacturing capabilities for progression to a late-stage clinical program.

Intellectual Property

Intellectual property is of vital importance in our field and in biotechnology generally. We seek to protect and enhance proprietary technology, inventions and improvements that are commercially important to the development of our business by seeking, maintaining and defending patent rights, whether developed internally or licensed from third parties. We will also seek to rely on regulatory protection afforded through orphan drug designations, data exclusivity, market exclusivity and patent term extensions where available.

Our intellectual property estate, which includes in-licensed intellectual property and intellectual property that we own, is designed to provide multiple layers of protection. For example, we are pursuing patent protection for core constructs used in our product candidates, various methods of treatment for particular therapeutic indications using our approach, specific product candidates, innovative manufacturing processes, and constructs that may be used in future product candidates to improve the ability of our programmed T cells to better recognize and kill cancer and other target cells. A portion of our patent portfolio is directed to certain current product candidates or technologies deployed in certain product candidates, and the remainder of the portfolio is directed to alternative approaches, technologies or modules that are not currently deployed in our current product candidates.

As of December 31, 2025, our patent portfolio is comprised of 76 patent families, of which 13 patent families originated from UCLB, the technology-transfer company of UCL and 63 patent families we own and have originated from our own research. Of the 13 live patent families that were originally in-licensed from UCL, 12 have been assigned to us. Because we have acquired or licensed certain of our patents from UCLB, and licensed certain of other patents from third parties, we must rely on their prior practices with regard to the assignment of such intellectual property. Our and their assignment agreements may not be self-executing or may be breached, and we may be forced to bring claims against third parties or defend claims they may bring against us, to determine the ownership of what we regard as our intellectual property.

Commercially or strategically important non-U.S. jurisdictions in which certain patent applications that we have in-licensed are currently pending include: Europe, Australia, Canada, Japan, China, Brazil, Chile, Israel, India, Republic of Korea, Hong Kong, Mexico, New Zealand, Russian Federation, Singapore, South Africa, Colombia, Peru, Cuba, Indonesia, Malaysia and Philippines.

Table of contents

Our strategy is to develop and obtain additional intellectual property covering innovative manufacturing processes and methods for genetically engineering T cells expressing new constructs with properties that are designed to improve the ability of our programmed T cells to recognize and kill cancer and other target cells. To support this effort, we have established expertise and development capabilities focused in the areas of T cell programming, preclinical and clinical research and development, and manufacturing and manufacturing process scale-up, and we expect that our ongoing research and development activities will yield additional patentable inventions and patent applications that will expand our intellectual property portfolio.

The term of individual patents depends upon the legal term of the patents in the countries in which they are obtained. In most countries in which we file, the patent term is 20 years from the date of filing of the first non-provisional application to which priority is claimed. In the United States, a patent’s term may be lengthened by patent term adjustment, which compensates a patentee for administrative delays by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) in granting a patent or may be shortened if a patent is terminally disclaimed over an earlier-filed patent. The term of a patent that covers an FDA-approved drug may also be eligible for a patent term restoration of up to five years under the Hatch-Waxman Act, which is designed to compensate for the patent term lost during the FDA regulatory review process. The length of the patent term restoration is calculated based on the length of time the drug is under regulatory review. A patent term restoration under the Hatch-Waxman Act cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval and only one patent applicable to an approved drug may be restored.

Moreover, a patent can only be restored once, and thus, if a single patent is applicable to multiple products, it can only be extended based on one product. Similar provisions are available in Europe and certain other foreign jurisdictions to extend the term of a patent that covers an approved drug. If and when possible, we expect to apply for patent term extensions for patents covering our product candidates or their methods of use.

Our commercial success may depend in part on our ability to obtain and maintain patent and other proprietary protection for commercially important technology, inventions and know-how related to our business, defend and enforce our patents, preserve the confidentiality of our trade secrets, and operate without infringing the valid enforceable patents and proprietary rights of third parties. Our ability to stop third parties from making, using, selling, offering to sell or importing our products may depend on the extent to which we have rights under valid and enforceable patents or trade secrets that cover these activities. With respect to both licensed and company-owned intellectual property, we cannot be sure that patents will be granted with respect to any of our pending patent applications or with respect to any patent applications filed by us in the future, nor can we be sure that any patents, if granted, will be commercially useful in protecting our commercial products and methods of manufacturing the same. Development and commercialization of products can be subject to substantial delays and it is possible that, at the time of commercialization, any patent covering the product has expired or will be in force for only a short period of time following commercialization.

Numerous third-party U.S. and non-U.S. issued patents exist in the area of programmed T cell therapies, including patents held by our competitors. We cannot predict with any certainty if any third-party U.S. or foreign patent rights, or other proprietary rights, will be deemed infringed by the use of our technology. Nor can we predict with certainty which, if any, of these rights will or may be asserted against us by third parties. Should we need to defend ourselves against any such claims, substantial costs may be incurred. Furthermore, parties making such claims may be able to obtain injunctive or other equitable relief, which could effectively block our ability to develop or commercialize some or all our products in the United States, EU and other major markets.

We may rely, in some circumstances, on trade secrets to protect our technology. However, trade secrets can be difficult to protect. 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 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. In addition, our trade secrets may otherwise become known or be independently discovered by competitors. To the extent that our consultants, contractors or collaborators use intellectual property owned by others in their work for us, disputes may arise as to the rights in related or resulting know-how and inventions.

We also protect our brand via the use of trademarks. As of December 31, 2025, our trademark portfolio consists of 4 trademark families covering our core brand and product. These families include protection in commercially relevant jurisdictions, including the U.S. and Europe. We have established internal guidelines for the use of our brands and monitor for the registration of similar marks by third parties.

Our License and Option Agreement with BioNTech SE

In February 2024, we entered into a License and Option Agreement (the “BioNTech License Agreement”) with BioNTech pursuant to which we granted to BioNTech an exclusive, worldwide, sublicensable license (the “License”) to certain binders and to exploit products that express in vivo such binders (collectively, the “Binder Licensed Products”).

Table of contents

In addition to the License we also granted BioNTech several time-limited options (the “Options”) to acquire additional rights to specified clinical-stage product candidates, binders and technologies, described in more detail below. In the event that all Options are fully exercised, we would be eligible to receive maximum aggregate future payments of up to $582 million. This maximum amount includes the potential milestone payments for the Binder Licensed Products described below, all option exercise fees and potential milestone payments for licenses to optioned products and technologies, and additional payments that BioNTech may pay to us for an increased revenue interest with respect to obe-cel as described below.

License and Options

In consideration for the License and the Options, BioNTech made an initial payment to us of $10 million, which is part of the $50 million of total upfront payments received.

We are eligible to receive milestone payments of up to $32 million in the aggregate upon the achievement of specified clinical development and regulatory milestones for each Binder licensed Product that achieves such milestones. We are also eligible to receive a low single-digit royalty on net sales of Binder licensed Products, subject to customary reductions, which reductions are subject to specified limits. The royalty will be increased if BioNTech, its affiliates or sublicensees commercialize a Binder licensed Product in an indication and country in which we or our affiliates or licensees also commercializes a product containing the same binders. Under the BioNTech License Agreement, BioNTech is solely responsible for, and has sole decision-making authority with respect to, at its own expense, the exploitation of Binder licensed Products.

We also agreed to grant BioNTech the following time-limited Options:

•an option to obtain exclusive rights to co-fund development costs of our development-stage programs AUTO1/22 and AUTO6NG, in return for agreed upon economic terms, including an option exercise fee, milestone payments and a profit-sharing arrangement for each such product candidate, with additional options to co-promote or co-commercialize such product candidate. The product option for AUTO1/22 was not exercised and has expired as of 8 February 2025;

•an option to obtain an exclusive worldwide license to exploit products that express certain additional binders in vivo or, with respect to certain binders, in an antibody drug conjugate (“Binder Option”);

•an option to obtain a co-exclusive worldwide license to exploit products that express in vivo our modules for activity enhancement, with a non-exclusive right, in certain agreed instances, to exploit products that include our modules for activity enhancement but do not express in vivo such modules (the “Activity Enhancement Option”); and

•an option to obtain a non-exclusive worldwide license to exploit products that contain our safety switches (the “Safety Switch Option” and, together with the Binder Option and the Activity Enhancement Option, the “Technology Options”).

The option exercise fee for each Technology Option is a low seven-digit amount. Each of the Activity Enhancement Option and the Safety Switch Option must be exercised with respect to a given biological target or combination of targets. There is a cap on the total option exercise fee if multiple options are exercised with respect to a given target.

There is also a cap on milestone payments across all agreements entered into as the result of BioNTech exercising one or more of the Technology Options and a cap on royalties payable on any given product for which multiple Options are exercised.

Obe-cel Product Revenue Interest

Under the BioNTech License Agreement, BioNTech has also agreed to financially support the expansion of the clinical development program and planned commercialization of, obe-cel. In exchange for the grant of rights to future revenues from the sales of obe-cel, BioNTech has made an upfront payment to us of $40 million, (£31.8 million), representing the remainder of the $50 million total upfront payment). We will pay BioNTech a low single-digit percentage of annual net sales of obe-cel, including revenues from sales of AUCATZYL, which may be increased up to a mid-single digit percentage in exchange for milestone payments of up to $100 million in the aggregate on achievement of certain regulatory events for specific new indications upon BioNTech's election. In May 2025, we made our initial payments of the revenue share interest to BioNTech, and as of December 31, 2025 we have paid $1.5 million in revenue share interest to BioNTech.

Manufacturing and Commercial Agreement

Under the terms of the BioNTech License and Option Agreement, Autolus Limited has agreed to grant BioNTech the option to negotiate a joint manufacturing and commercial services agreement pursuant to which the parties may access and leverage each other’s manufacturing and commercial capabilities, in addition to Autolus’ commercial site network and infrastructure, with respect to certain of each parties’ CAR T products, including BioNTech’s product candidate BNT211 (the “Manufacturing and Commercial Services Agreement” or “MCSA”). The MCSA, if entered into, would also grant BioNTech access to the Company’s commercial site network and infrastructure. On 6 August 2025, the MCSA option expired unexercised.

Table of contents

Termination

Unless earlier terminated, the BioNTech License Agreement will continue for so long as royalties are payable in respect of Binder licensed Products and the revenue interest is payable in respect of obe-cel products. Subject to a cure period, either party may terminate the agreement in the event of the other party’s uncured material breach or the insolvency of the other party. BioNTech may terminate the agreement, in whole or in part, for any or no reason upon a specified period of prior written notice.

Our License Agreement with UCL Business Ltd.

In September 2014, we entered into an exclusive license agreement with UCLB, the technology transfer company of UCL, for the development and commercialization rights to certain T cell programming modules (the “UCLB Agreement”). The UCLB Agreement was amended and restated in March 2016 to also include certain development and commercialization rights to improvements and new T cell programming modules. The UCLB Agreement was further amended and restated in March 2018 to include a license to AUTO1, for which UCL is conducting Phase 1 clinical trials in pediatric and adult ALL patients. The UCLB Agreement was further amended and restated in October 2020 to reflect our election to have various patent rights assigned to us, and to include a license to new technology and further licenses to obe-cel for which UCL is conducting Phase 1 clinical trials in PCNSL patients. Under the UCLB Agreement, subject to certain limitations, exceptions and retained rights of UCLB, we received an exclusive license of certain patent rights and know-how owned by UCLB covering T cell programming modules. The licensed rights cover obe-cel, AUTO4/5 and AUTO6 targeting modules, as well as additional T cell programming modules and technologies, including dual-targeting technology, pattern recognition technology, safety switches (including RQR8), tunable T cells, manufacturing processes as well as certain technology for evading tumor micro-environments. We also have option rights and rights of first negotiation to obtain an exclusive license for development and commercialization rights to certain new T cell programming modules.

In exchange for the rights under the original license agreement, we granted UCLB equity that was ultimately converted into 1,497,643 of our ordinary shares. We also agreed to pay a management fee, milestone payments and royalties upon future net sales of any products that use the in-licensed rights. The management fee of £120,000 was payable in equal installments on the first four anniversaries of our entry into the original license agreement. In exchange for the additional rights we received in March 2016 when the license agreement was amended, we issued UCLB additional equity that was ultimately converted into 313,971 of our ordinary shares, and we also made a one-time payment of £150,000. In exchange for the additional rights we received in March 2018 when the license agreement was further amended, we made an initial payment of £1.5 million and paid an additional £0.35 million in connection with UCLB's transfer of clinical data to us in December 2020.

Under the license agreement, as amended, we are obligated to pay UCLB milestone payments upon the initiation of certain clinical activities in an aggregate amount of £0.18 million, the receipt of specified regulatory approvals in an aggregate amount of £37.5 million, the start of commercialization in an aggregate amount of £18 million, and the achievement of net sales levels in an aggregate amount of £51 million. On a per-product basis, these milestone payments range from £1 million to £18.5 million, depending on which T cell programming modules are used in the product achieving the milestone. On November 8, 2024 we were notified by the FDA that our obe-cel BLA was approved, allowing for the marketing of AUCATZYL in the US for the treatment of adult patients (18 years and older) with r/r B-ALL. Consequently, we paid a regulatory milestone payment of £10.0 million to UCLB. On July 17, 2025, the European Commission granted marketing approval for AUCATZYL for the treatment of adult patients (26 years and older) with r/r B-ALL which triggered a £6.0 million regulatory milestone payment that we paid during the three months ended September 30, 2025 in accordance with the UCLB Agreement. Under the terms of the license, we have the right to grant sub-licenses to third parties, subject to certain restrictions. If we receive any income in connection with such sublicenses, we must pay UCLB a percentage of the income allocable to the value of the sublicensed intellectual property rights ranging from low twenties to mid-single digits, decreasing based on the development expenses incurred by us and the passage of time. In 2025, less than $0.1 million was payable to UCLB by us relating to the income allocable to the value of the sublicensed intellectual property rights. UCLB has retained the right to use the licensed T cell programming modules for academic research purposes at UCL and with other academic institutions, subject to certain restrictions.

Upon commercialization of any of our products that use the in-licensed patent rights, we are obligated to pay UCLB a flat royalty for each licensed product ranging from the low- to mid-single digits, depending on which technologies are deployed in the licensed product, based on worldwide annual net sales of each licensed product, subject to certain reductions, including for the market entry of competing products and for loss of patent coverage of licensed products. We may deduct from the royalties payable to UCLB half of any payments made to a third party to obtain a license to such third party’s intellectual property that is necessary to exploit any licensed products.

Once net sales of a licensed product have reached a certain specified threshold, we may exercise an option to buy out UCLB’s rights to the remaining milestone payments, royalty payments, and sublicensing revenue payments for such licensed product, on terms to be negotiated at the time.

As mentioned above, we acquired ownership of the majority of the licensed patent rights under the license agreement (with the exception of the RQR8 patent rights) by virtue of a Deed of Assignment from UCLB which was executed in October 2020. Our payment and diligence obligations remain unaffected by the assignment of the licensed patent rights to us.

Table of contents

Under the license agreement, we are solely responsible, at our expense, for developing the products that use the in-licensed patent rights and obtaining all regulatory approvals for such products worldwide. We are also solely responsible, at our expense, for commercializing the products worldwide after receiving regulatory approval. Further, we are obligated to use commercially reasonable efforts to develop certain products using the patent rights pertaining to the T cell programming modules we have licensed from UCLB. Failure to achieve diligence obligations may result in loss of exclusivity or termination of the license on a program-by-program basis.

The UCLB Agreement expires on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis upon the expiration of the royalty term with respect to each product in each country. We may unilaterally terminate the UCLB Agreement for any reason upon advance notice to UCLB. Either party may terminate the UCLB Agreement for the uncured material breach by the other party or for the insolvency of the other party. If UCLB terminates the UCLB Agreement following our insolvency or our material breach of the agreement, or if we terminate the agreement unilaterally, all rights and licenses granted to us will terminate, and all patent rights and know-how transferred, licensed or assigned to us pursuant to the agreement will revert back to UCLB. In addition, UCLB has the right to negotiate with us for the grant of an exclusive license to our improvements to the T cell programming modules we have licensed on terms to be agreed upon at the time.

Competition for Our Product Candidates

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries put significant resources in developing novel and proprietary therapies for the treatment of cancer. Consequently, there are a number of different products available in the indications where Autolus is seeking to launch our products. These include in-class competitors, such as autologous CAR T cell therapies, and products from different classes, such as bispecific t-cell engagers, anti-body drug conjugates, antibody treatments and classic small molecular entities anti-tumor agents. These anti-tumor agents can be given as single agents or are often used in combination.

In oncology, it is customary to initially study and launch as a last line agent for use in relapse/refractory patients. Over-time, and based upon further clinical studies, it is then common for products to move earlier in the treatment paradigm, to earlier lines of care. Examples of this are the recent FDA approvals of Yescarta and Breyanzi for second-line treatment in DLBCL. Consequently, as product use is sequenced, physicians make treatment decisions in each line based upon a number of factors such as which products and combinations are registered and reimbursed, response to the treatments used in previous lines of care, the aggressiveness and speed of progression of the tumor and the general health status of the patient.

Consequently, many of the out of class agents will not be direct competitors to autologous CAR T cell therapies in the initial use after launch, as they are predominantly used earlier in the treatment course. However, as CAR T cell therapies move to earlier lines, this will require clinical data to displace the existing standard of care.

In the indications where autologous CAR T cell therapies are registered, due to their superior efficacy, they are poised to become standard or care. Several companies already have autologous CAR T cell therapies which have been registered by the FDA and/or European Commission. These are direct competitors, and a summary of the indications in which they are currently registered is given below:


Approved Autologous CAR T Cell Therapies*
Product	Targeting	Company	Indications
Abecma (idecabtagene vicleucel)	BCMA	BMS	Adult patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma after four or more prior lines of therapy.
Breyanzi (lisocabtagene maraleucel)	CD19	BMS	Adult patients with large B-cell lymphoma (“LBCL”): •refractory disease to first-line chemoimmunotherapy or relapse within 12 months of first-line chemoimmunotherapy; •refractory disease to first-line chemoimmunotherapy or relapse after first-line chemoimmunotherapy and are not eligible for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) due to comorbidities or age •relapsed or refractory disease after two or more lines of systemic therapy
Carvykti (ciltacabtagene autoleucel)	BCMA	J&J / Janssen Biotech	Adult patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma after four or more prior lines of therapy.

Table of contents


Kymriah	CD19	Novartis	Patients up to 25 years of age with B-cell precursor ALL that is refractory or in second or later relapse Adult patients with LBCL after two or more lines of systemic therapy, including DLBCL Adult patients with relapsed or refractory FL after two or more lines of systemic therapy.
Tecartus	CD19	Kite Gilead	Adult patients with relapsed or refractory MCL. Adult patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell precursor ALL.
Yescarta (axicabtagene ciloleucel)	CD19	Kite Gilead	Adult patients with LBCL that is refractory to first-line chemoimmunotherapy or that relapses within 12 months of first-line chemoimmunotherapy. Adult patients with relapsed or refractory LBCL after two or more lines of systemic therapy, including DLBCL. Adult patients with relapsed or refractory FL after two or more lines of systemic therapy.

*Indication based on United States Prescribing Information

Four of these products, Tecartus and Yescarta from Kite/Gilead, Kymriah from Novartis and Breyanzi from BMS are anti-CD19 CAR T cell therapies, the same class as obe-cel. However, only Tecartus is approved for use in adult ALL with Kymriah also being an option for adolescents and young adults, (i.e., patients up to the age of 25 years old). There is a market for obe-cel in this indication due to its differentiated safety profile when compared to current approved therapies.

It is possible that companies could take other autologous CAR T cell products forward in adult ALL or allogeneic “off-the-shelf” CAR T cell therapies could be developed which would be considered direct competitors. Allogeneic products are in early development and, because these products are not made from the patient's own cells, they might be more convenient to deliver, without the need to wait for a product to be manufactured (typical manufacturing times for autologous products are currently 18-25 days). However, so far this class of product has not shown the same levels of durable activity in clinical trials and the products in clinical trials are therefore likely to require periodic repeat dosing as opposed to autologous products, which allow for the therapy to be given as a one-time treatment.

For additional discussion of competition for AUCATZYL in adult ALL, see "Business - Our Solution: Advanced T Cell Programming - Competition for AUCATZYL."

CAR T cell therapies are also being evaluated for treatment of autoimmune diseases. There are biotech and pharma companies in early-stage clinical trials in SLE and LN, as well as other autoimmune diseases, including Myasthenia Gravis, Scleroderma, Myositis, Multiple Sclerosis. Initiated Phase 1 and 2 studies in SLE/LN include Cabaletta (CABA 201), Kyverna (KYV 101), Novartis (YTB323), Juno/BMS (CC-97540), Cartesian (Descartes-08).

Table of contents

An emerging area of competition is in vivo or in situ CAR T-cell therapy. this is where advanced delivery platforms, such as targeted lipid nanoparticles (LNPs), lentiviral vectors, and mRNA, are used to program t-cells directly inside the patient. This approach if successful would avoid the complexities of engineering cells outside of the patient. The field is in its infancy with a focus on achieving high expression of the CAR specifically in the patients T cells, minimizing off-target effects, and demonstrating long-term efficacy. Very early clinical studies in autoimmune diseases and hematologic cancers starting to emerge. Key players in this field include Umoja Biopharma (VivoVec platform), Capstan Therapeutics (mRNA-LNP), acquired by Abbvie, Interius BioTherapeutics aquired by Kite and EsoBiotec acquired by Astrazeneca.

Government Regulation and Product Approval

As a biopharmaceutical company, we are subject to extensive regulation. Our programmed T cell product candidates are regulated as biologics. With this classification, commercial production of our products will need to occur in registered and licensed facilities in compliance with GMPs for biologics.

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

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

Table of contents

U.S. Government Regulation

Product Development Process

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

•completion of preclinical laboratory tests and animal studies according to Good Laboratory Practices (“GLPs”), and applicable requirements for the humane use of laboratory animals or other applicable regulations;

•submission to the FDA of an Investigational New Drug Application (“IND”), which must become effective before human clinical trials may begin;

•performance of adequate and well-controlled human clinical trials according to the FDA’s regulations commonly referred to as Good Clinical Practices (“GCPs”), and any additional requirements for the protection of human research subjects and their health information, to establish the safety and efficacy of the proposed biological product for its intended use;

•preparation and submission to the FDA of a BLA, for marketing approval that includes substantive evidence of quality, efficacy, and safety from results of nonclinical testing and clinical trials;

•satisfactory completion of one or more FDA inspections of the manufacturing facility or facilities where the biological product is produced to assess compliance with cGMP to assure that the facilities, methods and controls used in product manufacture are adequate to preserve the biological product’s identity, strength, quality and purity and, if applicable, the FDA’s current Good Tissue Practices (“GTPs”) for the use of human cellular and tissue products;

•potential FDA inspection of the nonclinical study and clinical trial sites that generated the data in support of the BLA;

•payment of user fees for FDA review of the BLA; and

•FDA acceptance, review and approval, of the BLA, which might include review by an advisory committee, a panel typically consisting of independent clinicians and other experts who provide recommendations as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions.

Before testing any biological product candidate, including our product candidates, in humans, the product candidate must undergo rigorous preclinical testing. Preclinical tests, also referred to as nonclinical studies, include laboratory evaluations as well as in vitro and animal studies to assess the potential safety and efficacy of the product candidate. After sufficient preclinical testing has been conducted, the conduct of the preclinical tests must comply with federal regulations and requirements including GLPs. The clinical trial sponsor must submit an IND to the FDA before clinical testing can begin in the United States. An IND must contain the results of the preclinical tests, manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature, a proposed clinical protocol, an investigator’s brochure, a sample informed consent form, and other materials.

Clinical trial protocols detail, among other things, the objectives of the clinical trial, dosing procedures, subject selection and exclusion criteria, and the parameters to be used to monitor subject safety, including stopping rules that assure a clinical trial will be stopped if certain adverse events should occur. Each protocol and any amendments to the protocol must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. Some preclinical testing, such as toxicity studies, may continue even after the IND is submitted.

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

Table of contents

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

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

Human clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases, as follows:

•Phase 1. The biological product is initially introduced into healthy human subjects and tested for safety. In the case of some products for severe or life-threatening diseases, especially when the product may be too inherently toxic to ethically administer to healthy volunteers, the initial human testing is often conducted in patients with the target disease or condition.

•Phase 2. The biological product is evaluated in a limited patient population to identify possible adverse effects and safety risks, to preliminarily evaluate the efficacy of the product for specific targeted diseases and to determine dosage tolerance, optimal dosage and dosing schedule.

•Phase 3. Clinical trials are undertaken to further evaluate dosage, clinical efficacy, potency, and safety in an expanded patient population, generally at geographically dispersed clinical trial sites. These clinical trials are intended to generate enough data to statistically evaluate the efficacy and safety of the product for approval, to establish the overall risk to benefit profile of the product and to provide an adequate basis for product labeling.

In some instances, these phases may overlap or even be combined into one study (e.g., Phase 1/2 studies) particularly in case of high medical need and sufficient clinical efficacy and safety of the product phase 2 data may be sufficient for initial approval. Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials may not be completed successfully within any specified period, if at all.

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

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

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

Table of contents

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

Review and Approval Processes

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

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

Within 60 days following submission of the application, the FDA reviews a BLA submitted to determine if it is substantially complete before the agency accepts it for filing. The FDA may refuse to file any BLA that it deems incomplete or not properly reviewable at the time of submission and may request additional information. In this event, the BLA must be resubmitted with the additional information. The resubmitted application also is subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth substantive review of the BLA. The FDA reviews the BLA to determine, among other things, whether the proposed product is safe, potent, and/or effective for its intended use, and has an acceptable purity profile, and whether the product is being manufactured in accordance with cGMP to assure and preserve the product’s identity, safety, strength, quality, potency and purity. The FDA may refer applications for novel biological products or biological products that present difficult questions of safety or efficacy to an advisory committee, typically a panel that includes clinicians and other experts, for review, evaluation and a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions.

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

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

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

Table of contents

If a product receives regulatory approval, the approval is limited to the conditions of use (e.g., patient population, indication) described in the application. If we obtain approval, regulatory authorities may approve any of our product candidates for fewer indications than we request (including failing to approve the most commercially promising indications) or may approve a product candidate with a label that does not include the labeling claims necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of that product candidate.

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

In addition, under the Pediatric Research Equity Act, a BLA or supplement to a BLA must contain data to assess the safety and effectiveness of the product for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective. The FDA may grant deferrals for submission of data or full or partial waivers (e.g., because the relevant disease or condition occurs only in adults). Products that are granted a marketing authorization on the basis of the pediatric clinical trials conducted in accordance with the PSP are eligible for a six-month extension of marketing exclusivity (pediatric exclusivity).

Post-Approval Requirements

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

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

The FDA also may require post-marketing testing, known as Phase 4 testing, and surveillance to monitor the effects of an approved product. Discovery of previously unknown problems with a product, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, with manufacturing processes, or the failure to comply with applicable FDA requirements can have negative consequences, including adverse publicity, judicial or administrative enforcement, complete withdrawal from the market, product recalls, warning letters from the FDA, mandated corrective advertising or communications with doctors, product seizure or detention, injunctions, and civil or criminal penalties, among others. Newly discovered or developed safety or effectiveness data may require changes to a product’s approved labeling, including the addition of new warnings and contraindications, and also may require the implementation of other risk management measures. The subsequent discovery or appearance of previously unknown or underestimated safety or efficacy concerns with a product could negatively affect commercial sales of the product, result in reduced coverage or reimbursement by payors, cause reputational harm, government investigations, and/or lawsuits against us. Also, new government requirements, including those resulting from new legislation, may be established, or the FDA’s policies may change, which could delay or prevent regulatory approval of our products under development. Similar post-approval requirements as described above are specified for other countries where a marketing authorization is granted.

Table of contents

Marketing Exclusivity

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

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

Coverage, Pricing and Reimbursement

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

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

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

Table of contents

The downward pressure on healthcare costs in general, particularly prescription drugs and biologics, has become very intense. Governments have shown significant interest in implementing cost-containment programs, including price controls, restrictions on reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products. For example, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) imposes rebates on many Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D products to penalize price increases that outpace inflation on an annual basis. In addition, HHS has been empowered to negotiate the price of certain single-source biologics that have been on the market for at least 11 years covered under Medicare as part of the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program. Each year up to twenty (20) products will be selected by HHS for the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program. Products subject to the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program are expected to experience a significant reduction in reimbursement from the Medicare program on a per unit basis. If coverage and adequate reimbursement are not available, or are available only to limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize our current and any future product candidates that we develop, which could have an adverse effect on our operating results and our overall financial condition. The marketability of any product candidates for which we receive regulatory approval for commercial sale may suffer if the government and third-party payors fail to provide coverage and adequate reimbursement. In addition, emphasis on managed care in the United States has increased and we expect will continue to increase the pressure on healthcare pricing. Coverage policies and third-party reimbursement rates may change at any time. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for one or more products for which we receive regulatory approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future.

Healthcare Laws Governing Interactions with Healthcare Providers

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

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

Several courts have interpreted the statute’s intent requirement to mean that if any one purpose of an arrangement involving remuneration is to induce referrals of federal healthcare covered business, the U.S. federal Anti-Kickback Statute has been violated. Additionally, the intent standard under the U.S. federal Anti-Kickback Statute was amended by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, collectively the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”), to a stricter standard such that a person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation. In addition, the ACA codified case law that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the U.S. federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the U.S. federal False Claims Act.

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

Table of contents

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

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

Additionally, the federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act, created under the ACA, and its implementing regulations, require certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (with certain exceptions) to annually report to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”), information related to certain payments or other transfers of value provided to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors), certain other healthcare providers (such as physicians assistants and nurse practitioners) and teaching hospitals, or to entities or individuals at the request of, or designated on behalf of, the physicians and teaching hospitals as well as certain ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members.

Additionally, there are similar healthcare laws and regulations in the European Union and other jurisdictions, including reporting requirements detailing interactions with and payments to healthcare providers.

Finally, the majority of states also have statutes or regulations similar to the aforementioned federal laws, some of which are broader in scope and apply to items and services reimbursed under Medicaid and other state programs, or, in several states, apply regardless of the payor. Some state laws require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government in addition to requiring drug manufacturers to report information related to payments to clinicians and other healthcare providers or marketing expenditures.

Some states and local jurisdictions require the registration of pharmaceutical sales representatives. State and foreign laws also govern the data privacy and security of health information in some circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not preempted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts.

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

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

Healthcare Reform Efforts

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

Recently, there have been a number of health reform measures that we expect will have a significant impact on the pharmaceutical industry.

Table of contents

For example, on July 4, 2025, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (the “OBBBA”) was signed into law, which narrowed access to ACA marketplace exchange enrollment and declined to extend the ACA enhanced advanced premium tax credits that expired at the end of 2025, which, among other provisions in the law, are anticipated to reduce the number of Americans with health insurance. The OBBBA also is expected to reduce Medicaid spending and enrollment by implementing work requirements for some beneficiaries, capping state-directed payments, reducing federal funding, and limiting provider taxes used to fund the program. Congress is considering proposed legislation intended to further reduce healthcare costs with alternatives to replace the expired ACA subsidies. We expect that additional U.S. federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future.

Further, there remains heightened Congressional scrutiny in the United States of pharmaceutical pricing practices designed to, among other things, bring more transparency in product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for products. The current Trump administration is pursuing policies to reduce regulations and expenditures across government including at HHS, the FDA, CMS and related agencies. These actions, presently directed by executive orders or memoranda from the Office of Management and Budget, may propose policy changes that create additional uncertainty for our business. For example, the current administration has announced agreements with several pharmaceutical companies that require the drug manufacturers to offer, through a direct to consumer platform, U.S. patients and Medicaid programs prescription drug Most-Favored Nation pricing equal to or lower than those paid in other developed nations, with additional mandates for direct-to-patient discounts and repatriation of foreign revenues. Other recent actions may include, for example, (1) directives to reduce agency workforce; (2) directing HHS and other agencies to lower prescription drug costs through a variety of initiatives, including by improving upon the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program and establishing Most-Favored-Nation pricing for pharmaceutical products; (3) imposing tariffs on imported pharmaceutical products; and (4) as part of the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission’s Strategy Report released in September 2025, working across government agencies to increase enforcement on direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising. Additionally, the current administration recently called on Congress to enact “The Great Healthcare Plan,” to codify and expand Most-Favored Nation pricing, lower government subsidies to private insurance companies, increase healthcare price transparency, expand pharmaceutical drugs available for over-the-counter purchase, and enact restrictions on pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) payment methodologies, among other things. In June 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court’s Loper Bright decision greatly reduced judicial deference to regulatory agencies, which could increase successful legal challenges to federal regulations affecting our operations. Congress may introduce and ultimately pass health care related legislation that could impact the drug approval process and make changes to the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program.

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

The U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practice Act, the U.K. Bribery Act 2010 and Other Anti-corruption and Trade Control Laws

The U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practice Act, as amended (the “FCPA”) prohibits any U.S. individual or business, as well as their employees, officers, agents, and representatives, from paying, offering, or authorizing payment or offering of anything of value, directly or indirectly, to any foreign, non-U.S. official, political party or candidate for the purpose of influencing any act or decision of the foreign entity in order to assist the individual or business in obtaining or retaining business. The FCPA also obligates companies whose securities are listed in the United States to comply with accounting provisions requiring the Company to maintain books and records that accurately and fairly reflect all transactions of the corporation, including international subsidiaries, and to devise and maintain an adequate system of internal accounting controls. Activities that violate the FCPA, even if they occur wholly outside the United States, can result in criminal and civil fines, imprisonment, disgorgement, oversight, and debarment from government contracts. In addition to the FCPA, other U.S. laws such as the U.S. domestic bribery statute and U.S. Travel Act prohibit the provision of improper payments and benefits to government and private-sector recipients within the United States.

Our operations are also subject to non-U.S. anti-corruption laws such as the UK Bribery Act 2010 (the “UK Bribery Act”). As with the FCPA, these laws generally prohibit us and our employees and intermediaries from authorizing, promising, offering, or providing, directly or indirectly, improper or prohibited payments, or anything else of value, to government officials or other persons to obtain or retain business or gain some other business advantage. Under the UK Bribery Act, we may also be liable for failing to prevent a person associated with us from committing a bribery offense.

Table of contents

We are also subject to other laws and regulations governing our international operations, including regulations administered by the governments of the U.K. and the United States and authorities in the EU, including applicable export control regulations, economic sanctions and embargoes on certain countries and persons, anti-money laundering laws, import and customs requirements and currency exchange regulations, collectively referred to as trade control laws. Compliance with such regulatory requirements may create delays in the introduction of our products in international markets or, in some cases, prevent the export of our products to some countries altogether. Furthermore, export control laws and economic sanctions may prohibit the provision of certain products and services to countries, governments and persons targeted by sanctions.

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

Data Privacy and Security Laws

In the ordinary course of our business, we and the third parties with whom we work process personal or sensitive data, including data we collect in connection with our commercial and clinical activities. Accordingly, we are subject to certain data privacy and security obligations, including U.S. and foreign laws, regulations, and rules, contractual obligations, industry standards, policies and other obligations related to data privacy and security. Such obligations may include, without limitation, the Federal Trade Commission Act, HIPAA, as amended by the HITECH, the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation 2016/679 (“EU GDPR”), the EU GDPR as it forms part of U.K. law by virtue of section 3 of the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (“UK GDPR”) (collectively, “GDPR”), and the ePrivacy Directive and local implementations thereof, including the U.K.’s Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations 2003. Several states within the United States have enacted comprehensive privacy laws that impose certain obligations on covered businesses. Additionally, we are, and may become in the future, subject to various U.S. federal and state consumer protection laws which require us to publish statements that accurately and fairly describe how we handle personal data and choices individuals may have about the way we handle their personal data.

Outside the United States, there are numerous data privacy and security laws that apply and may in the future apply to our processing of personal data, including GDPR, under which companies may face temporary or definitive bans on data processing and other corrective actions; fines of up to 20 million Euros under the EU GDPR, 17.5 million pounds sterling under the UK GDPR or, in each case, 4% of annual global revenue, whichever is greater; or private litigation related to processing of personal data brought by classes of data subjects or consumer protection organizations authorized at law to represent their interests. See the risk factor captioned “We and the third parties with whom we work are subject to stringent and evolving U.S. and foreign laws, regulations, and rules, contractual obligations, industry standards, policies and other obligations related to data privacy and security. Our (or the third parties with whom we work) actual or perceived failure to comply with such obligations could lead to regulatory investigations or actions; litigation (including class claims) and mass arbitration demands; fines and penalties; disruptions of our business operations; reputational harm; loss of revenue or profits; and other adverse business consequences” In Part I, Item 1A. of this report for additional information about the laws and regulations to which we are or may become subject and about the risks to our business associated with such laws and regulations.

EU Regulation

Review and Approval of New Drug Products

In the EU, medicinal products, including advanced therapy medicinal products (“ATMPs”), are subject to extensive pre- and post-market regulation by regulatory authorities at both the EU and national levels. ATMPs comprise gene therapy products, somatic-cell therapy products and tissue engineered products, which are cells or tissues that have undergone substantial manipulation and that are administered to human beings in order to regenerate, repair or replace a human tissue. We anticipate that our T cell therapy products will be regulated as ATMPs in the EU.

There is legislation at an EU level relating to the standards of quality and safety for the collection and testing of human blood and blood components for use in cell-based therapies, which could apply to our products. Additionally, there may be local legislation in various EU Member States, which may be more restrictive than the EU legislation, and we would need to comply with such legislation to the extent it applies.

Clinical Trials

In the EU, clinical trials are governed by the Clinical Trials Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 (“CTR”) which entered into application on January 31, 2022 repealing and replacing the former Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20.

Table of contents

The CTR is intended to harmonize and streamline clinical trial authorizations, simplify adverse-event reporting procedures, improve the supervision of clinical trials and increase transparency. Specifically, the Regulation, which is directly applicable in all EU Member States, introduces a streamlined application procedure through a single-entry point, the “EU portal” the Clinical Trials Information System; a single set of documents to be prepared and submitted for the application; as well as simplified reporting procedures for clinical trial sponsors. A harmonized procedure for the assessment of applications for clinical trials has been introduced and is divided into two parts. Part I assessment is led by the competent authorities of a reference Member State selected by the trial sponsor and relates to clinical trial aspects that are considered to be scientifically harmonized across EU Member States. This assessment is then submitted to the competent authorities of all concerned Member States in which the trial is to be conducted for their review. Part II is assessed separately by the competent authorities and Ethics Committees in each concerned EU Member State. Individual EU Member States retain the power to authorize the conduct of clinical trials on their territory.

The CTR foresaw a three-year transition period that ended on January 31, 2025. Since this date, all new or ongoing trials are subject to the provisions of the CTR.

In all cases, 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. Medicines used in clinical trials, including ATMPs, must be manufactured in accordance with the guidelines on cGMP and in a GMP licensed facility, which can be subject to GMP inspections. Clinical trials of medicinal products in the EU must be conducted in accordance with EU and national regulations and the International Conference on Harmonization, guidelines on GCP. Additional GCP guidelines from the European Commission, focusing in particular on traceability, apply to clinical trials of ATMPs. The sponsor must take out a clinical trial insurance policy, and in most EU countries, the sponsor is liable to provide “no fault” compensation to any study subject injured in the clinical trial.

During the development of a medicinal product, the EMA and national competent authorities of EU Member States provide the opportunity for dialogue and guidance on the development program. At the EU level, developers of medicinal products can ask the EMA for scientific advice and protocol assistance at any stage of development and regardless of whether the medicinal product is eligible for the centralized authorization procedure or not. Assistance is given by the EMA’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (“CHMP”) on the recommendation of the Scientific Advice Working Party. A fee is incurred with each scientific advice procedure. Advice from the EMA is provided by responding to specific questions concerning, quality aspects (manufacturing, chemical, pharmaceutical and biological testing of the medicine), nonclinical testing (toxicological and pharmacological tests designed to show the activity of the medicine in the laboratory) and clinical aspects (appropriateness of studies in patients or healthy volunteers, selection of endpoints), methodological issues (statistical tests to use, data analysis, modelling and simulation), overall development strategy (conditional marketing authorization, bridging strategy for generics, safety database), significant benefit for maintaining orphan designation, and pediatric developments. In accordance with the EMA’s policy, scientific advice will not be legally binding with regard to any future marketing authorization application of the product concerned.

Marketing Authorizations

In the EU, medicinal products can only be commercialized after a related marketing authorization (“MA”), has been granted. To obtain an MA for a product in the EU, an applicant must submit a Marketing Authorization Application (“MAA”), either under a centralized procedure administered by the European Medicines Agency (“EMA”), or one of the procedures administered by the competent authorities of EU Member States (decentralized procedure, national procedure or mutual recognition procedure). A MA may be granted only to an applicant established in the EU. The centralized procedure provides for the grant of a single MA by the European Commission that is valid throughout the EEA (which is comprised of the 27 EU Member States plus Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway). Pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, the centralized procedure is compulsory for specific products, including for (i) medicinal products derived from biotechnological processes, (ii) products designated as orphan medicinal products, (iii) advanced therapy medicinal products (“ATMPs”), and (iv) products with a new active substance indicated for the treatment of HIV/AIDS, cancer, neurodegenerative diseases, diabetes, auto-immune and other immune dysfunctions and viral diseases. For products with a new active substance indicated for the treatment of other diseases and products that are highly innovative or for which a centralized process is in the interest of patients, authorization through the centralized procedure is optional on related approval.

Under the centralized procedure, the EMA’s CHMP, conducts the initial assessment of a product. The CHMP is also responsible for several post-authorization and maintenance activities, such as the assessment of modifications or extensions to an existing MA. The maximum timeframe for the evaluation of a MAA under the centralized procedure is 210 days, excluding clock stops when additional information or written or oral explanation is to be provided by the applicant in response to questions of the CHMP. Accelerated assessment may be granted by the CHMP in exceptional cases, when a medicinal product targeting an unmet medical need is expected to be of major interest from the point of view of public health and, in particular, from the viewpoint of therapeutic innovation. If the CHMP accepts a request for accelerated assessment, the time limit of 210 days will be reduced to 150 days (excluding clock stops). The CHMP can, however, revert to the standard time limit for the centralized procedure if it considers that it is no longer appropriate to conduct an accelerated assessment.

Table of contents

A MA has, in principle, an initial validity of five years. The MA may be renewed after five years on the basis of a re-evaluation of the risk-benefit balance by the EMA or by the competent authority of the EU Member State in which the original MA was granted. To support the application, the MA holder must provide the EMA or the competent authority with a consolidated version of the Common Technical Document providing up-to-date data concerning the quality, safety and efficacy of the product, including all variations introduced since the MA was granted, at least nine months before the MA ceases to be valid. The European Commission or the competent authorities of the EU Member States may decide on justified grounds relating to pharmacovigilance, to proceed with one further five year renewal period for the MA. Once subsequently definitively renewed, the MA shall be valid for an unlimited period. Any authorization which is not followed by the actual placing of the medicinal product on the EU market (for a centralized MA) or on the market of the authorizing EU Member State within three years after authorization ceases to be valid (the so-called sunset clause).

Innovative products that target an unmet medical need and are expected to be of major public health interest may be eligible for a number of expedited development and review programs, such as the Priority Medicines (“PRIME”) scheme, which provides incentives similar to the breakthrough therapy designation in the United States. PRIME is a voluntary scheme aimed at enhancing the EMA’s support for the development of medicinal products that target unmet medical needs. Eligible products must target conditions for which there is an unmet medical need (there is no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment in the EU or, if there is, the new medicinal product 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. 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 potentially accelerated MAA assessment once a dossier has been submitted.

In the EU, a “conditional” MA may be granted in cases where all the required safety and efficacy data are not yet available. The European Commission may grant a conditional MA for a medicinal product if it is demonstrated that all of the following criteria are met: (i) the benefit-risk balance of the medicinal product is positive; (ii) it is likely that the applicant will be able to provide comprehensive data post-authorization; (iii) the medicinal product fulfils an unmet medical need; and (iv) the benefit of the immediate availability to patients of the medicinal product is greater than the risk inherent in the fact that additional data are still required. The conditional MA is subject to conditions to be fulfilled for generating the missing data or ensuring increased safety measures. It is valid for one year and must be renewed annually until all related conditions have been fulfilled. Once any pending studies are provided, the conditional MA can be converted into a full MA. However, if the conditions are not fulfilled within the timeframe set by the EMA and approved by the European Commission, the MA will cease to be renewed.

A MA may also be granted “under exceptional circumstances” where the applicant can show that it is unable to provide comprehensive data on efficacy and safety under normal conditions of use even after the product has been authorized and subject to specific procedures being introduced. These circumstances may arise in particular when the intended indications are very rare and, in the state of scientific knowledge at that time, it is not possible to provide comprehensive information, or when generating data may be contrary to generally accepted ethical principles.

Like a conditional MA, a MA granted under exceptional circumstances is reserved to medicinal products intended to be authorized for treatment of rare diseases or unmet medical needs for which the applicant does not hold a complete data set that is required for the grant of a standard MA. However, unlike the conditional MA, an applicant for authorization in exceptional circumstances is not subsequently required to provide the missing data. Although the MA “under exceptional circumstances” is granted definitively, the risk-benefit balance of the medicinal product is reviewed annually, and the MA will be withdrawn if the risk-benefit ratio is no longer favorable.

The EU medicines rules expressly permit the EU Member States to adopt national legislation prohibiting or restricting the sale, supply or use of any medicinal product containing, consisting of or derived from a specific type of human or animal cell, such as embryonic stem cells. While the products we have in development do not make use of embryonic stem cells, it is possible that the national laws in certain EU Member States may prohibit or restrict us from commercializing our products, even if they have been granted an EU marketing authorization.

Table of contents

Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products

Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products, or ATMPs, include gene therapy products as well as somatic cell therapy products and tissue engineered products. The grant of marketing authorization in the EU for products containing viable human tissues or cells such as gene therapy medicinal products is governed by Regulation (EC) No. 1394/2007 on ATMPs, read in combination with Directive (EC) No. 2001/83 of the European Parliament and of the Council, commonly known as the Community code on medicinal products. Regulation (EC) No. 1394/2007 establishes specific rules concerning the authorization, supervision and pharmacovigilance of gene therapy medicinal products, somatic cell therapy medicinal products and tissue engineered products. Manufacturers of advanced therapy medicinal products must demonstrate the quality, safety and efficacy of their products to the EMA which is required to provide an opinion regarding the application for marketing authorization. The European Commission grants or refuses marketing authorization in light of the opinion delivered by the EMA. The Committee for Advanced Therapies (“CAT”) is responsible in conjunction with the CHMP for the evaluation of ATMPs. The CAT is primarily responsible for the scientific evaluation of ATMPs and prepares a draft opinion on the quality, safety and efficacy of each ATMP for which a marketing authorization application is submitted. The CAT’s opinion is then taken into account by the CHMP when giving its final recommendation regarding the authorization of a product in view of the balance of benefits and risks identified. Although the CAT’s draft opinion is submitted to the CHMP for final approval, the CHMP may depart from the draft opinion, if it provides detailed scientific justification. The CHMP and CAT are also responsible for providing guidelines on ATMPs and have published numerous guidelines, including specific guidelines on gene therapies and cell therapies. These guidelines provide additional guidance on the factors that the EMA will consider in relation to the development and evaluation of ATMPs and include, among other things, the preclinical studies required to characterize ATMPs; the manufacturing and control information that should be submitted in a marketing authorization application; and post-approval measures required to monitor patients and evaluate the long term efficacy and potential adverse reactions of ATMPs. Although these guidelines are not legally binding, we believe that our compliance with them is likely necessary to gain and maintain approval for any of our product candidates.

Products made from substances of human origin must also comply with Regulation (EU) 2024/1938 on standards of quality and safety for substances of human origin intended for human application. This Regulation describes the conditions and quality requirements which must be applied when sourcing the substances of human origin intended for manufacturing of such medicinal products and removed divergences between EU Member States that were present under the (now repealed) Directive (EC) No. 2004/23.

Data Exclusivity

MA applications for generic medicinal products do not need to include the results of preclinical and clinical trials, but instead can refer to the data included in the MA of a reference product for which regulatory data exclusivity has expired. If a MA is granted for a medicinal product containing a new active substance, that product benefits from eight years of data exclusivity, during which generic MAAs referring to the data of that product may not be accepted by the regulatory authorities, and a further two years of market exclusivity, during which such generic products may not be placed on the market. The overall ten-year period may, occasionally, be extended for a further year to a maximum of 11 years if, during the first eight years of those ten years, the MA holder obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications which, during the scientific evaluation prior to their authorization, are held to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with existing therapies. However, there is no guarantee that a product will be considered by the EU’s regulatory authorities to be a new chemical/biological entity, and products may not qualify for data exclusivity.

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

Table of contents

Pediatric Development

In the EU, Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 provides that all MAAs for new medicinal products have to include the results of trials conducted in the pediatric population, in compliance with a pediatric investigation plan (“PIP”), agreed with the EMA’s Pediatric Committee (“PDCO”). The PIP sets out the timing and measures proposed to generate data to support a pediatric indication of the medicinal product for which MA is being sought. The PDCO can grant a deferral of the obligation to implement some or all of the measures provided in the PIP until there are sufficient data to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of the product in adults. Further, the obligation to provide pediatric clinical trial data can be waived by the PDCO when these data are not needed or appropriate because the product is likely to be ineffective or unsafe in children, the disease or condition for which the product is intended occurs only in adult populations, or when the product does not represent a significant therapeutic benefit over existing treatments for pediatric patients. Once the MA is obtained in all EU Member States and study results are included in the product information, even when negative, the product is eligible for a six-month extension to the Supplementary Protection Certificate, or SPC, if any is in effect at the time of authorization or, in the case of orphan medicinal products, a two-year extension of orphan market exclusivity.

Manufacturing Regulation

In addition to a MA, various other requirements apply to the manufacturing and placing on the EU market of medicinal products. The manufacturing of medicinal products in the EU requires a manufacturing authorization and import of medicinal products into the EU requires a manufacturing authorization allowing for import. The manufacturing authorization holder must comply with various requirements set out in the applicable EU laws, regulations and guidance, including EU cGMP standards. Similarly, the distribution of medicinal products within the EU is subject to compliance with the applicable EU laws, regulations and guidelines, including the requirement to hold appropriate authorizations for distribution granted by the competent authorities of EU Member States. Marketing authorization holders and/or manufacturing and import authorization, or MA holders and/or distribution authorization holders may be subject to civil, criminal or administrative sanctions, including suspension of manufacturing authorization, in case of non-compliance with the EU or EU Member States’ requirements applicable to the manufacturing of medicinal products.

Orphan Designation

In the EU, Regulation (EC) No. 141/2000, as implemented by Regulation (EC) No. 847/2000 provides that a medicinal product can be designated as an orphan medicinal product by the European Commission if its sponsor can establish that: (i) the product is intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of life-threatening or chronically debilitating conditions; (ii) either (a) such conditions affect not more than 5 in 10,000 persons in the EU when the application is made, or (b) the product without the benefits derived from orphan status, would not generate sufficient return in the EU to justify the necessary investment in developing the medicinal product; and (iii) there exists no satisfactory authorized method of diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of the condition that has been authorized in the EU, or even if such method exists, the product will be of significant benefit to those affected by that condition.

Regulation (EC) No 847/2000 sets out further provisions for implementation of the criteria for designation of a medicinal product as an orphan medicinal product. An application for the designation of a medicinal product as an orphan medicinal product must be submitted at any stage of development of the medicinal product but before filing of a MAA. A MA for an orphan medicinal product may only include indications designated as orphan. For non-orphan indications treated with the same active pharmaceutical ingredient, a separate marketing authorization has to be sought.

Orphan medicinal product designation entitles an applicant to incentives such fee reductions or fee waivers, protocol assistance, and access to the centralized marketing authorization procedure. Upon grant of a marketing authorization, orphan medicinal products are entitled to a ten-year period of market exclusivity for the approved therapeutic indication, which means that the EMA cannot accept another marketing authorization application or accept an application to extend for a similar product and the European Commission cannot grant a marketing authorization for the same indication for a period of ten years. The period of market exclusivity is extended by two years for orphan medicinal products that have also complied with an agreed PIP. No extension to any supplementary protection certificate can be granted on the basis of pediatric studies for orphan indications. Orphan medicinal product designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process.

The period of market exclusivity may, however, be reduced to six years if, at the end of the fifth year, it is established that the product no longer meets the criteria on the basis of which it received orphan medicinal product designation, including where it can be demonstrated on the basis of available evidence that the original orphan medicinal product is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity or where the prevalence of the condition has increased above the threshold. Additionally, a MA may be granted to a similar medicinal product with the same orphan indication during the 10 year period if: (i) if the applicant consents to a second original orphan medicinal product application, (ii) if the manufacturer of the original orphan medicinal product is unable to supply sufficient quantities; or (iii) if the second applicant can establish that its product, although similar, is safer, more effective or otherwise clinically superior to the original orphan medicinal product. A company may voluntarily remove a product from the register of orphan products.

Table of contents

Post-Approval Controls

Where a MA is granted in relation to a medicinal product in the EU, the holder of the MA is required to comply with a range of regulatory requirements applicable to the manufacturing, marketing, promotion and sale of medicinal products. Similar to the United States, both MA holders and manufacturers of medicinal products are subject to comprehensive regulatory oversight by the EMA, the European Commission and/or the competent regulatory authorities of the individual EU Member States. The holder of a MA must establish and maintain a pharmacovigilance system and appoint an individual qualified person for pharmacovigilance who is responsible for oversight of that system. Key obligations include expedited reporting of suspected serious adverse reactions and submission of periodic safety update reports (“PSURs”).

All new MAAs must include a risk management plan (“RMP”), describing the risk management system that the company will put in place and documenting measures to prevent or minimize the risks associated with the product. The regulatory authorities may also impose specific obligations as a condition of the MA. Such risk-minimization measures or post-authorization obligations may include additional safety monitoring, more frequent submission of PSURs, or the conduct of additional clinical trials or post-authorization safety studies.

Other EU Compliance Requirements

In the EU, the advertising and promotion of medicinal products are subject to both EU and EU Member States’ laws governing promotion of medicinal products, interactions with physicians and other healthcare professionals, misleading and comparative advertising and unfair commercial practices. General requirements for advertising and promotion of medicinal products, such as direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription medicinal products are established in EU law. However, the details are governed by regulations in individual EU Member States and can differ from one country to another. For example, applicable laws require that promotional materials and advertising in relation to medicinal products comply with the product’s Summary of Product Characteristics (“SmPC”), which may require approval by the competent national authorities in connection with a MA. The SmPC is the document that provides information to physicians and other healthcare professionals concerning the safe and effective use of the product. Promotional activity that does not comply with the SmPC is considered off-label and is prohibited in the EU.

Much like the Anti-Kickback Statute prohibition in the United States, described above, the provision of benefits or advantages to physicians and other health care professionals to induce or encourage the prescription, recommendation, endorsement, purchase, supply, order or use of medicinal products is also prohibited in the EU. Interactions between pharmaceutical companies and health care professionals are governed by strict laws, such as national anti-bribery laws of European countries, national sunshine rules, regulations, industry self-regulation codes of conduct and physicians’ codes of professional conduct. Failure to comply with these requirements could result in reputational risk, public reprimands, administrative penalties, fines or imprisonment. Infringement of related laws could result in substantial fines and imprisonment.

Payments made to physicians and other health care professionals in certain EU Member States must be publicly disclosed. Moreover, agreements with health care professionals may require prior notification or approval by the health care professional’s employer, his or her competent professional organization and/or the regulatory authorities of the individual EU Member States. Failure to comply with these requirements could result in reputational risk, public reprimands, administrative penalties, fines or imprisonment.

Pricing and Reimbursement

In the EU, pricing and reimbursement schemes vary widely from country to country. Some EU Member States may approve a specific price for a product, or they may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the product on the market. Other EU Member States allow companies to fix their own prices for products but monitor and control prescription volumes and issue guidance to physicians to limit prescriptions. Such pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after receipt of marketing approval for a product. Political, economic and regulatory developments may further complicate pricing negotiations.

In addition, some EU Member States may require the completion of additional studies that compare the cost-effectiveness of a particular medicinal product candidate to currently available therapies. This Health Technology Assessment (“HTA”) process is the procedure according to which the assessment of the public health impact, therapeutic impact and the economic and societal impact of use of a given medicinal product in the national healthcare systems of the individual country is conducted. The outcome of HTA regarding specific medicinal products will often influence the pricing and reimbursement status granted to these medicinal products by the competent authorities of individual EU Member States. On January 12, 2025, Regulation No 2021/2282 on Health Technology Assessment (“HTA Regulation”) entered into application through a phased implementation. The Regulation initially applies to new active substances for oncology and ATMPs. It will be expanded to orphan medicinal products in January 2028, and to all centrally authorized medicinal products as of 2030. Select high-risk medical devices also came into scope in 2026. The HTA Regulation is intended to boost cooperation among EU Member States in assessing health technologies, including new medicinal products. It establishes a framework for EU‑level joint clinical assessments, increasing cooperation among Member States on clinical aspects of health technology evaluation. Individual EU Member States will continue to be responsible for assessing non-clinical (e.g., economic, social, ethical) aspects of health technologies, and making decisions on pricing and reimbursement.

Table of contents

The HTA Regulation is intended to harmonize the clinical benefit assessment of HTA across the EU. In light of the fact that the U.K. has left the EU, Regulation No 2021/2282 on HTA does not apply in the U.K.. However, the U.K. Medicines and Healthcare products Regulation Agency (“MHRA”) is working with U.K. HTA bodies and other national organizations, such as the Scottish Medicines Consortium (“SMC”), the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (“NICE”), and the All-Wales Medicines Strategy Group, to introduce new pathways supporting innovative approaches to the safe, timely and efficient development of medicinal products, including, effective as of March 31, 2025, relaunching the Innovative Licensing and Access Pathway with more predictable timelines and closer involvement of the National Health Service.

Regulatory Framework in the United Kingdom

The MHRA, is now the U.K.’s standalone regulator for medicinal products and medical devices.

While the United Kingdom’s regulatory framework for clinical trials was historically based on the Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations 2004, which implemented the former EU Clinical Trials Directive, this has been significantly reformed by the Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) (Amendment) Regulations 2024. The new legislation, which modernizes the United Kingdom's approach to make it a more attractive location for research, includes key features such as: (i) a risk-proportionate approach, including a notification scheme for lower-risk trials; (ii) a combined review process integrating ethics committee and regulatory approvals into a single, streamlined pathway; (iii) enhanced transparency requirements mandating registration of clinical trials in a public registry and publication of trial results within 12 months of trial completion (with scope for deferrals in certain circumstances); (iv) greater flexibility to support innovation in clinical trial design; and (v) measures to promote patient and public involvement.

Marketing authorizations in the United Kingdom are governed by the Human Medicines Regulations (SI 2012/1916), as amended. In order to obtain a United Kingdom MA to commercialize products in the United Kingdom, an applicant must be established in the United Kingdom and must follow one of the United Kingdom national authorization procedures or one of the remaining post-Brexit international cooperation procedures. Applications are governed by the Human Medicines Regulations (SI 2012/1916) and are made electronically through the MHRA Submissions Portal. The MHRA has introduced changes to national licensing procedures, including procedures to prioritize access to new medicines that will benefit patients, a 150-day assessment (subject to clock-stops) and a rolling review procedure. The rolling-review procedure permits the separate or joint submission of quality, non-clinical, and clinical data to the MHRA which can be reviewed on a rolling basis. After an application under the rolling-review procedure has been validated, the decision should be received within 100 days (subject to clock-stops).

In addition, since January 1, 2024, the MHRA may rely on the International Recognition Procedure (“IRP”), when reviewing certain types of MAAs. Pursuant to the IRP, the MHRA will take into account the expertise and decision-making of trusted regulatory partners (e.g., the regulatory in Australia, Canada, Switzerland, Singapore, Japan, the U.S.A. and the EU). The MHRA will conduct a targeted assessment of IRP applications but retain the authority to reject applications if the evidence provided is considered insufficiently robust. The IRP allows medicinal products approved by such trusted regulatory partners that meet certain criteria to undergo a fast-tracked MHRA review to obtain and/or update a MA in the United Kingdom. Applications should be decided within a maximum of 60 days if there are no major objections identified that cannot be resolved within such 60 day period and the approval from the trusted regulatory partner selected has been granted within the previous 2 years or if there are such major objections identified or such approval hasn’t been granted within the previous 2 years within 110 days. Applicants can submit initial MAAs to the IRP but the procedure can also be used throughout the lifecycle of a product for post-authorization procedures including line extensions, variations and renewals.

All existing marketing authorizations of the EU for centrally authorized products were automatically converted or grandfathered into the United Kingdom’s marketing authorization, effective in Great Britain only, free of charge on January 1, 2021, unless the marketing authorization holder opted-out of this possibility. Northern Ireland remained within the scope of authorizations of the EU in relation to centrally authorized medicinal products until January 1, 2025. However, on January 1, 2025, a new arrangement as part of the so-called “Windsor Framework” came into effect and reintegrated Northern Ireland under the regulatory authority of the MHRA with respect to medicinal products. The Windsor Framework removes EU licensing processes and EU labelling and serialization requirements in relation to Northern Ireland and introduces a U.K.-wide licensing process for medicines.

There is no pre-marketing authorization orphan designation for medicinal products in the UK. Instead, the MHRA reviews applications for orphan designation in parallel to the corresponding marketing authorization application. The criteria are essentially the same as those in the EU, but have been tailored for the market. This includes the criterion that prevalence of the condition in the United Kingdom, rather than the EU, must not be more than five in 10,000. Upon the grant of a marketing authorization with orphan status, the medicinal product will benefit from up to 10 years of market exclusivity from similar products in the approved orphan indication. The start of this market exclusivity period will be set from the date of first approval of the product in the United Kingdom.

Table of contents

Post-Approval Controls

Where a MA is granted in relation to a medicinal product in the U.K., the holder of the MA is required to comply with a range of regulatory requirements applicable to the manufacturing, marketing, promotion and sale of medicinal products. Similar to the United States and the EU, both MA holders and manufacturers of medicinal products are subject to comprehensive regulatory oversight by the MHRA. The holder of a MA must establish and maintain a pharmacovigilance system and appoint an individual qualified person for pharmacovigilance who is responsible for oversight of that system. Key obligations include expedited reporting of suspected serious adverse reactions and submission of periodic safety update reports (“PSURs”).

In the U.K., the advertising and promotion of medicinal products are subject to U.K. laws governing promotion of medicinal products, interactions with physicians and other healthcare professionals, misleading and comparative advertising and unfair commercial practices. General requirements for advertising and promotion of medicinal products, such as direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription medicinal products are established in U.K. law. The U.K. SPC is the document that provides information to physicians concerning the safe and effective use of the product. Promotional activity that does not comply with the U.K. SPC is considered off-label and is prohibited in the U.K.

Corporate Information

We are a public limited company, originally incorporated pursuant to the laws of England and Wales in February 2018 as a private company with limited liability called Autolus Therapeutics Limited. Autolus Limited was originally incorporated under the laws of England and Wales in July 2014. Pursuant to the terms of a corporate reorganization carried out in June 2018, the shareholders of Autolus Limited exchanged each of the shares held by them in Autolus Limited for the same number and class of newly issued shares of Autolus Therapeutics Limited and, as a result, Autolus Limited became a wholly owned subsidiary of Autolus Therapeutics Limited. On June 18, 2018, Autolus Therapeutics Limited re-registered as a public limited company and was renamed Autolus Therapeutics plc. On June 22, 2018, the different classes of our issued share capital were converted into a single class of ordinary shares and various classes of deferred shares, and we completed our IPO on the Nasdaq Global Select Market (“Nasdaq”). Our ADSs trade on Nasdaq under the symbol “AUTL”. Our ordinary shares are not listed.

Our registered office and principal executive offices are located at the Mediaworks, 191 Wood Lane, White City, London W12 7FP, United Kingdom and our telephone number is +44 20 3829 6230. Our agent for service of process in the United States is Autolus Inc., 15810 Gaither Drive, Gaithersburg, Maryland, 20877.

Available Information

Our website address is www.autolus.com. Information contained in, or that can be accessed through, our website is not a part of, and shall not be incorporated by reference into, this Annual Report. We have included our website address in this Annual Report solely as an inactive textual reference.

Copies of our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, and amendments, if any, to those reports filed pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, are available free of charge through our website and on the website of the SEC at www.sec.gov.

Table of contents

Employees and Human Capital Resources

As of December 31, 2025, we had 752 full-time employees, 113 of whom hold Ph.D. or M.D. degrees, as shown in the table below:


	At December 31,
	2025	2024
Function:
Sales and general administration	209	173
Research and development including manufacturing	543	474
Total	752	647
Geography:
U.K.	583	495
Switzerland and Germany	20	18
United States	149	134

Our human capital resources objectives include, as applicable, identifying, recruiting, retaining, incentivizing and integrating our existing and additional employees. The principal purposes of our equity incentive plans are to attract, retain and motivate selected employees, consultants and directors through the granting of equity-based compensation awards.

As of December 31, 2024, the Company added the manufacturing function following the BLA approval granted by the FDA.

Item 1A. Risk Factors

Our business is subject to numerous risks. You should carefully consider and evaluate each of the following factors as well as the other information in this Annual Report, including our financial statements and related notes, in evaluating our business and prospects. The risks and uncertainties described below are not the only ones we face. Additional risks and uncertainties not presently known to us or that we currently consider immaterial may also impair our business operations. If any of the following risks actually occur, our business and financial results could be harmed. In that case, the trading price our ADSs could decline.

Risks Related to Our Financial Position and Need For Capital

We are an early commercial-stage biopharmaceutical company and have incurred significant losses since our inception. We expect to continue to incur losses for the foreseeable future.

We are an early commercial-stage biopharmaceutical company with a limited operating history, and we have incurred significant net losses since our inception in 2014. We have incurred losses of $287.5 million and $220.7 million for the years ended December 31, 2025 and 2024, respectively. As of December 31, 2025, we had an accumulated deficit of $1,386.8 million. We have funded our operations to date primarily with proceeds from the sale of our equity securities, including ADSs, licensing and collaboration arrangements and strategic financing.

We currently have one product, AUCATZYL (obe-cel), approved for commercial sale, and while we have generated revenue from licensing, we are devoting substantially all of our financial resources and efforts to manufacturing and commercializing AUCATZYL and for the research and development of our other programmed T cell product candidates and T cell programming technologies. Investment in biopharmaceutical product development is highly speculative because it entails substantial upfront operating and capital expenditures and significant risk that any potential product candidate will fail to demonstrate adequate effect or an acceptable safety profile, gain regulatory approval and become commercially viable.

Should we be unsuccessful in our commercialization efforts for AUCATZYL or if the rates of market acceptance do not meet our expectations, we may not generate sufficient revenue. We expect that it could take several years until any of our other product candidates receive marketing approval and are commercialized, and we may never be successful in obtaining marketing approval and commercializing any of our other product candidates, including obe-cel in additional indications or territories. We expect to continue to incur significant expenses and increasing operating losses for the foreseeable future. These net losses will adversely impact our shareholders’ equity and net assets and may fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter and year to year. We anticipate that our significant expenses will continue, or increase substantially, as we:

•expand our sales, marketing and distribution infrastructure to commercialize AUCATZYL/obe-cel and any other product candidate for which we may obtain regulatory approval;

•make required milestone, royalty and revenue sharing payments to third parties under license and collaboration agreements;

•maintain internal and external manufacturing capacity for commercialization of AUCATZYL and clinical trials of our other product candidates;

Table of contents

•design and implement an overall manufacturing life cycle plan to facilitate additional cost reductions and gross margin improvements;

•continue our ongoing and planned research and development of our current programmed T cell product candidates for the treatment of hematological cancers, solid tumors and autoimmune diseases;

•seek to discover and develop additional product candidates and further expand our clinical product pipeline;

•initiate preclinical studies and clinical trials for any additional product candidates that we may pursue in the future, including our planned development of additional T cell therapies for the treatment of hematological cancers, solid tumors and autoimmune diseases;

•seek regulatory approvals for any product candidates that successfully complete clinical trials;

•develop, maintain, expand and protect our intellectual property portfolio;

•acquire or in-license other product candidates and technologies;

•maintain sufficient clinical, quality control and manufacturing personnel;

•add clinical, operational, financial and management information systems and personnel, including personnel to support the commercial development of AUCATZYL, as well as our other product development and future commercialization efforts;

•expand our operations in the United States, Europe and other geographies; and

•incur additional legal, accounting and other expenses associated with operating as a public company.

To become and remain profitable, we must succeed in commercializing AUCATZYL and developing and eventually commercializing other products that generate significant revenue. This will require us to be successful in a range of challenging activities, including marketing and selling AUCATZYL and any future products for which we may obtain regulatory approval, completing preclinical studies and clinical trials of our product candidates, preparing a satisfactory filing package for regulatory authorities, obtaining regulatory approval, manufacturing, marketing and selling any products for which we may obtain regulatory approval, as well as discovering and developing additional product candidates. We may never succeed in these activities and, even if we do, may never generate revenues that are significant enough to achieve profitability.

Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with the development, manufacturing, delivery and commercialization of complex autologous cell therapies, we are unable to accurately predict the timing or amount of expenses or when, or if, we will be able to achieve profitability. If we are required by regulatory authorities to perform studies in addition to those currently expected, or if there are any delays in the initiation and completion of our clinical trials or the development of any of our product candidates, our expenses could increase and profitability could be further delayed.

Even if we 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 depress the value of our ADSs and could impair our ability to raise capital, expand our business, maintain our research and development efforts or continue our operations. A decline in the value of our ADSs could also cause you to lose all or part of your investment.

We will need additional funding to successfully commercialize AUCATZYL and to complete the development of and commercialize our other product candidates, which may not be available on acceptable terms, if at all.

Unless and until we are able to successfully commercialize AUCATZYL and achieve significant revenue from sales, we will require substantial additional funding to meet our financial needs and to pursue our business objectives. If we are unable to raise capital when needed, we could be forced to delay, reduce or altogether cease our product development programs or commercialization efforts.

Since our inception, we have devoted substantially all of our resources to fund the operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements associated with the research and development of AUCATZYL and our other product candidates. Even once we begin to generate revenue from sales of AUCATZYL, we will need to raise additional capital to reach profitability as well as to complete the development and commercialization of our other programmed T cell product candidates, and in connection with our continuing operations, strategy and other planned activities. Our future capital requirements will depend on many factors, including:

•our ability to execute our commercialization strategies for and generate revenue from sales of AUCATZYL and, if approved, our other product candidates;

•the progress, results and costs of laboratory testing, manufacturing, and preclinical and clinical development of our current and future product candidates;

•the timing and amounts of any milestone, royalty payments or revenue sharing payments we may be required to make under current or future license or collaboration agreements;

•the costs of leasing, building out, equipping, and operating the facilities necessary to research, develop, manufacture and commercialize our product candidates, as well as to support our continuing operations;

•the costs of hiring additional clinical, quality control and manufacturing personnel;

Table of contents

•the costs, timing and outcome of regulatory review of our product candidates;

•the costs and timing of commercialization activities, including product manufacturing, marketing, sales and distribution, for any future product candidates for which we receive marketing approval;

•the costs and timing of preparing, filing and prosecuting patent applications, maintaining and enforcing our intellectual property rights and defending any intellectual property-related claims; and

•the costs of operating as a public company.

Identifying potential product candidates and conducting preclinical testing and clinical trials is a time-consuming, expensive and uncertain process that takes years to complete, and we may never generate the necessary data or results required to obtain regulatory approval and achieve product sales. In addition, AUCATZYL, or our other product candidates, if approved, may not achieve commercial success. Our product revenues in the near term will be derived primarily from sales of AUCATZYL in the US, as we that we do not expect to generate material revenues from obe-cel in other jurisdictions or from other pipeline programs, for up to several 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. In addition, we may seek additional capital due to favorable market conditions or strategic considerations even if we believe we have sufficient funds for our current or future operating plans.

To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, our shareholders may experience substantial dilution. We may sell ordinary shares or ADSs, convertible securities or other equity securities in one or more transactions at prices and in a manner we determine from time to time. If we sell ordinary shares or ADSs, convertible securities or other equity securities in more than one transaction, investors may be materially diluted by subsequent sales. These sales may also result in material dilution to our existing shareholders, and new investors could gain rights superior to our existing shareholders. In February 2024, we issued an aggregate of approximately 91.7 million ADSs in an underwritten offering and a private placement, resulting in substantial dilution for existing shareholders. Debt financing and preferred equity financing, if available, could result in fixed payment obligations, and we may be required to accept terms that restrict our ability to incur additional indebtedness, force us to maintain specified liquidity or other ratios or restrict our ability to pay dividends or make acquisitions.

If we raise additional funds through collaborations, strategic alliances or marketing, distribution or licensing arrangements with third parties, we may be required to relinquish valuable rights to our technologies, future revenue streams, research programs or product candidates or to grant licenses on terms that may not be favorable to us. In addition, we could also be required to seek funds through arrangements with collaborators or others at an earlier stage than otherwise would be desirable. If we raise funds through research grants, we may be subject to certain requirements, which may limit our ability to use the funds or require us to share information from our research and development. If we are unable to raise additional funds through equity or debt financings when needed, we may be required to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our product development or future commercialization efforts or grant rights to a third party to develop and market product candidates that we would otherwise prefer to develop and market ourselves. Raising additional capital through any of these or other means could adversely affect our business and the holdings or rights of our shareholders and may cause the market price of our ADSs to decline.

We have incurred substantial obligations under license and collaboration agreements, which could impair our flexibility and access to other capital and adversely affect our financial position, and our business would be adversely affected if we were unable to meet our obligations under these and similar future agreements.

In November 2021, we entered into a collaboration agreement with Blackstone (the “Blackstone Collaboration Agreement”) pursuant to which Blackstone agreed to pay us up to $150 million to support the continued development and commercialization of AUCATZYL/obe-cel and next-generation product candidates (collectively, the “Collaboration Products”) in exchange for our agreement to make substantial payments to Blackstone following approval of such Collaboration Products. These payments include a single-digit percentage payment on worldwide net sales of (i) the Collaboration Products in any indication and (ii) AUTO3 for the treatment of B-cell leukemias and lymphomas, by us and any of our licensees, as well as sales milestone payments relating to such net sales. Such payments to Blackstone could increase our cash requirements and could impair our liquidity. As of December 31, 2024, Blackstone has paid us the full $150 million under the terms of the Blackstone Collaboration Agreement, including the final payment of $30 million in the fourth quarter of 2024 following regulatory approval of AUCATZYL.

If we default under our obligations under the Blackstone Collaboration Agreement, we will be obligated to pay Blackstone liquidated damage payments in excess of the development payment paid by Blackstone, which would seriously harm our business and ability to continue as a going concern.

Under the BioNTech License Agreement, we also agreed to pay BioNTech a low single-digit percentage of annual net revenue of AUCATZYL/obe-cel, which may be increased up to a mid-single digit percentage, in exchange for milestone payments of up to $100 million in the aggregate on achievement of certain regulatory events for specific new indications upon BioNTech's election. Such payments to BioNTech could increase our cash requirements and could impair our liquidity.

Table of contents

Risks Related to the Commercialization of AUCATZYL and Our Other Product Candidates

AUCATZYL and any other product candidates, if approved, may fail to achieve the degree of market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors and others in the medical community necessary for commercial success, thereby limiting our potential to generate revenue.

AUCATZYL and any other product candidates, if approved, may not achieve market acceptance among physicians, patients, hospitals, including pharmacy directors, and third-party payors and, ultimately, may not be commercially successful. If these products do not achieve an adequate level of acceptance, we may not generate significant product revenue and may not become profitable. FDA’s investigation into secondary malignancies associated with CAR T cell therapies and other similar actions could result in increased government regulation, unfavorable public perception and publicity, stricter labeling requirements for AUCATZYL and those product candidates that are approved, and a decrease in demand for AUCATZYL or any such product candidates. The degree of market acceptance of AUCATZYL, and any other product candidates, if approved for commercial sale, will depend on a number of factors, including:

•the timing of market introduction of those products compared to competitive products;

•the continued safety and efficacy of those products;

•the clinical indications for which our product candidates are approved;

•physicians, hospitals, cancer treatment centers, and patients considering our product and product candidates as a safe and effective treatment;

•hospitals and cancer treatment centers establishing the infrastructure required for the administration of redirected T cell therapies;

•the potential and perceived advantages of our product and product candidates over alternative treatments;

•the prevalence and severity of any side effects;

•product labeling or product insert requirements of the FDA, the European Commission or other regulatory authorities;

•limitations or warnings contained in the labeling approved by the FDA or the European Commission;

•the cost of treatment in relation to alternative treatments;

•the amount of upfront costs or training required for physicians to administer our product and product candidates;

•the availability of coverage, adequate reimbursement, and pricing by third-party payors and government authorities;

•the willingness and ability of patients to pay out-of-pocket in the absence of comprehensive coverage and adequate reimbursement by third-party payors and government authorities;

•relative convenience and ease of scheduling and administration, including as compared to alternative treatments and competitive therapies; and

•the effectiveness of our sales and marketing efforts and distribution support.

Our efforts to educate physicians, patients, third-party payors and others in the medical community on the benefits of AUCATZYL and our other product candidates, if approved, may require significant resources and may never be successful. Such efforts may require more resources than are typically required due to the complexity and uniqueness of our product candidates. Because we expect sales of AUCATZYL and any future products, if approved, to generate substantially all of our product revenue for the foreseeable future, the failure of those products to find market acceptance would harm our business and could require us to seek additional financing.

In addition, although we are not utilizing embryonic stem cells or replication competent vectors, adverse publicity due to the ethical and social controversies surrounding the therapeutic use of such technologies, and reported side effects from any clinical trials using these technologies or the failure of such trials to demonstrate that these therapies are safe and effective, may limit market acceptance our product candidates.

Even if our products achieve market acceptance, we may not be able to maintain that market acceptance over time if new products or technologies are introduced that are more favorably received than our products, are more cost effective or render our products obsolete.

Table of contents

If we are unable to fully develop our sales, marketing and distribution capability on our own, or enter into sales, marketing and distribution agreements with third parties, we may not be successful in commercializing AUCATZYL, or our other product candidates, if and when approved.

We have spent significant resources to build our global commercialization capabilities to successfully launch AUCATZYL. To continue to achieve commercial success for AUCATZYL or any other product candidate for which we may obtain marketing approval, we will need to maintain a sales and marketing organization and establish logistics and distribution processes to commercialize and deliver our product candidates to patients and healthcare providers. The development of sales, marketing and distribution capabilities has required and will continue to require substantial resources, will be time-consuming and could delay any product launch. We currently have limited resources compared to some of our competitors, and the continued development of our own commercial organization to market our medicines and any additional medicines we may acquire will be expensive and time-consuming. We have spent and will continue to expend significant time and resources to train our field force to be able to educate physicians and other health care professionals on the benefits of AUCATZYL. Furthermore, we must train our field force to ensure that a consistent and appropriate message about AUCATZYL is being delivered to our potential customers. We may experience turnover of the team that we hired or will hire, requiring us to train new people. If we are unable to effectively continue to train our field force and equip them with effective materials, including medical and sales literature to help them inform and educate physicians about the benefits of AUCATZYL and its proper administration and label indication, as well as our patient assistance programs, our efforts to successfully commercialize AUCATZYL could jeopardize, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, share price and operations.

If we are unable or decide not to establish internal sales, marketing and distribution capabilities, in any territory, we would have to pursue collaborative arrangements regarding the sales and marketing of our products. However, we may not be successful in entering into arrangements with third parties to sell, market and distribute AUCATZYL/obe-cel or our other product candidates or may be unable to do so on terms that are favorable to us, or if we are able to do so, that they would be effective and successful in commercializing our products. Our product revenues and our profitability, if any, would likely be lower than if we were to sell, market and distribute AUCATZYL/obe-cel and any other product candidates that we develop ourselves. In addition, we would have limited control over such third parties, and any of them may fail to devote the necessary resources and attention to sell and market AUCATZYL/obe-cel and any of our other product candidates effectively.

The incidence and prevalence for target patient populations for AUCATZYL and our other product candidates have not been established with precision. If the market opportunities for AUCATZYL and our other product candidates are smaller than we estimate, our revenue and ability to achieve profitability will be adversely affected, possibly materially.

The total addressable market opportunity for AUCATZYL and our other product candidates will ultimately depend upon, among other things, acceptance by the medical community and patient access, product pricing and reimbursement as well as expansion into additional markets. The number of patients who may benefit from AUCATZYL or our other future products may turn out to be lower than expected, patients may not be otherwise amenable to treatment with our products, or new patients may become increasingly difficult to identify or gain access to, all of which would adversely affect our results of operations and our business. We may not be successful in our efforts to identify additional product candidates. Due to our limited resources and access to capital, we must prioritize development of certain product candidates, which may prove to be the wrong choice and may adversely affect our business.

We operate in a rapidly changing industry and face significant competition, which may result in others discovering, developing or commercializing products before or more successfully than we do.

The development and commercialization of new biopharmaceutical products is highly competitive and subject to rapid and significant technological advancements. We face competition from major multi-national pharmaceutical companies, biotechnology companies and specialty pharmaceutical companies with respect to our current and future product candidates that we may develop and commercialize in the future. There are a number of large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies that currently market and sell products or are pursuing the development of product candidates for the treatment of cancer. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large, established companies. Potential competitors also include academic institutions, government agencies and other public and private research organizations.

Due to their promising clinical therapeutic effect in clinical exploratory trials, engineered T cell therapies, redirected T cell therapies in general and antibody-drug conjugates are being pursued by multiple biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis AG (“Novartis”), Gilead Sciences, Inc. (“Gilead”), Bristol-Myers Squibb (“BMS”), and Janssen Biotech Inc. Our competitors may succeed in developing, acquiring or licensing technologies and products that are more effective, more effectively marketed and sold or less costly than any product candidates that we may develop, which could render our product candidates non-competitive and obsolete.

Table of contents

We have received marketing approval in the US, UK and EU for AUCATZYL for the treatment of adult r/r B-ALL. Novartis, Gilead and BMS have also received marketing approval for anti-CD19 CAR T cell therapies. Gilead's therapy was approved for the treatment of adult ALL in October 2021. AUCATZYL is expected to compete directly with these companies and therapies. In addition, some companies, such as Cellectis, Inc., Les Laboratoires Servier SAS, Allogene Therapeutics Inc., Lyell Immunopharma and Crispr Therapeutics AG are pursuing allogenic T cell products that could compete with our programmed T cell product candidates.

Novartis, Gilead and BMS may be successful in establishing a strong market position for their CD19-targeted CAR T cell products, and we may not be able to compete effectively against these therapies once they have been established.

Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient or are less expensive or better reimbursed than any products that we may commercialize. Our competitors also may obtain FDA, European Commission 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 for either the product or a specific indication before we are able to enter the market.

Many of our competitors, either alone or with their strategic collaborators, have substantially greater financial, technical and human resources than we do. Accordingly, our competitors may be more successful than we are in obtaining approval for treatments and achieving widespread market acceptance, which may render our treatments obsolete or non-competitive. These companies may also render our product candidates obsolete or non-competitive via advances in existing technological approaches or the development of new or different approaches, such as using AI and machine learning, potentially eliminating the advantages in our drug discovery process. Mergers and acquisitions in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors.

These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel and establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical studies, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies.

Coverage and adequate reimbursement may not be available for AUCATZYL or our current or any future product candidates, which could make it difficult for us to sell profitably, if approved.

Market acceptance and sales of our product and any product candidates that we commercialize, if approved, will depend in part on the extent to which reimbursement for these products and related treatments will be available from third-party payors, including government health administration authorities, managed care organizations and private health insurers. Third-party payors decide which therapies they will pay for and establish reimbursement levels. Third-party payors in the United States often rely upon Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own coverage and reimbursement policies. However, decisions regarding the extent of coverage and amount of reimbursement to be provided for our product or any product candidates that we develop, once approved, will be made on a payor-by-payor basis. One payor’s determination to provide coverage for a drug does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage for the drug. Additionally, a third-party payor’s decision to provide coverage for a therapy does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the price, examining the medical necessity and reviewing the cost-effectiveness of medical products, therapies and services, in addition to questioning their safety and efficacy. We may incur significant costs to conduct expensive pharmaco-economic studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of our product, and product candidates, once approved, in addition to the costs required to obtain FDA approvals. Our product and product candidates, once approved, may not be considered medically necessary or cost-effective by third-party payors.

Each payor determines whether or not it will provide coverage for a therapy, what amount it will pay the manufacturer for the therapy, and on what tier of its list of covered drugs, or formulary, it will be placed. The position on a payor’s formulary, generally determines the co-payment that a patient will need to make to obtain the therapy and can strongly influence the adoption of such therapy by patients and physicians. Patients who are prescribed treatments for their conditions and providers prescribing such services generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the associated healthcare costs. Patients are unlikely to use our products, and providers are unlikely to prescribe our products, unless coverage is provided and reimbursement is adequate to cover a significant portion of the cost of our products and their administration. Therefore, coverage and adequate reimbursement is critical to new medical product acceptance.

Table of contents

A primary trend in the U.S. healthcare industry and elsewhere is cost containment. Third-party payors have attempted to control costs by limiting coverage and the amount of reimbursement for particular medications. For example, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) imposes rebates on many Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D products to penalize price increases that outpace inflation on an annual basis. In addition, HHS has been empowered to negotiate the price of certain single-source biologics that have been on the market for at least 11 years covered under Medicare as part of the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program. Each year up to twenty (20) products will be selected by HHS for the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program. Products subject to the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program are expected to experience a significant reduction in reimbursement from the Medicare program on a per unit basis. In addition, HHS imposes rebates on many Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D products to penalize price increases that outpace inflation on an annual basis. If coverage and adequate reimbursement are not available, or are available only to limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize our current and any future product candidates that we develop, which could have an adverse effect on our operating results and our overall financial condition. We cannot be sure that coverage and reimbursement will be available for our product or any product candidates and, if reimbursement is available, what the level of reimbursement will be. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for our product or any product candidates for which we receive regulatory approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future. Inadequate coverage and reimbursement may impact the demand for, or the price of, any drug for which we obtain marketing approval. If coverage and adequate reimbursement are not available, or are available only to limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize our current and any future product candidates that we develop.

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

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

•reduced resources of our management to pursue our business strategy;

•decreased demand for any product candidates or products that we may develop;

•injury to our reputation and significant negative media attention;

•withdrawal of clinical trial participants;

•initiation of investigations by regulators;

•product recalls, withdrawals or labeling, marketing or promotional restrictions;

•significant costs to defend the resulting litigation;

•substantial monetary awards paid to clinical trial participants or patients;

•loss of revenue; and

•the inability to commercialize any products that we may develop.

We currently hold £10 million in product liability insurance coverage in the aggregate, with a per incident limit of £10 million, which may not be adequate to cover all liabilities that we may incur. We may need to increase our insurance coverage as we expand our clinical trials or if we commence commercialization of our product candidates. Insurance coverage is increasingly expensive. We may not be able to maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost or in an amount adequate to satisfy any liability that may arise.

Our current and potential future use of AI may not be successful and presents new risks and challenges to our business.

We currently integrate artificial intelligence (“AI”) in certain of our research and development activities, including identification of potential product candidates, and are seeking to further integrate AI throughout our business. We are exploring additional opportunities to incorporate AI into our processes for drug discovery, drug development, drug commercialization, and in connection with our general & administrative functions. Such efforts may not be successful. Issues relating to the use of new and evolving technologies such as AI may cause us to experience brand or reputational harm, competitive harm, legal liability, and new or enhanced governmental or regulatory scrutiny, and we may incur additional costs to resolve such issues.

Table of contents

As with many innovations, AI presents risks and challenges that could undermine or slow its adoption, and therefore harm our business. Developing, testing and deploying AI systems may also increase our operating costs due to the nature of the computing costs involved in such systems, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operation. The use of AI by us and our business partners may lead to novel and urgent cybersecurity risks, which could have a material adverse effect on our operations and reputation as well as the operations of any of our business partners. We may also face increased competition from other companies that are using AI, some of whom may develop more effective methods than we and any of our business partners have, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, or financial condition. In addition, our efforts to develop, acquire or integrate these technologies will involve significant time, costs, and other resources, and may divert our management team’s attention and focus from executing on other elements of our strategy. Furthermore, uncertainties regarding developing legal and regulatory requirements and standards may require significant resources to modify and maintain business practices to comply with U.S. and foreign laws concerning the use of AI, the nature of which cannot be determined at this time.

Risks Related to the Development of Our Product Candidates

Our product candidates are in clinical development or in preclinical development. If we are unable to advance our product candidates through clinical development, obtain regulatory approval and ultimately commercialize our product candidates, or experience significant delays in doing so, our business will be materially harmed.

Other than AUCATZYL, the rest of our product pipeline is in clinical or preclinical development. We have established clinical proof-of-concept for only one of our products, AUCATZYL, which received FDA, MHRA and EU Commission approval in r/r B-ALL. There is no assurance that our current or any other future clinical trials of our product candidates will be successful or will generate positive clinical data. Although we have received marketing approval for AUCATZYL in r/r B-ALL in the US, UK and EU, we may not be successful in receiving marketing approval from the applicable regulatory agencies for obe-cel in other patient populations or indications, or for any of our other product candidates. We are sponsoring active, recruiting clinical trials for obe-cel in additional indications. We are also collaborating with our academic partner UCL to support clinical trials sponsored by them of obe-cel in additional indications, AUTO1/22, AUTO6NG and AUTO8. Our AUTO9 product candidate is in pre-clinical development.

In order to commence a clinical trial in the United States, we must submit an IND to the FDA and have the IND application go into effect. Trials in the United States must be conducted pursuant to an active IND. An investigator may not administer a drug candidate to human subjects until the IND goes into effect. Similar requirements apply to our conduct of trials in the U.K. and EU. In addition, patients who have received an investigational product developed by us will be evaluated for long-term safety and disease response in a long-term follow-up protocol. There can be no assurance that the FDA, the competent authorities of EU Member States or other regulatory agencies will permit any future clinical trial application to go into effect for our product candidates in a timely manner or at all.

U.S. and EU regulations require parties seeking regulatory approval for product candidates in adult indications to define a development plan for such candidate in pediatric indications, commonly referred to as a PSP in the United States. and a PIP in the EU. Similar requirements apply in other jurisdictions. If these requirements are not met, a submission for marketing authorization cannot be submitted. A pediatric development plan must be approved by U.S., EU and other regulators, and the conduct of the respective pediatric studies, typically in parallel with the adult clinical development, must be conducted in the time frame described in the plan. Failure to comply with these requirements can lead to penalties and reputational damage. There can be no assurance that the FDA, EMA or other regulatory agencies will permit a pediatric development plan to go into effect in a timely manner, or at all.

If we are unable to agree upon appropriate pediatric development plans with these regulatory agencies, or if we are unable to perform the activities described in an agreed plan, we could experience significant delays or an inability to successfully commercialize our product candidates, which would materially harm our business.

Biopharmaceutical development is a long, expensive and uncertain process, and delay or failure can occur at any stage of any of our clinical trials. Failure to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates will prevent us from commercializing and marketing our product candidates.

The success in the development of our programmed T cell product candidates will depend on many factors, including:

•completing preclinical studies and receiving regulatory approvals or clearance for conducting clinical trials for our preclinical-stage programs;

•obtaining positive results in our clinical trials demonstrating efficacy, safety, and durability of effect of our product candidates;

•establishing pediatric development plans with respect to product candidates for which we seek regulatory approval;

•receiving approvals for commercialization of our product candidates from regulatory authorities;

•manufacturing our product candidates at an acceptable cost; and

Table of contents

•maintaining and growing an organization of scientists, medical professionals and business people who can develop and commercialize our products and technology.

Many of these factors are beyond our control, including the time needed to adequately complete clinical testing and the regulatory submission process. It is possible that none of our other product candidates will ever obtain regulatory approval, even if we expend substantial time and resources seeking such approval. If we do not achieve one or more of these factors in a timely manner or at all, or any other factors impacting the successful development of biopharmaceutical products, we could experience significant delays or an inability to successfully develop our product candidates, which would materially harm our business.

Our proprietary, next-generation T cell programming technologies, our modular approach for engineering T cells and our manufacturing platform for our programmed T cell product candidates, represent emerging therapeutic approaches that face significant challenges and hurdles.

We have concentrated our research and development efforts on our T cell technology platform using our expertise in disease biology and cell programming, and our future success is highly dependent on the successful development and manufacture of our programmed T cell product candidates. Some of our product candidates employ a dual-targeting mechanism. By targeting two separate antigens on the cancer cell surface, we believe these product candidates have the potential to improve durability of treatment response and reduce the frequency of cancer relapse as compared to other currently available single-targeting T cell therapies. AUTO4, our product candidate for the treatment of T cell lymphoma, employs a novel approach to killing malignant T cells that aims to preserve approximately half of the normal, healthy T cells. Some of our product candidates include a “safety switch” that is designed to allow for the elimination of the engineered T cells if a patient experiences severe adverse side effects from the treatment. However, this “safety switch” technology has not been activated to date in our clinical studies, and we do not know whether it would have the intended effect if used. Additionally, as with other targeted therapies, off-tumor or off-target activity could delay development or require us to re-engineer or abandon a particular product candidate. Because programmed T cell therapies represent a relatively new field of cellular immunotherapy and cancer treatment and autoimmune diseases generally, developing and commercializing our product candidates subjects us to a number of risks and challenges, including:

•obtaining regulatory approval for our product candidates, as the FDA, the European Commission and other regulatory authorities have limited experience with programmed T cell therapies for cancer;

•sourcing clinical and, if approved, commercial supplies of the materials used to manufacture our product candidates;

•developing programming modules with the desired properties, while avoiding adverse reactions;

•creating viral vectors capable of delivering multiple programming modules;

•developing a reliable and consistent vector and cell manufacturing process;

•establishing manufacturing capacity suitable for the manufacture of our product candidates in line with expanding enrollment in our clinical studies and our projected commercial requirements;

•achieving cost efficiencies in the scale-up of our manufacturing capacity;

•developing protocols for the safe administration of our product candidates;

•educating medical personnel regarding our programmed T cell therapies and the potential side effect profile of each of our product candidates, such as potential adverse side effects related to CRS;

•establishing integrated solutions in collaboration with specialty treatment centers in order to reduce the burdens and complex logistics commonly associated with the administration of T cell therapies;

•establishing sales and marketing capabilities to successfully launch and commercialize our product candidates if and when we obtain any required regulatory approvals, and risks associated with gaining market acceptance of a novel therapy if we receive approval; and

•obtaining coverage and adequate reimbursement from third-party payors for our novel and personalized therapies in connection with commercialization of any approved product candidates.

We may not be able to successfully develop our programmed T cell product candidates or our T cell programming technologies in a manner that will yield products that are safe and effective, scalable or profitable.

Additionally, because our technology involves the genetic modification of patient cells ex vivo, we are subject to additional regulatory challenges and risks, including regulatory requirements governing genetically modified organisms that have changed frequently and will likely continue to change in the future, and that may limit or delay our ability to import our product candidates into certain countries for use in clinical trials or for commercial sale even if we receive applicable marketing approvals.

Table of contents

Moreover, public perception and awareness of T cell therapy safety issues may adversely influence the willingness of subjects to participate in clinical trials of our product candidates, or if approved, of physicians to prescribe our products. Physicians, hospitals and third-party payors often are slow to adopt new products, technologies and treatment practices that require additional upfront costs and training. Treatment centers may not be willing or able to devote the personnel and establish other infrastructure required for the administration of programmed T cell therapies. Physicians may not be willing to undergo training to adopt this novel and personalized therapy, may decide the therapy is too complex to adopt without appropriate training and may choose not to administer the therapy. Based on these and other factors, hospitals and payors may decide that the benefits of this new therapy do not or will not outweigh its costs.

Our future success is highly dependent on the regulatory approval of our other clinical-stage programmed T cell product candidates and our preclinical programs. Our product candidates will require significant clinical or preclinical testing before we can seek regulatory approval for and launch a product commercially. Post‑approval regulatory burden has increased, and may continue to increase, as regulators are increasingly granting approvals contingent on the performance of costly post marketing clinical trials, sometimes focused on long‑term data. These requirements make the maintenance of regulatory approvals and label expansions for our products increasingly expensive, and further heighten the risk of recalls, product withdrawals, changes to product specifications, loss of market share, and loss of revenue and profitability.

Although we have received FDA, MHRA and EU Commission approval for AUCATZYL in r/r B-ALL, our business remains substantially dependent on our ability to successfully obtain regulatory approval for, and, if approved, to successfully commercialize our other programmed T cell product candidates. We cannot commercialize product candidates in the United States without first obtaining regulatory approval for the product from the FDA; similarly, we cannot commercialize product candidates in countries outside of the United States without obtaining regulatory approval from comparable regulatory authorities in relevant jurisdictions, such as the European Commission in the EU (granted on the basis of a positive opinion from the CHMP of the EMA). Additionally, to file for licensure in any jurisdiction outside of the U.K. we must first receive GMP certification from the MHRA. Before obtaining regulatory approvals for the commercial sale of any product candidate for a particular indication, if approved, we must demonstrate with substantial evidence gathered in preclinical and clinical studies, that the product candidate is safe and effective for that indication and that the manufacturing facilities, processes and controls are adequate with respect to such product candidate. Prior to seeking approval for any of our product candidates, we will need to confer with the FDA, MHRA, the EMA and other regulatory authorities regarding the design of our clinical trials and the type and amount of clinical data necessary to seek and gain approval for our product candidates.

The time required to obtain approval by the FDA, MHRA, the European Commission and other regulatory authorities is unpredictable but typically takes many years following the commencement of preclinical studies and clinical trials and depends upon numerous factors, including the substantial discretion of the regulatory authorities. In addition, approval policies, regulations, or the type and amount of clinical data necessary to gain approval may change during the course of a product candidate’s clinical development and may vary among jurisdictions. It is possible that none of our other existing product candidates or any future product candidates will ever obtain regulatory approval.

Our product candidates could fail to receive regulatory approval from the FDA, MHRA, the European Commission or other regulatory authorities and, consequently, fail to achieve suitable commercial success for many reasons, including:

•disagreement with the design, protocol or conduct of our clinical trials;

•failure to demonstrate that a product candidate is safe and effective for its proposed indication;

•failure of clinical trials to meet the level of statistical significance required for approval;

•failure to demonstrate that a product candidate’s clinical and other benefits outweigh its safety risks;

•disagreement with our interpretation of data from preclinical studies or clinical trials;

•insufficiency of data collected from clinical trials of our product candidates to support the submission and filing of a BLA or other submission or to obtain regulatory approval;

•failure to obtain approval of the manufacturing processes or our facilities;

•failure to receive timely handover of our planned commercial launch facility to enable on-time completion of all operational qualification activities;

•failure to achieve timely acceptance of Technical Transfer and Performance Qualification of our commercial manufacturing facility;

•augmentation of the requirements to satisfy facility qualification or licensure submission by the regulating authorities, thus delaying time to submission and licensure of;

•failure to achieve a competitive value proposition in terms of product release specifications and our vein-to-vein delivery time;

•failure to achieve approval of state of the art in-process and release assays critical to optimizing intent to treat and achieving a competitive vein to vein time;

Table of contents

•failure to have adequate funding to sustain the full complement of staff required to facilitate targeted product launch volumes;

•changes in the approval policies or regulations that render our preclinical and clinical data insufficient for approval; or

•lack of adequate funding to complete a clinical trial in a manner that is satisfactory to the applicable regulatory authority.

The FDA, the MHRA, the EMA or the European Commission, or a comparable regulatory authority may require more information, including additional preclinical or clinical data to support approval, including data that would require us to perform additional clinical trials or modify our manufacturing processes, which may delay or prevent approval and our commercialization plans, or we may decide to abandon the development program. If we change our manufacturing processes or manufacturing facilities, we may be required to conduct additional clinical trials or other studies, which also could delay or prevent approval of our product candidates. If we were to obtain approval, regulatory authorities may approve any of our product candidates for fewer indications than we request (including failing to approve the most commercially promising indications) or for different indications from those obtained in other territories, may limit indications, may grant approval contingent on the performance of costly post-marketing clinical trials or other post-marketing commitments, or may approve a product candidate with a label that does not include the labeling claims necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of that product candidate. Furthermore, the indication granted by health authorities may vary from region to region, which may impair our commercialization plans. Finally, even with licensures in the relevant regions we initially do not have production redundancy. Due to this, we are at higher risk of supply disruptions to regional factors that could impair our supply chains.

Even though we have received FDA, MHRA and EU Commission approval for AUCATZYL in r/r B-ALL, and even if any of our other product candidates were to successfully obtain approval from the FDA, the MHRA, the European Commission or other comparable regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions, any approval might contain significant limitations related to use restrictions for specified age groups, warnings, precautions or contraindications, or may be subject to burdensome post-approval study or risk management requirements. If we are unable to obtain regulatory approval for one of our product candidates in one or more jurisdictions, or any approval contains significant limitations, we may not be able to obtain sufficient funding to continue the development of that product or generate revenues attributable to that product candidate. Also, the regulatory approval of AUCATZYL, or of any of our other current or future product candidates, once obtained, may be withdrawn. See the risk factor titled “—Even if we complete the necessary preclinical studies and clinical trials, the regulatory 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. As a result, we cannot predict when or if, and in which territories, we will obtain marketing approval to commercialize a product candidate.”

We may not be successful in our efforts to build a pipeline of product candidates.

A key element of our strategy is to use our expertise in tumor biology and cell programming and our proprietary and modular T cell programming technologies to develop what we believe are safer and more effective T cell therapies. Our initial focus is on the development of a pipeline of product candidates for the treatment of hematological cancers and the progression of these product candidates through clinical development. We also intend to develop follow-on, or next-generation, product candidates with additional elements of programming built into the programmed T cell product candidate to offer enhanced characteristics as compared to the earlier product generation, such as pharmacological control or insensitivity to checkpoint inhibition. However, we may not be able to develop product candidates that are safe and effective, or which compare favorably with our existing product candidates.

Even if we are successful in continuing to build our pipeline and developing next-generation product candidates or expanding into solid tumor indications or autoimmune diseases, the potential product candidates that we identify may not be suitable for clinical development, including as a result of lack of safety, lack of tolerability, lack of activity, or other characteristics that indicate that they are unlikely to be products that will receive marketing approval, achieve market acceptance or obtain reimbursements from third-party payors. If we do not successfully develop and commercialize product candidates or collaborate with others to do so, we will not be able to obtain product revenue in future periods, which could significantly harm our financial position and adversely affect the trading price of our ADSs.

Our preclinical programs may experience delays or may never advance to clinical trials, which would adversely affect our ability to obtain regulatory approvals or to commercialize these programs on a timely basis or at all, which would have an adverse effect on our business.

Many of our product candidates are in the preclinical development stage. The risk of failure of preclinical programs is high. Before we can commence clinical trials for a product candidate, we must complete extensive preclinical testing and studies to obtain regulatory clearance to initiate human clinical trials, including based on IND applications in effect in the United States and clinical trial applications in the EU and other European countries. We cannot be certain of the timely completion or outcome of our preclinical testing and studies and cannot predict if the FDA, the competent authorities of EU Member States or other regulatory authorities will accept our proposed clinical programs or if the outcome of our preclinical testing and studies will ultimately support the further development of our programs. As a result, we cannot be sure that we will be able to submit INDs or similar applications for our preclinical programs on the timelines we expect, if at all, and we cannot be sure that submission of INDs or similar applications will result in the FDA, the competent authorities of EU Member States or other regulatory authorities allowing clinical trials to begin.

Table of contents

Clinical trials are difficult to design and implement, involve uncertain outcomes and may not be successful.

Human clinical trials are difficult to design and implement, in part because they are subject to rigorous regulatory requirements. The design of a clinical trial can determine whether its results will support approval of a product, and flaws in the design of a clinical trial may not become apparent until the clinical trial is well advanced. As an organization, we have limited experience designing clinical trials and may be unable to design and execute a clinical trial to support regulatory approval. There is a high failure rate for biologic products proceeding through clinical trials, which may be higher for our product candidates because they are based on new technology and engineered on a patient-by-patient basis. 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. Data obtained from preclinical and clinical activities are subject to varying interpretations, which may delay, limit or prevent regulatory approval. In addition, we may experience regulatory delays or rejections as a result of many factors, including changes in regulatory policy during the period of our product candidate development. Any such delays could negatively impact our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Success in preclinical studies or clinical trials may not be indicative of results in future clinical trials.

Results from preclinical studies are not necessarily predictive of future clinical trial results, and interim results of a clinical trial are not necessarily indicative of final results. For example, we have treated only a small number of patients in some of our ongoing clinical trials. For that reason, we do not know whether these candidates will be effective for the intended indications or safe in humans. Our product candidates may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy in clinical development despite positive results in preclinical studies or having successfully advanced through initial clinical trials. This failure to establish sufficient efficacy and safety could cause us to abandon clinical development of our product candidates.

We depend on enrollment of patients in our clinical trials for our product candidates. If we encounter difficulties enrolling patients in our clinical trials, our clinical development activities could be delayed or otherwise adversely affected.

Identifying and qualifying patients to participate in clinical trials of our product candidates is critical to our success. We may experience difficulties in patient enrollment in our clinical trials for a variety of reasons. The timely completion of clinical trials in accordance with their protocols depends, among other things, on our ability to enroll a sufficient number of patients who remain in the trial until its conclusion. The enrollment of patients depends on many factors, including:

•the patient eligibility criteria defined in the protocol;

•the number of patients with the disease or condition being studied;

•the perceived risks and benefits of the product candidate in the trial;

•clinicians’ and patients’ perceptions as to the potential advantages of the product candidate being studied in relation to other available therapies, including any new drugs that may be approved for the indications we are investigating or drugs that may be used off-label for these indications;

•the size and nature of the patient population required for analysis of the trial’s primary and secondary endpoints;

•the proximity of patients to trial sites;

•the design of the clinical trial;

•our ability to recruit clinical trial investigators with the appropriate competencies and experience;

•competing clinical trials for similar therapies or other new therapeutics not involving T cell-based immunotherapy;

•our ability to obtain and maintain patient consents;

•disruptions to healthcare systems caused by global disease pandemics;

•the risk that patients enrolled in clinical trials will drop out of the clinical trials before completion of their treatment; and

•other public health factors.

In particular, some of our clinical trials will look to enroll patients with characteristics which are found in a very small population. For example, our clinical trials of obe-cel in various autoimmune indications seek to enroll patients who meet specific criteria relating to the severity and presentation of their clinical symptoms. Other companies are conducting clinical trials with their redirected T cell therapies in similar patient populations and indications and seek to enroll patients in their studies that may otherwise be eligible for our clinical trials, which could lead to slow recruitment and delays in our clinical programs. In addition, since the number of qualified clinical investigators is limited, we expect to conduct some of our clinical trials at the same clinical trial sites that some of our competitors use, which could further reduce the number of patients who are available for our clinical trials in these clinical trial sites.

Moreover, because our product candidates represent a departure from more commonly used methods for cancer treatment and autoimmune diseases, potential trial participants and their doctors may be inclined to use conventional therapies, such as chemotherapy and antibody therapy, rather than participate in our clinical trials.

Table of contents

Delays in patient enrollment may result in increased costs or may affect the timing or outcome of the planned clinical trials, which could prevent completion of these clinical trials and adversely affect our ability to advance the development of our product candidates. In addition, many of the factors that may lead to a delay in the commencement or completion of clinical trials may also ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of our product candidates.

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

Cancer therapies are sometimes characterized as first line, second line or later lines, and the FDA often approves new therapies initially only for later line use. When blood cancers are detected, they are treated with the first line of therapy with the intention of curing the cancer. This generally consists of chemotherapy, radiation, antibody drugs, tumor-targeted small molecules, or a combination of these. In addition, sometimes a bone marrow transplantation can be added to the first line therapy after the combination chemotherapy is given. If the patient’s cancer relapses, e.g. a B-cell malignancy, then they are given salvage therapies which can consist of more chemotherapy, radiation, CAR T cell products, antibody drug conjugates, tumor-targeted small molecules, or a combination of these, or a bone marrow transplant. Generally, the higher the line of therapy, the lower the chance of a cure. With third or higher line, the goal of the therapy in the treatment of lymphoma and myeloma is to control the growth of the tumor and extend the life of the patient, as a cure is unlikely to happen. Patients are generally referred to clinical trials in these situations.

There is no guarantee that any of our product candidates, even if approved in later lines, would be approved for an earlier line of therapy. In addition, we may have to conduct additional large randomized clinical trials prior to gaining approval for the earlier line of therapy.

Our projections of both the number of people who have the cancers we are targeting, as well as the size of the patient population subset of people with these cancers in a position to receive first, second, third and fourth line therapy and who have the potential to benefit from treatment with our product candidates, are based on our beliefs and estimates. These estimates have been derived from a variety of sources, including scientific literature, surveys of clinics, patient foundations, or market research and may prove to be incorrect. Further, new studies may change the estimated incidence or prevalence of these cancers.

The number of patients may turn out to be fewer than expected. Additionally, the potentially addressable patient population for our product candidates may be limited or may not be amenable to treatment with our product candidates. Even if we obtain significant market share for our product candidates, because the potential target populations are small, we may never achieve significant revenues without obtaining regulatory approval for additional indications or as part of earlier lines of therapy.

Adverse side effects or other safety risks associated with our product candidates could delay or preclude approval, cause us to suspend or discontinue clinical trials, cause us to abandon product candidates, limit the commercial profile of an approved label, or result in significant negative consequences following any potential marketing approval.

In clinical trials conducted by other companies involving CAR T cells, the most prominent acute toxicities included symptoms thought to be associated with CRS, such as fever, low blood pressure and kidney dysfunction. Some patients also experienced toxicity of the central nervous system, or neurotoxicity, such as confusion, tremor, cranial nerve dysfunction, seizures and speech impairment. CAR T cell associated neurotoxicity is also known as ICANS. Adverse events with the worst grades and attributed to CAR T cells were severe and life threatening in some patients. The life-threatening events were related to cardiac dysfunction, kidney dysfunction and neurotoxicity. Severe and life-threatening toxicities occurred mostly in the first two weeks after cell infusion and generally resolved within three to four weeks, but several patients died in clinical trials involving CAR T cells developed by other companies and academic institutions. For example, the FDA-approved label for AUCATZYL carries a boxed warning for, among other adverse side effects, the risk of developing secondary T-cell malignancies.

There can be no assurance that patients in ongoing or future trials of obe-cel in additional indications, or any of our other product candidates will not experience more severe CRS, unacceptable levels of neurotoxicity or other serious adverse events.

Our clinical trials include cancer patients who are very sick and whose health is deteriorating, and we expect that additional clinical trials of our other product candidates will include similar patients with deteriorating health. It is possible that some of these patients may experience similar adverse side effects as were observed in clinical trials conducted by other companies and academic institutions involving CAR T cells, and that additional patients may die during our clinical trials for various reasons, including as a result of receiving our product candidates, because the patient’s disease is too advanced, or because the patient experiences medical problems that may not be related to our product candidate. Even if the deaths are not related to our product candidate, the deaths could affect perceptions regarding the safety of our product candidate.

Table of contents

Patient deaths and severe side effects caused by our product candidates, or by products or product candidates of other companies that are thought to have similarities with our therapeutic candidates, could result in the delay, suspension, clinical hold or termination of clinical trials by us, the FDA, the competent authorities of EU Member States or other regulatory authorities for a number of reasons. If we elect or are required to delay, suspend or terminate any clinical trial of any product candidates that we develop, the commercial prospects of such product candidates will be harmed and our ability to generate product revenues from any of these product candidates would be delayed or eliminated. Serious adverse events observed in clinical trials could hinder or prevent market acceptance of the product candidate at issue. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations significantly.

If the clinical trials of any of our product candidates fail to demonstrate safety and efficacy to the satisfaction of the FDA, the EMA and the European Commission or other comparable regulatory authorities, or do not otherwise produce favorable results, we may incur additional costs or experience delays in completing, or ultimately be unable to complete, the development and commercialization of our product candidates.

We may not commercialize, market, promote or sell any product candidate without obtaining marketing approval from the FDA, the European Commission or other comparable regulatory authority, and we may never receive such approvals. Although we have received FDA, MHRA and EU Commission approval for AUCATZYL in r/r B-ALL, it is impossible to predict accurately when or if any of our other product candidates will prove effective or safe in humans and will receive regulatory approval. Before obtaining marketing approval from regulatory authorities for the commercial sale of any of our product candidates, we must demonstrate through lengthy, complex and expensive preclinical testing and clinical trials that our product candidates are both safe and effective for use in each target indication. The potential label for the same product may differ in different territories based on the approval by different health authorities. Clinical testing is expensive, difficult to design and implement, can take many years to complete and is uncertain as to outcome. A failure of one or more clinical trials can occur at any stage of testing.

We may experience numerous unforeseen events prior to, during, or as a result of, clinical trials that could delay or prevent our ability to receive marketing approval or commercialize any of our product candidates, including:

•the FDA, the EMA, the European Commission or other comparable regulatory authority may disagree as to the number, design or implementation of our clinical trials, or may not interpret the results from clinical trials as we do;

•regulators or IRBs may not authorize us or our investigators to commence a clinical trial or conduct a clinical trial at a prospective trial site;

•we may not reach agreement on acceptable terms with prospective clinical trial sites, the terms of which can be subject to extensive negotiation and may vary significantly among different clinical trial sites;

•clinical trials of our product candidates may produce negative or inconclusive results;

•we may decide, or regulators may require us, to conduct additional clinical trials or abandon product development programs;

•the number of patients required for clinical trials of our product candidates may be larger than we anticipate, enrollment in these clinical trials may be slower than we anticipate, participants may drop out of these clinical trials at a higher rate than we anticipate or we may fail to recruit suitable patients to participate in a trial;

•our third-party contractors may fail to comply with regulatory requirements or meet their contractual obligations to us in a timely manner, or at all;

•regulators may issue a clinical hold, or regulators or IRBs may require that we or our investigators suspend or terminate clinical research for various reasons, including noncompliance with regulatory requirements or a finding that the participants are being exposed to unacceptable health risks;

•the cost of clinical development of our product candidates may be greater than we anticipate;

•the FDA, the competent authorities of EU Member States or other comparable regulatory authorities may fail to approve our manufacturing processes or facilities;

•the supply or quality of our product candidates or other materials necessary to conduct clinical trials of our product candidates may be insufficient or inadequate;

•our product candidates may have undesirable side effects or other unexpected characteristics, particularly given their novel, first-in-human application, such as cytokine-induced toxicity and T cell aplasia, causing us or our investigators, regulators or IRBs to suspend or terminate the clinical trials; and

•the approval policies and related requirements of the FDA, the EMA of the European Commission, or other comparable regulatory authorities may significantly change in a manner rendering our clinical data insufficient for approval.

To the extent that the results of the trials are not satisfactory for the FDA, the EMA, the European Commission, or regulatory authorities in other countries or jurisdiction to approve our BLA, MAA, or other comparable application, the commercialization of our product candidates may be significantly delayed, or we may be required to expend significant additional resources, which may not be available to us, to conduct additional trials in support of potential approval of our product candidates.

Table of contents

We may not be able to successfully create our own manufacturing infrastructure for supply of our, or our current or future collaborators', requirements of programmed T cell product candidates for use in clinical trials and for commercial sale.

Our manufacturing and commercialization strategy is based on establishing a fully integrated vein-to-delivery cycle. We have constructed and use a new facility (which we call “The Nucleus”) in Stevenage, U.K. which we believe will support our commercial manufacturing needs for AUCATZYL and any future products. Although we have received approval and licensure from health authorities to enter into operations at this facility, we may not be able to maintain ongoing licensure requirements. At present, we currently also use facilities and equipment at the Cell and Gene Therapy Catapult, as well as third party vendors, for vector and cell manufacturing. Over time we can add additional manufacturing sites in the United States and in Europe as needed.

The implementation of this plan is subject to many risks. For example, the establishment of a cell-therapy manufacturing facility is a complex endeavor requiring knowledgeable individuals. Creating an internal manufacturing infrastructure will rely upon finding personnel with an appropriate background and training to staff and operate the facility. Should we be unable to find these individuals, we may need to rely on external contractors or train additional personnel to fill the needed roles. There are a small number of individuals with experience in cell therapy and the competition for these individuals is high.

We have limited experience as a company in designing and operating a commercial cell therapy or vector manufacturing facility and may not be successful in sustaining our own manufacturing capability. We may establish additional manufacturing sites as we expand our commercial footprint to multiple geographies, which may lead to regulatory delays or prove costly. Our manufacturing operations could be affected by cost overruns, unexpected delays, equipment failures, labor shortages, natural disasters, power failures and numerous other factors, or we may not be successful in establishing sufficient capacity to produce our product candidates in sufficient quantities to meet the requirements for the potential launch or to meet potential future demand, all of which could prevent us from realizing the intended benefits of our manufacturing strategy and have a material adverse effect on our business.

We may not be successful in achieving cost of goods at commercial scale that provide for an attractive margin.

We believe that our current, enclosed manufacturing processes are fit for commercial scale and we anticipate they will enable commercial supply at an economical cost. However, our manufacturing processes are not yet fully optimized, and we may underestimate the cost and time required to manufacture consistently at commercial scale. Further, we may overestimate cost reductions from economies of scale that can be realized with our manufacturing processes. Accordingly, we have initiated an overall manufacturing life cycle plan to facilitate additional manufacturing cost reductions and gross margin improvements. However, despite these efforts, we may ultimately be unable to manage the cost of goods for our product candidates to levels that will allow for a margin in line with our expectations and return on investment if and when those product candidates are commercialized. Further, as we scale up our commercial production, we expect our margin will be lower as we will not initially be utilizing our full manufacturing capacity, which may cause our cost of goods to be higher until we reach economies of scale.

Our products and product candidates are biologics and the manufacture of such biologics is complex and we may encounter difficulties in production, particularly with respect to process development or scaling-out of our manufacturing capabilities. If we encounter such difficulties, our ability to provide supply of our product candidates for clinical trials or our products for patients could be delayed or stopped.

We have developed a process for manufacturing programmed T cells in a fully enclosed system designed to minimize the risk of contamination, and we have improved the viral transduction process to help eliminate processing inconsistencies. We believe that our current processes are suitable for commercialization. While we have established a process which, to date, has proven scalable for commercial production, each manufacturing process must be validated through the performance of process validation runs to guarantee that the facility, personnel, equipment, and process work as designed.

We, like other manufacturers of biologic products, may encounter difficulties in production, particularly in scaling up or out, validating the production process, and assuring high reliability of the manufacturing process. These problems include delays or break-downs in logistics and shipping, difficulties with production costs and yields, quality control, and product testing, operator error, lack of availability of qualified personnel, as well as failure to comply with strictly enforced federal, state and foreign regulations, which are updated regularly.

Furthermore, if microbial, viral or other contaminants are discovered in our supply of products or product candidates, or in the manufacturing facilities, such manufacturing facilities may need to be closed for an extended period of time to investigate and remedy the contamination. We cannot assure you that any of these or other issues relating to the manufacture of our products or product candidates will not occur in the future. Any delay or interruption in the supply of clinical trial supplies could delay the completion of clinical trials, increase the costs associated with maintaining clinical trial programs and, depending upon the period of delay, require us to begin new clinical trials at additional expense or terminate clinical trials completely.

Table of contents

The manufacture and delivery of programmed T cell therapies to patients involves complex, integrated processes, including harvesting T cells from patients, programming the T cells ex vivo, multiplying the T cells to obtain the desired dose, and ultimately infusing the T cells back into a patient’s body. As a result of the complexities, the cost to manufacture biologics in general, and our programmed T cell products and product candidates in particular, is higher than traditional small molecule chemical compounds, and the manufacturing process is less reliable and is more difficult and costly to reproduce. In addition, our manufacturing process will be susceptible to product loss or failure due to logistical issues associated with the collection of white blood cells from the patient, shipping such patient material to the manufacturing site, storing and processing such patient material, shipping the patient material with the programmed T cells back to the patient, and infusing the patient with the final product. Other manufacturing issues include the differences in patient starting materials, inconsistency in cell growth, variability in product characteristics, interruptions in the manufacturing process, equipment or reagent failure, improper installation or operation of equipment, and vendor or operator error. Any product that is out of specification, even if supplied to a treatment center for administration to a patient, must be provided free of charge. Even minor deviations from normal manufacturing processes could result in reduced production yields, product defects, and other supply disruptions. For example, in the FELIX clinical trial of obe-cel as published in the New England Journal of Medicine in December 2024, 7 patients out of the 153 patients enrolled on to the clinical trial did not receive an infusion of obe-cel due to manufacturing-related reasons. If we lose, destroy or otherwise impair the patient materials at any point in the supply chain, the manufacturing process for that patient will need to be restarted, if sufficient starting materials are still available; the resulting delay may adversely affect that patient’s outcome due to the risk of disease progression.

In addition, because our products and product candidates are manufactured for each particular patient, we will be required to maintain a chain of identity with respect to materials as they move from the patient to the manufacturing facility, through the manufacturing process, and back to the patient. Maintaining such a chain of identity is difficult and complex, and failure to do so could result in adverse patient outcomes, loss of product, or regulatory action including withdrawal of our products from the market. Further, as product candidates are developed through preclinical to late-stage clinical trials towards approval and commercialization, changes may be considered in an effort to optimize processes or clinical approach. Any changes to a process or clinical approach must serve the needs of the patient and delivery must be economically viable. Such changes carry the risk that they will not achieve these intended objectives, and any of these changes could cause our product candidates to perform differently and affect the results of planned clinical trials or other future clinical trials.

Our manufacturing facilities also require commissioning and validation activities to demonstrate that they operate as designed, and are subject to government inspections by the FDA, the MHRA, the competent authorities of EU Member States and other comparable regulatory authorities. If we are unable to reliably produce products to specifications acceptable to the regulatory authorities, we may not obtain or maintain the approvals we need to manufacture our products. Further, our facilities may fail to pass government inspections prior to or after the commercial launch of our product candidates, which would cause significant delays and additional costs required to remediate any deficiencies identified by the regulatory authorities. Any of these challenges could delay completion of clinical trials, require bridging clinical trials or the repetition of one or more clinical trials, increase clinical trial costs, delay approval of our product candidates, impair commercialization efforts of our products, increase our cost of goods, and have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects.

Prior treatments can alter the patient's disease and negatively impact chances for achieving clinical activity with our programmed T cells.

Patients with hematological cancers receive highly toxic lympho-depleting chemotherapy as their initial treatments. These therapies can impact the viability of the T cells collected from the patient and can contribute to highly variable responses to programmed T cell therapies. Patients could also have received prior therapies that target the same target antigen on the cancer cells as our intended programmed T cell product candidate and thereby lead to a selection of cancer cells with low or no expression of the target. As a result, our programmed T cell product candidates may not recognize the cancer cell and may fail to achieve clinical activity. For example, patients with autoimmune diseases receive multiple types of treatment including toxic lympho-depleting chemotherapies, which may have an impact on the viability of T cells collected from a patient and may also contribute to highly variable responses to programmed T cell therapies. If any of our product candidates do not achieve a sufficient level of clinical activity, we may discontinue the development of that product candidate, which could have an adverse effect on the value of our ADSs.

We may expend our resources to pursue a particular product candidate or indication and fail to capitalize on product candidates or indications that may be more profitable or have a greater likelihood of success.

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

Table of contents

We plan to seek, but may fail to obtain breakthrough therapy designation from the FDA and PRIME designation from the EMA, and may pursue accelerated approval for some or all of our programmed T cell product candidates, which may prolong the regulatory approval process for our product candidates.

In 2012, the FDA established a breakthrough therapy designation which is intended to expedite the development and review of product candidates that treat serious or life-threatening diseases when “preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development.” The designation of a product candidate as a breakthrough therapy provides potential benefits that include more frequent meetings with FDA to discuss the development plan for the product candidate and ensure collection of appropriate data needed to support approval; more frequent written correspondence from the FDA about such things as the design of the proposed clinical trials and use of biomarkers; guidance on an efficient drug development program, beginning as early as Phase 1; organizational commitment involving senior managers; and eligibility for rolling review and priority review. The frequency of communication from the FDA is intended to allow for questions and issues to be resolved quickly, which often leads to earlier drug approval and access by patients.

Similarly, the EMA has established the PRIME scheme to expedite the development and review of product candidates that show a potential to address to a significant extent an unmet medical need, based on early clinical data. Likewise, the MHRA has established the ILAP scheme to expedite the development and review of product candidates that show a potential to address to a significant extent an unmet medical need, based on early clinical data.

We intend to seek breakthrough therapy designation, ILAP or PRIME designation for some or all of our programmed T cell product candidates that may qualify. There is no assurance that we will obtain breakthrough therapy designation, or that we will obtain access to PRIME or ILAP for any of our product candidates.

Breakthrough therapy designation, ILAP and PRIME eligibility do not change the standards for product approval, and there is no assurance that such designation or eligibility will result in expedited review or approval. Additionally, breakthrough therapy designation and access to PRIME or ILAP can each be revoked if the criteria for eligibility cease to be met as clinical data emerges.

We may also seek accelerated approval for certain of our product candidates. Under the FDA’s fast track and accelerated approval programs, the FDA may approve a drug or biologic for a serious or life-threatening illness that provides meaningful therapeutic benefit to patients over existing treatments based upon a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit, or on a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than irreversible morbidity or mortality, that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity, or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. For drugs granted accelerated approval, post-marketing confirmatory trials have been required to describe the anticipated effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit. These confirmatory trials must be completed with due diligence.

Moreover, the FDA may withdraw approval of our indication approved under the accelerated approval pathway if, for example:

•the trial or trials required to verify the predicted clinical benefit of our product candidates fail to verify such benefit or do not demonstrate sufficient clinical benefit to justify the risks associated with the drug;

•other evidence demonstrates that our product candidates are not shown to be safe or effective under the conditions of use;

•we fail to conduct any required post-approval trial of our product candidates with due diligence; or

•we disseminate false or misleading promotional materials relating to the relevant product candidate.

Risks Related to Our Business Operations

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

Our business is subject to risks associated with conducting business outside of the United States, as our company is based in the U.K. and conducts operations internationally. 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:

•economic weakness, including inflation, or political instability in particular non-U.S. economies and markets;

•differing and changing regulatory requirements for product approvals;

•differing jurisdictions could present different issues for securing, maintaining or obtaining freedom to operate in such jurisdictions;

•potentially reduced protection for intellectual property rights;

•difficulties in compliance with different, complex and changing laws, regulations and court systems of multiple jurisdictions and compliance with a wide variety of foreign laws, treaties and regulations;

•changes in U.S. and non-U.S. regulations and customs, tariffs and trade barriers;

Table of contents

•changes in non-U.S. currency exchange rates of the pound sterling, U.S. dollar, euro and currency controls;

•changes in a specific country’s or region’s political or economic environment, including the implications of the U.K.’s withdrawal from the EU;

•trade protection measures, import or export licensing requirements or other restrictive actions by governments;

•differing reimbursement regimes and price controls in certain non-U.S. markets;

•negative consequences from changes in tax laws;

•compliance with tax, employment, immigration and labor laws for employees living or traveling abroad, including, for example, the variable tax treatment in different jurisdictions of options granted under our share option schemes or equity incentive plans;

•workforce uncertainty in countries where labor unrest is more common than in the United States;

•litigation or administrative actions resulting from claims against us by current or former employees or consultants individually or as part of class actions, including claims of wrongful terminations, discrimination, misclassification or other violations of labor law or other alleged conduct;

•difficulties associated with staffing and managing international operations, including differing labor relations;

•production shortages resulting from any events affecting raw material supply or manufacturing capabilities abroad; and

•business interruptions resulting from geopolitical actions, including war and terrorism, natural disasters, including earthquakes, typhoons, floods and fires, or health epidemics, such as the coronavirus pandemic.

For example, the U.S. government has threatened to impose new and increased tariffs on imported products from various foreign countries. As we produce our clinical and commercial supply of drug in the United Kingdom, the import of clinical and commercial supply of our products into the United States could be impacted to the extent any such tariffs are imposed and applicable to pharmaceutical products. The impact of such tariffs would be subject to a number of factors, including the effective date and duration of such tariffs, changes in the amount, scope and nature of the tariffs in the future, any retaliatory responses to such actions that the target countries may take and any mitigating actions that may become available. Tariffs on our products would increase our cost of importing clinical and commercial product into the United States, which would increase the cost of revenue from sale of therapies and reduce our margins on the sale of our products.

Exchange rate fluctuations may materially affect our results of operations and financial condition.

Our functional currency and that of our subsidiaries is the pound sterling, the U.S. dollar, the euro and Swiss franc and our reporting currency is the U.S. dollar. Given that our functional currency and that of our subsidiaries differ from our reporting currency, fluctuations in currency exchange rates between the U.S. dollar and the functional currencies of our subsidiaries could materially and adversely affect our business. There may be instances in which costs and revenue will not be matched with respect to currency denomination. Currently, we do not have any exchange rate hedging arrangements in place.

Additionally, although we are based in the U.K., we source research and development, manufacturing, consulting and other services from the United States and other countries. Further, potential future revenue may be derived from the United States, countries within the euro zone, and various other countries around the world. As a result, our business and the price of our ADSs may be affected by fluctuations in foreign exchange rates not only between the pound sterling and the U.S. dollar, but also the euro, Swiss franc, and other currencies, which may have a significant impact on our results of operations and cash flows from period to period. As a result, to the extent we continue our expansion on a global basis, we expect that increasing portions of our revenue, cost of revenue, assets and liabilities will be subject to fluctuations in currency valuations. We may experience economic loss and a negative impact on earnings or net assets solely as a result of currency exchange rate fluctuations.

We expect to continue to expand our development, commercial and regulatory capabilities and have recently developed sales, marketing and distribution capabilities, and as a result, we may encounter difficulties in managing our growth, which could disrupt our operations.

As of December 31, 2025, we had 754 employees, 752 of whom are full-time. We expect to experience significant growth in the number of our employees and the scope of our operations, particularly as our development and commercialization plans and strategies develop, and as we further develop as a public company, we may need additional managerial, operational, financial and other personnel, including personnel to support our product development and commercialization efforts. Future growth will impose significant added responsibilities on members of management, including:

•identifying, recruiting, integrating, maintaining and motivating additional employees;

•managing our internal development efforts effectively, including the clinical, FDA and EMA review processes for our product candidates; and

•improving our operational, financial and management controls, reporting systems and procedures.

Table of contents

There are a small number of individuals with experience in cell therapy and the competition for these individuals is high. Our future financial performance and our ability to commercialize our product candidates will depend, in part, on our ability to effectively manage any future growth, and our management may also have to divert a disproportionate amount of its attention away from day-to-day activities in order to devote a substantial amount of time to managing these growth activities.

If we are not able to effectively manage the size of our organization, we may not be able to successfully implement the tasks necessary to further develop and commercialize our product candidates and, accordingly, may not achieve our research, development and commercialization goals.

In addition to expanding our organization, we are building out our development and manufacturing capabilities, which requires significant capital expenditures. If these capital expenditures are higher than expected, it may adversely affect our financial condition and capital resources. In addition, if the availability of manufacturing capacity is delayed, it may limit our ability to rapidly expand the size of our organization in order to meet our corporate goals.

Our future success depends on our ability to retain key members of senior management and to attract, retain and motivate qualified personnel.

Our ability to compete in the highly competitive biopharmaceutical industry depends upon our ability to attract and retain highly qualified management, research and development, clinical, financial and business development personnel. We are highly dependent on our management, scientific and medical personnel. Each member of our senior management may terminate their employment with us at any time. We do not maintain “key person” insurance for any of our employees.

Recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and clinical personnel and, if we progress the development of any of our product candidates, commercialization, manufacturing and sales and marketing personnel, will be critical to our success. The loss of the services of members of our senior management or other key employees could impede the achievement of our research, development and commercialization objectives and seriously harm our ability to successfully implement our business strategy. Furthermore, replacing members of our senior management and key employees may be difficult and may take an extended period of time because of the limited number of individuals in our industry with the breadth of skills and experience required to successfully develop, gain regulatory approval of and commercialize our product candidates. Our success also depends on our ability to continue to attract, retain and motivate highly skilled junior, mid-level and senior managers, as well as junior, mid-level and senior scientific and medical personnel. Competition to hire from this limited candidate pool is intense, and we may be unable to hire, train, retain or motivate these key personnel on acceptable terms given the competition among numerous pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies for similar personnel.

We also experience competition for the hiring of scientific and clinical personnel from universities and research institutions. In addition, we rely on consultants and advisors, including scientific and clinical advisors, to assist us in formulating our research and development and commercialization strategy. Our consultants and advisors may have commitments under consulting or advisory contracts with other entities that may limit their availability to us. If we are unable to continue to attract and retain high-quality personnel, our ability to pursue our growth strategy will be limited.

If we engage in future acquisitions or strategic collaborations, this may increase our capital requirements, dilute our shareholders, cause us to incur debt or assume contingent liabilities and subject us to other risks.

From time to time, we may also evaluate various acquisitions and strategic collaborations, including collaborating with respect to our product candidates, or licensing or acquiring complementary products, intellectual property rights, technologies or businesses, as we may deem appropriate to carry out our business plan. Any potential acquisition or strategic collaboration, such as the Blackstone Collaboration Agreement and the BioNTech License Agreement, may entail numerous risks, including:

•increased operating expenses and cash requirements;

•the assumption of additional indebtedness or contingent liabilities;

•negative covenants that may affect our ability to develop and commercialize our product candidates;

•assimilation of operations, intellectual property and products of an acquired company, including difficulties associated with integrating new personnel;

•the diversion of our management’s attention from our existing programs and initiatives in pursuing such a strategic partnership, merger or acquisition;

•retention of key employees, the loss of key personnel and uncertainties in our ability to maintain key business relationships;

•risks and uncertainties associated with the other party to such a transaction, including the prospects of that party and their existing products or product candidates and regulatory approvals; and

•our inability to generate revenue from acquired technology sufficient to meet our objectives in undertaking the acquisition or even to offset the associated acquisition and maintenance costs.

Table of contents

Additionally, if we undertake acquisitions, we may issue dilutive securities, assume or incur debt obligations, incur large one-time expenses and acquire intangible assets that could result in significant future amortization expenses. Moreover, we may not be able to locate suitable acquisition opportunities and this inability could impair our ability to grow or obtain access to technology or products that may be important to the development of our business.

If our information technology systems or data, or those of third parties with whom we work, are or were compromised, we could experience adverse consequences resulting from such compromise, including but not limited to regulatory investigations or actions; litigation; fines and penalties; disruptions of our business operations; reputational harm; loss of revenue or profits; and other adverse consequences.

In the ordinary course of our business, we and the third parties with whom we work, collect, receive, store, process, generate, use, transfer, disclose, make accessible, protect, secure, dispose of, transmit, and share (collectively, “process”) personal data and other sensitive information, including proprietary and confidential business data, trade secrets, intellectual property, data we collect about trial participants in connection with clinical trials and sensitive third-party data (collectively, “sensitive data”).

Cyber-attacks, malicious internet-based activity, online and offline fraud, and other similar activities threaten the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of our sensitive data and information technology systems, and those of the third parties with whom we work. Such threats are prevalent and continue to rise, are increasingly difficult to detect, and come from a variety of sources, including traditional computer “hackers,” threat actors, “hacktivists,” organized criminal threat actors, personnel (such as through theft or misuse), sophisticated nation states, and nation-state-supported actors.

Some actors now engage and are expected to continue to engage in cyber-attacks, including without limitation nation-state actors for geopolitical reasons and in conjunction with military conflicts and defense activities. During times of war and other major conflicts, we, and the third parties with whom we work, may be vulnerable to a heightened risk of these attacks, including retaliatory cyber-attacks, that could materially disrupt our systems and operations, supply chain, and ability to produce, sell and distribute our products and services.

We and the third parties with whom we work are subject to a variety of evolving threats, including but not limited to social-engineering attacks (including through deep fakes, which may be increasingly more difficult to identify as fake, and phishing attacks), malicious code (such as viruses and worms), malware (including as a result of advanced persistent threat intrusions), denial-of-service attacks, credential stuffing attacks, credential harvesting, personnel misconduct or error, ransomware attacks, supply-chain attacks, software bugs, server malfunctions, software or hardware failures, loss of data or other information technology assets, adware, telecommunications failures, earthquakes, fires, floods, attacks enhanced or facilitated by AI, and other similar threats.

In particular, severe ransomware attacks are becoming increasingly prevalent and can lead to significant interruptions in our operations (including our clinical trial activities), ability to provide our products or services, loss of sensitive data and income, reputational harm, and diversion of funds. Extortion payments may alleviate the negative impact of a ransomware attack, but we may be unwilling or unable to make such payments due to, for example, applicable laws or regulations prohibiting such payments.

It may be difficult and/or costly to detect, investigate, mitigate, contain, and remediate a security incident. Our efforts to do so may not be successful. Actions taken by us or the third parties with whom we work to detect, investigate, mitigate, contain, and remediate a security incident could result in outages, data losses, and disruptions of our business. Threat actors may also gain access to other networks and systems after a compromise of our networks and systems. For example, threat actors may use an initial compromise of one part of our environment to gain access to other parts of our environment, or leverage a compromise of our networks or systems to gain access to the networks or systems of third parties with whom we work, such as through phishing or supply chain attacks.

Remote work has increased risks to our information technology systems and data, as more of our employees utilize network connections, computers, and devices outside our premises or network, including working at home, while in transit and in public locations. Additionally, future or past business transactions (such as acquisitions or integrations) could expose us to additional cybersecurity risks and vulnerabilities, as our systems could be negatively affected by vulnerabilities present in acquired or integrated entities’ systems and technologies. Furthermore, we may discover security issues that were not found during due diligence of such acquired or integrated entities, and it may be difficult to integrate companies into our information technology environment and security program.

Table of contents

We rely on third parties to operate critical business systems to process sensitive data in a variety of contexts, including, without limitation, cloud-based infrastructure, data center facilities, encryption and authentication technology, employee email, content delivery to customers, and other functions. We also rely on third-party research collaborators, CROs, contract manufacturers, and suppliers for many aspects of our business, including research and development in connection with our clinical trial activities. Our ability to monitor these third parties’ information security practices is limited, and these third parties may not have adequate information security measures in place. If the third parties with whom we work experience a security incident or other interruption, we could experience adverse consequences. While we may be entitled to damages if the third parties with whom we work fail to satisfy their privacy or security-related obligations to us, any award may be insufficient to cover our damages, or we may be unable to recover such award. In addition, supply-chain attacks have increased in frequency and severity, and we cannot guarantee that third parties’ infrastructure in our supply chain or that of the third parties with whom we work have not been compromised.

While we have implemented security measures designed to protect against security incidents, there can be no assurance that these measures will be effective. We take steps designed to detect, mitigate, and remediate vulnerabilities in our information systems (such as our hardware and/or software, including that of third parties with whom we work). We have not and may not in the future, however, detect and remediate all such vulnerabilities, including on a timely basis. Further, we have (and may in the future) experience delays in developing and deploying remedial measures and patches designed to address any such identified vulnerabilities. Vulnerabilities could be exploited and result in a security incident.

Certain of the previously identified or similar threats have in the past and may in the future cause a security incident or other interruption that have in the past and may in the future result in unauthorized, unlawful, or accidental acquisition, modification, destruction, loss, alteration, encryption, disclosure of, or access to our sensitive data or our information technology systems, or those of the third parties with whom we work. For example, we have been the target of unsuccessful phishing attempts in the past, and expect such attempts will continue in the future. Additionally, several of Snowflake’s customer accounts were targeted as part of Snowflake’s security incident in June 2024, and the Autolus customer account was among those targeted. While Autolus did not experience any data loss or other material impact as a result of Snowflake incident, a security incident or other interruption could disrupt our ability (and that of third parties with whom we work) to provide our products and services.

We may expend significant resources or modify our business activities (including our clinical trial activities) to try to protect against security incidents. Additionally, certain data privacy and security obligations require us to implement and maintain specific security measures or industry-standard or reasonable security measures to protect our information technology systems and sensitive data. Applicable data privacy and security obligations may require us to notify relevant stakeholders, including affected individuals, customers, regulators, and investors, of security incidents or to take other actions, such as providing credit monitoring and identify theft protection services. Such disclosures and related actions can be costly, and the disclosure or the failure to comply with such applicable requirements could lead to adverse consequences.

If we (or a third party with whom we work) experience a security incident or are perceived to have experienced a security incident, we may experience adverse consequences, such as government enforcement actions (for example, investigations, fines, penalties, audits, and inspections); additional reporting requirements and/or oversight; restrictions on processing sensitive data (including personal data); litigation (including class claims); indemnification obligations; negative publicity; reputational harm; monetary fund diversions; diversion of management attention; interruptions in our operations (including in connection with our clinical trial activities); financial loss; and other similar harms. Security incidents and attendant consequences may prevent or cause customers to stop using our products and services, deter new customers from using our products and services, and negatively impact our ability to grow and operate our business.

Our contracts may not contain limitations of liability, and even where they do, there can be no assurance that limitations of liability in our contracts are sufficient to protect us from liabilities, damages, or claims related to our data privacy and security obligations. We maintain cybersecurity insurance coverage for claims related to cyber crime (up to £250,000 per occurrence) and other cybersecurity incidents (up to £10,000,000 per occurrence). However, we cannot be sure that our insurance coverage will be adequate or sufficient to protect us from or to mitigate liabilities arising out of our privacy and security practices, that such coverage will continue to be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all, or that such coverage will pay future claims.

In addition to experiencing a security incident, third parties may gather, collect, or infer sensitive data about us from public sources, data brokers, or other means that reveals competitively sensitive details about our organization and could be used to undermine our competitive advantage or market position. Additionally, sensitive data of ours could be leaked, disclosed, or revealed as a result of or in connection with our employees’, personnel’s, or vendors’ use of generative AI technologies.

Table of contents

We and the third parties with whom we work are subject to stringent and evolving U.S. and foreign laws, regulations and rules, contractual obligations, industry standards, policies and other obligations related to data privacy and security. Our (or the third parties with whom we work) actual or perceived failure to comply with such obligations could lead to regulatory investigations or actions; litigation (including class claims) and mass arbitration demands; fines and penalties; disruptions of our business operations; reputational harm; loss of revenue or profits; and other adverse business consequences.

In the ordinary course of business, we process sensitive data. Our data processing activities subject us to numerous data privacy and security obligations, such as various laws, regulations, guidance, industry standards, external and internal privacy and security policies, contractual requirements, and other obligations relating to data privacy and security.

Outside of the U.S., an increasing number of laws, regulations, and industry standards govern data privacy and security. For example, the EU GDPR and the U.K. GDPR (collectively, “GDPR”) impose strict requirements for processing personal data. Under the GDPR, , companies may face temporary or definitive bans on data processing and other corrective actions; fines of up to 20 million Euros under the EU GDPR, 17.5 million pounds sterling under the U.K. GDPR or, in each case, 4% of annual global revenue, whichever is greater; or private litigation related to processing of personal data brought by classes of data subjects or consumer protection organizations authorized at law to represent their interests. As another example, the Swiss Federal Act on Data Protection, or the FADP, also applies to the collection and processing of personal data, including health-related information, by companies located in Switzerland, or in certain circumstances, by companies located outside of Switzerland.

In addition, the processing of “special category personal data”, such as health information, may also impose heightened compliance burdens under the EU GDPR and the U.K. GDPR and is a topic of active interest among relevant regulators.

The EU GDPR provides that European Economic Area (“EEA”) Member States may make their own further laws and regulations to introduce specific requirements related to the processing of “special categories of personal data”, including personal data related to health.

This fact may lead to greater divergence on the law that applies to the processing of such data types across the EEA and/or U.K., compliance with which, as and where applicable, may increase our costs and could increase our overall compliance risk. Such country-specific regulations could also limit our ability to collect, use and share data in the context of our EEA and/or U.K. operations, and/or could cause our compliance costs to increase, ultimately having an adverse impact on our business, and harming our business and financial condition.

In the ordinary course of business, we transfer personal data from Europe and other jurisdictions to the United States or other countries. Europe and other jurisdictions have enacted laws requiring data to be localized or limiting the transfer of personal data to other countries. In particular, the EEA, the U.K., and Switzerland have significantly restricted the transfer of personal data to the United States and other countries whose privacy laws it believes are inadequate. Other jurisdictions may adopt or have already adopted similarly stringent data localization and cross-border data transfer laws. Although there are currently various mechanisms that may be used to transfer personal data from the EEA, the U.K., and Switzerland to the United States in compliance with law, such as the EEA standard contractual clauses, the U.K.’s International Data Transfer Agreement/Addendum, the Swiss-U.S. Data Privacy Framework, and the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework and the U.K. Extension thereto (which allows for transfers to relevant U.S.-based organizations who self-certify compliance and participate in the Framework), these mechanisms are subject to legal challenges, and there is no assurance that we can satisfy or rely on these measures to lawfully transfer personal data to the United States. If there is no lawful manner for us to transfer personal data from the EEA, the U.K., Switzerland, or other jurisdictions to the United States, or if the requirements for a legally-compliant transfer are too onerous, we could face significant adverse consequences, including the interruption or degradation of our operations, the need to relocate part of or all of our business or data processing activities to other jurisdictions at significant expense, increased exposure to regulatory actions, substantial fines and penalties, the inability to transfer data and work with partners, vendors and other third parties, and injunctions against our processing or transferring of personal data necessary to operate our business. Additionally, companies that transfer personal data out of the EEA and U.K. to other jurisdictions, particularly to the United States, are subject to increased scrutiny from regulators, individual litigants, and activist groups. Some European regulators have ordered certain companies to suspend or permanently cease certain transfers out of Europe for allegedly violating the EU GDPR’s cross-border data transfer limitations. Additionally, the U.S. Department of Justice issued a rule entitled the Preventing Access to U.S. Sensitive Personal Data and Government-Related Data by Countries of Concern or Covered Persons, which places additional restriction on certain data transactions involving countries of concern (e.g., China, Russia, Iran) and covered persons that may impact certain business activities such as vendor engagements, sale or sharing of data, employment of certain individuals, and investor agreements. Violations of the rule could lead to significant civil and criminal fines and penalties. The rule applies regardless of whether data is anonymized, key-coded, pseudonymized, de-identified or encrypted, which presents particular challenges for companies like ours and may impact our ability to transfer data in connection with certain transactions or agreements.

Table of contents

In the United States, federal, state and local governments have enacted numerous data privacy and security laws, including data breach notification laws, personal data privacy laws, consumer protection laws (e.g., Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act), and other similar laws (e.g., wiretapping laws). For example, HIPAA, as amended by HITECH, imposes specific requirements relating to the privacy, security and transmission of protected health information. Numerous U.S. states have enacted comprehensive privacy laws that impose certain obligations on covered businesses, including providing specific disclosures in privacy notices and affording residents with certain rights concerning their personal data. As applicable, such rights may include the right to access, correct, or delete certain personal data, and to opt-out of certain data processing activities, such as targeted advertising, profiling, and automated decision-making. The exercise of these rights may impact our business and ability to provide our products and services. Certain states also impose stricter requirements for processing certain personal data, including sensitive data, such as conducting data privacy impact assessments. These state laws allow for statutory fines for noncompliance. For example, the CCPA applies to personal data of consumers, business representatives, and employees who are California residents, and requires businesses to provide specific disclosures in privacy notices and honor requests of such individuals to exercise certain privacy rights. The CCPA provides for fines and allows private litigants affected by certain data breaches to recover significant statutory damages.

Although the CCPA and other comprehensive U.S. state privacy laws exempt some data processed in the context of clinical trials, these developments may further complicate compliance efforts and increases compliance costs and potential liability for us and the third parties with whom we work. Similar laws are being considered in several other states, as well as at the federal and local levels, and we expect more states to pass similar laws in the future.

In addition to data privacy and security laws, we are contractually subject to industry standards adopted by industry groups and we are, and may become in the future, subject to such obligations. We are also bound by contractual obligations related to data privacy and security, and our efforts to comply with such obligations may not be successful.

We publish privacy policies, marketing materials, whitepapers, and other statements concerning data privacy and security. Regulators in the United States are increasingly scrutinizing these statements, and if these policies, materials or statements are found to be deficient, lacking in transparency, deceptive, unfair, misleading, or misrepresentative of our practices, we may be subject to investigation, enforcement actions by regulators, or other adverse consequences.

Obligations related to data privacy and security (and consumers' data privacy expectations) are quickly changing, becoming increasingly stringent, and creating uncertainty. Additionally, these obligations may be subject to differing applications and interpretations, which may be inconsistent or conflict among jurisdictions. Preparing for and complying with these obligations requires us to devote significant resources, which may necessitate changes to our services, information technologies, systems, and practices and to those of any third parties that process sensitive data on our behalf.

We may at times fail (or be perceived to have failed) in our efforts to comply with our data privacy and security obligations. Moreover, despite our efforts, our personnel or third parties with whom we work may fail to comply with such obligations, which could negatively impact our business operations. If we or the third parties with whom we work fail, or are perceived to have failed, to address or comply with applicable data privacy and security obligations, we could face significant consequences, including but not limited to: government enforcement actions (e.g., investigations, fines, penalties, audits, inspections, and similar); litigation (including class-action claims) and mass arbitration demands; additional reporting requirements and/or oversight; bans on processing personal data; orders to destroy or not use personal data; and imprisonment of company officials. In particular, plaintiffs have become increasingly more active in bringing privacy-related claims against companies, including class claims and mass arbitration demands. Some of these claims allow for the recovery of statutory damages on a per violation basis, and, if viable, carry the potential for monumental statutory damages, depending on the volume of data and the number of violations.

Our employees and personnel use generative AI technologies and/or automated decision-making technologies to perform their work, and the disclosure and use of personal data in AI technologies is subject to various privacy laws and other privacy obligations. Governments have passed and are likely to pass additional laws and regulations regulating AI or automated decision-making technologies. Our use of this technology could result in additional compliance costs, regulatory investigations and actions, and lawsuits. If we are unable to use AI, it could make our business less efficient and result in competitive disadvantages.

Any of these events could have a material adverse effect on our reputation, business, or financial condition, including but not limited to: loss of customers; interruptions or stoppages in our business operations (including, as relevant, our clinical trials); inability to process personal data or to operate in certain jurisdictions; limited ability to develop or commercialize our products; expenditure of time and resources to defend any claim or inquiry; adverse publicity; or substantial changes to our business model or operations.

Table of contents

Business disruptions, including those caused by the ongoing geopolitical conflicts, could seriously harm our future revenue and financial condition and increase our costs and expenses.

Our operations, and those of our vendors and suppliers, could be subject to earthquakes, power shortages, telecommunications failures, water shortages, floods, hurricanes, typhoons, fires, extreme weather conditions, medical epidemics and other natural or man-made disasters, geopolitical conflict or business interruptions, for which we are predominantly self-insured. The occurrence of any of these business disruptions could seriously harm our operations and financial condition and increase our costs and expenses. We currently rely on third-party suppliers to produce and process our product candidates on a patient-by-patient basis. Our ability to obtain clinical supplies of our product candidates could be disrupted if the operations of these suppliers are affected by a man-made or natural disaster or other business interruption.

The global economy has experienced volatility and disruptions from the impacts of the international conflicts, terrorism and other geopolitical events, including the ongoing war in Ukraine and the current conflicts in the Middle East. Although the length and impact of the ongoing military conflict is highly unpredictable, the war in Ukraine has led to market disruptions, including significant volatility in commodity prices, credit and capital markets, as well as supply chain interruptions, which contributed to record inflation globally. In addition, global markets may experience additional disruptions as a result of political instability and tensions in the Middle East. Although, to date, our business has not been materially impacted by the events described above, it is impossible to predict the extent to which our operations will be impacted in the short and long term, or the ways in which such matters may impact our business. The extent and duration of the conflicts in Ukraine, and the Middle East, geopolitical tensions, record inflation and resulting market disruptions are impossible to predict but could be substantial. Any such disruptions may also magnify the impact of other risks we face.

Risks Related to Our Dependence on Third Parties

We are dependent on intellectual property obtained or licensed from third parties, and if we were to fail to comply with our obligations under our existing and any future intellectual property licenses with third parties, we could lose intellectual property rights that are important to our business and we may not be able to continue developing or commercializing our product candidates, if approved.

We are party to an exclusive intellectual property license agreement with UCLB (the “UCLB Agreement”), the technology-transfer company of UCL, which is important to our business and under which we have acquired or licensed patent rights related to 17 patent families and other intellectual property related to our business. We expect to enter into additional license agreements in the future. The UCLB Agreement imposes, and we expect that future license agreements will impose, various due diligence, milestone payment, royalty, insurance and other obligations on us. Any uncured, material breach under the UCLB Agreement could result in our loss of rights to practice the patent rights (including those that have been assigned to us from UCLB) and other intellectual property licensed to us, and could compromise our development and commercialization efforts for our products and product candidates.

Licensing of intellectual property is of critical importance to our business and involves complex legal, business and scientific issues. For example, under the UCLB Agreement, our exclusive rights under certain of the patents is subject to specified exclusions. Our right to enforce any patents that may issue from such patent rights similarly excludes enforcing them in such excluded fields, and obligates us to coordinate our enforcement efforts with a third-party licensee, if any, with rights in that excluded field. If a third party-licensee has the right to enforce those patents in their field, it could put a patent that may issue from this family at risk of being invalidated or construed narrowly, in which case we would no longer have the benefit of the patents for our own exclusivity.

Disputes may arise between us and our licensors regarding intellectual property subject to a license agreement, including disputes regarding:

•the scope of rights granted under the license agreement and other interpretation-related issues;

•whether and the extent to which our technology and processes infringe on intellectual property of the licensor that is not subject to the licensing agreement;

•our obligations to third parties;

•our diligence obligations with respect to the use of the licensed technology in relation to our development and commercialization of our product candidates, and what activities satisfy those diligence obligations;

•the ownership of inventions and know-how resulting from the joint creation or use of intellectual property by our licensors and us;

•our right to transfer or assign the license; and

•the effects of termination.

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

Table of contents

We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties to conduct the preclinical and clinical trials for our product candidates, and those third parties may not perform satisfactorily, including failing to meet deadlines for the completion of such trials or failing to comply with applicable regulatory requirements.

We depend and will continue to depend upon independent investigators and collaborators, such as universities, medical institutions, and strategic partners to conduct our preclinical and clinical trials. Agreements with such third parties might terminate for a variety of reasons, including a failure to perform by the third parties. If we need to enter into alternative arrangements, our product development activities would be delayed.

Our reliance on these third parties for research and development activities will reduce our control over these activities but will not relieve us of our responsibilities. For example, we will remain responsible for ensuring that each of our clinical trials is conducted in accordance with the general investigational plan and protocols for the trial. Moreover, the FDA requires us to comply with regulatory standards, commonly referred to as GLP and GCP, for conducting, recording and reporting the results of preclinical and clinical trials to assure that data and reported results are credible and accurate and that the rights, integrity and confidentiality of trial participants are protected. Similar regulatory requirements apply outside the United States, including the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for the Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (the “ICH”).

Furthermore, these third parties may also have relationships with other entities, some of which may be our competitors. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties, meet expected deadlines or conduct our clinical trials in accordance with regulatory requirements or our stated protocols, we will not be able to obtain, or may be delayed in obtaining, marketing approvals for our product candidates and will not be able to, or may be delayed in our efforts to, successfully commercialize our product candidates.

In addition, principal investigators for our clinical trials may serve as scientific advisors or consultants to us from time to time and may receive cash or equity compensation in connection with such services. If these relationships and any related compensation result in perceived or actual conflicts of interest, or the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities concludes that the financial relationship may have affected the interpretation of the trial, the integrity of the data generated at the applicable clinical trial site may be questioned and the utility of the clinical trial itself may be jeopardized, which could result in the delay or rejection by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. Any such delay or rejection could prevent us from commercializing our clinical-stage product candidates or any future product candidates.

We are also required to register certain ongoing clinical trials and post the results of certain completed clinical trials on a government-sponsored databases, such as ClinicalTrials.gov and foreign equivalents, within specified timeframes. Failure to do so by us or third parties can result in FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authority refusal to approve applications based on the clinical data, enforcement actions, adverse publicity and civil and criminal sanctions.

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

Manufacturing our product and product candidates will require many reagents, which are substances used in our manufacturing processes to bring about chemical or biological reactions, and other specialty materials and equipment, some of which are manufactured or supplied by small companies with limited resources and experience to support commercial biologics production. We currently depend on a limited number of vendors for access to facilities and supply of certain materials and equipment used in the manufacture of our product and product candidates. For example, we currently use facilities and equipment at the Cell and Gene Therapy Catapult, as well as third party vendors, for vector and clinical cell manufacturing. In addition, we purchase equipment and reagents critical for the manufacture of our product and product candidates from Miltenyi and other suppliers on a purchase order basis. Some of our suppliers may not have the capacity to support commercial products manufactured under cGMP by biopharmaceutical firms or may otherwise be ill-equipped to support our needs.

We also do not have supply contracts with many of these suppliers, and may not be able to obtain supply contracts with them on acceptable terms or at all. Accordingly, we may not be able to obtain key materials and equipment to support clinical or commercial manufacturing.

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

Table of contents

As we continue to develop and scale our manufacturing process, we may need to obtain rights to and supplies of certain materials and equipment to be used as part of that process. We may not be able to obtain rights to such materials on commercially reasonable terms, or at all, and if we are unable to alter our process in a commercially viable manner to avoid the use of such materials or find a suitable substitute, it would have a material adverse effect on our business.

We operate a manufacturing facility to manufacture materials for AUCATZYL and our product candidates, which requires significant resources. A failure to successfully operate our manufacturing facility could lead to substantial delays and adversely affect our research and development efforts, including clinical trials, and commercial success of AUCATZYL and our product candidates, if approved. We are also obligated to share some of the capabilities of the manufacturing facility with BioNTech under the BioNTech License Agreement.

Our clinical and commercial manufacturing facility, The Nucleus, must be periodically inspected and licensed by the appropriate authorities. While we will continue to source raw materials from external CMOs, we plan to make the transition from external CMOs to our manufacturing facility and we expect our manufacturing facility to be the sole source supplier of clinical materials for our clinical trials and for commercial products, once approved. This sole source reliance increases the risk that we will not have sufficient quantities of our CAR T product candidates at an acceptable cost or quality, which could delay, prevent or impair our development or commercialization efforts, if approved.

In addition, under the terms of the BioNTech License Agreement, we granted BioNTech the option to negotiate a joint Manufacturing and Commercial Agreement pursuant to which the parties may access and leverage each other’s manufacturing and commercial capabilities, in addition to Autolus’ commercial site network and infrastructure, with respect to certain of each parties’ CAR T products, including BioNTech’s product candidate BNT211 (the “Manufacturing and Commercial Agreement”). The Manufacturing and Commercial Agreement, if entered into, would also grant BioNTech access to our commercial site network and infrastructure. If required under the Manufacturing and Commercial Agreement, we may need to subordinate production of our CAR T products in order to BioNTech’s products. Sharing The Nucleus facility with BioNTech increases the risk that we will not have sufficient quantities of our CAR T product candidates at an acceptable cost or quality, which could delay, prevent or impair our development or commercialization efforts, if approved.

In either case, if we are unable to manufacture sufficient clinical or commercial materials at our manufacturing facility, we may be forced to contract with external CMOs, which we may not be able to do on commercially reasonable terms, if at all. Even if commercially reasonable terms are available, any transition of manufacturing from our manufacturing facility to an external CMO could be time-consuming and require significant effort and expertise because there may be a limited number of qualified replacements. In some cases, the technical skills or technology required to manufacture our CAR T product candidates may be unique or proprietary and we may have difficulty transferring such skills or technology to another CMO and a feasible alternative may not exist. If we fail to manufacture at our manufacturing facility, or obtain from a CMO, a sufficient supply of clinical materials for our clinical trials, or commercial materials for our commercial product in accordance with applicable specifications on a timely basis, our research and development efforts, including clinical trials, and the commercial success of our CAR T product, and product candidates, if approved, and our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects could be materially adversely affected.

We, and the third parties on whom we rely in part for sales, marketing and distribution capabilities, may not be able to effectively market, sell and distribute AUCATZYL or our other product candidates, if approved.

We have invested, and expect to continue to invest, significant financial and management resources to develop internal our sales, distribution and marketing capabilities, particularly in anticipation of the commercial launch of AUCATZYL. With respect to jurisdictions outside the US, we will need to commit resources to buildings these capabilities prior to any confirmation that obe-cel or our other product candidates will be approved in a territory.

We utilize a hybrid model that includes in-house and contracted resources in the United States and Europe, and we have engaged third parties and may engage additional third parties to provide these services. We may enter into agreements with third parties to develop our commercial infrastructure for the sale of AUCATZYL and the commercial launch and continued sale of any product candidates that receive approval, including to potentially retain, train and deploy a direct sales force, but we have limited experience operating or managing a third-party sales force as a company. There can be no assurance that the capabilities of the third parties will be more effective than an internally developed sales organization. If third parties fail to hire, train, and retain qualified sales personnel, market our product successfully or on a cost-effective basis or otherwise terminates our relationship, our ability to generate revenue will be limited and we will need to identify and retain an alternative organization or develop our own sales and marketing capability. This could involve significant delays and costs, including the diversion of our management’s attention from other activities. We may also need to retain additional consultants or external service providers to assist us in sales, marketing and distribution functions, and may be unsuccessful in retaining such services on acceptable financial terms or at all.

Table of contents

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 our product candidates on our own include:

•the inability to recruit, train and retain adequate numbers of effective sales and marketing personnel;

•the inability of sales personnel to obtain access to physicians or educate adequate numbers of physicians on the benefits of prescribing any future product that we may develop;

•the lack of complementary treatments to be offered by sales personnel, which may put us at a competitive disadvantage relative to companies with more extensive product lines; and

•unforeseen costs and expenses associated with creating an independent sales and marketing organization.

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.

We collaborate with third parties in the research, development and commercialization of certain of our product and product candidates. If our collaborators do not perform as expected or if we are unable to maintain existing or establish additional collaborations, our ability to develop and commercialize our product candidates may be adversely affected.

We have collaboration and license agreements with, for example, BioNTech SE, Cabaletta Bio Inc., Moderna Inc., Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, and others. These agreements provide us with important funding for our programs. If our therapeutic programs and related collaborations do not result in the successful development and commercialization of products or if one of our collaborators or licensees terminates its agreement with us, we may not receive any future research funding or milestone or royalty payments associated with such collaboration or license arrangement. In addition, any termination of an agreement by the relevant collaborators could affect our ability to develop further such product candidates or adversely affect how we are perceived in scientific and financial communities. All of the risks we face relating to product development, regulatory approval and commercialization also apply to the activities of our program collaborators.

In our collaboration arrangements, we depend on the performance of our collaborators. Our licensees have the right to make decisions regarding the development and commercialization of product candidates under the collaborations without consulting us and may make decisions with which we do not agree. Our collaborators may fail to perform their obligations under the collaboration agreements or may not perform their obligations in a timely manner. If conflicts arise between our collaborators and us, the other party may act in a manner adverse to us and could limit our ability to implement our strategies. Furthermore, our collaborators may not properly obtain, maintain, enforce or defend our intellectual property or proprietary rights or may use our proprietary information in such a way as to invite litigation that could jeopardize or invalidate our proprietary information or expose us to potential litigation.

In addition, we cannot control the amount and timing of resources our collaborators may devote to our product candidates. They may separately pursue competing products, therapeutic approaches or technologies to develop treatments for the diseases targeted by us. Competing products, either developed by the collaborators or to which the collaborators have rights, may result in the withdrawal of support for our product candidates. Even if our collaborators continue their contributions to the strategic collaborations, they may nevertheless determine not to actively pursue the development or commercialization of any resulting products.

Additionally, if our collaborators pursue different clinical or regulatory strategies with their product candidates based on similar technology as used in our product candidates, adverse events with their product candidates could negatively affect our product candidates. Any of these developments could harm our product development efforts.

If our collaborators terminate or breach our agreements with them, or otherwise fail to complete their obligations in a timely manner, it may have a detrimental effect on our financial position by reducing or eliminating the potential for us to receive technology access and license fees, milestones and royalties, reimbursement of development costs, as well as possibly requiring us to devote additional efforts and incur costs associated with pursuing internal development of product candidates. Furthermore, if our collaborators do not prioritize and commit sufficient resources to our product or product candidates, we or our partners may be unable to develop or commercialize these products or product candidates, which would limit our ability to generate revenue and become profitable.

Table of contents

We do not and will not have access to all information regarding the product candidates we license to our collaborators. Consequently, our ability to inform our shareholders about the status of such product candidates, and to make informed operational and investment decisions about the product candidates to which we have retained development and commercialization rights, may be limited.

We do not and will not have access to all information regarding the product candidates being developed and potentially commercialized by BioNTech, including potentially material information about clinical trial design and execution, regulatory affairs, process development, manufacturing, marketing and other areas known by BioNTech. In addition, we have confidentiality obligations under our agreement with BioNTech. Thus, our ability to keep our shareholders informed about the status of product candidates under our collaboration will be limited by the degree to which BioNTech keeps us informed and allows us to disclose such information to the public.

We may form or seek strategic alliances or enter into additional licensing arrangements in the future, and we may not realize the benefits of such alliances or licensing arrangements.

We may form or seek strategic alliances, create joint ventures or collaborations or enter into additional licensing arrangements with third parties that we believe will complement or augment our development and commercialization efforts with respect to our product candidates and any future product candidates that we may develop. Additionally, although we intend to develop product candidates through our own internal research, we may need to obtain additional licenses from others to advance our research or allow commercialization of our product candidates and it is possible that we may be unable to obtain additional licenses at a reasonable cost or on reasonable terms, if at all. Any of these relationships 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.

We face significant competition in seeking appropriate collaborative partners. Our ability to reach a definitive agreement for a collaboration will depend, among other things, upon an assessment of the collaborator's resources and expertise, the terms and conditions of the proposed partnership and the proposed collaborator's evaluation of a number of factors. These factors may include the design or results of clinical trials, the likelihood of regulatory approval, the potential market for the subject product candidate, the costs and complexities of manufacturing and delivering such product candidate to patients, the potential of competing products, the existence of uncertainty with respect to our ownership of technology, which can exist if there is a challenge to such ownership regardless of the merits of the challenge and industry and market conditions generally. The collaborator may also consider alternative product candidates or technologies for similar indications that may be available to collaborate on and whether such a partnership could be more attractive than the one with us.

We may not be able to negotiate collaborations on a timely basis, on acceptable terms, or at all. If we are unable to do so, we may have to curtail the development of the product candidate for which we are seeking to collaborate, reduce or delay its development program or one or more of our other development programs, delay its potential commercialization or reduce the scope of any sales or marketing activities or increase our expenditures and undertake development or commercialization activities at our own expense. If we elect to increase our expenditures to fund development or commercialization activities on our own, we may need to obtain additional capital, which may not be available to us on acceptable terms or at all. If we do not have sufficient funds, we may not be able to further develop product candidates or bring them to market and generate product revenue.

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

Even if we complete the necessary preclinical studies and clinical trials, the regulatory approval process is expensive, time-consuming and uncertain and may prevent us from obtaining approvals for the commercialization of our product candidates. As a result, we cannot predict when or if, and in which territories, we will obtain marketing approval to commercialize a product candidate.

Our product candidates and the activities associated with their development and commercialization, including their design, research, testing, manufacture, safety, efficacy, quality control, recordkeeping, labeling, packaging, storage, approval, advertising, promotion, sale, distribution, import, export, and reporting of safety and other post-market information, are subject to comprehensive regulation by the FDA, the EU and other comparable regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions. Failure to obtain marketing approval for a product candidate will prevent us from commercializing the product candidate.

We have only limited experience in filing and supporting the applications necessary to gain marketing approvals and may 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 regulatory authorities for each therapeutic indication to establish the product candidate’s safety and efficacy. Securing marketing approval also requires the submission of information about the product manufacturing process to, and inspection of manufacturing facilities by, the regulatory authorities.

Table of contents

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. If any of our product candidates receives marketing approval, the accompanying label may limit its approved use, which could limit sales of the product.

The process of obtaining marketing approvals, both in the United States and abroad, is expensive and may take many years, 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. Securing marketing approval requires the submission of extensive preclinical and clinical data and supporting information to regulatory authorities for each therapeutic indication to establish the product candidate’s safety and efficacy.

Securing marketing approval also requires the submission of information about the product manufacturing process demonstrating the products quality to, and inspection of manufacturing facilities by, the regulatory authorities. The FDA, the EMA or the European Commission or other regulatory authorities may determine that our product candidates are not safe and effective, only moderately effective or have undesirable or unintended side effects, toxicities or other characteristics that preclude our obtaining marketing approval or prevent or limit commercial use.

In addition, 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. Regulatory authorities have discretion in the approval process and may refuse to accept any application or may decide that our data is insufficient for approval and require additional preclinical, clinical or other studies including further manufacturing process or quality control data. In addition, varying interpretations of the data obtained from manufacturing procedures, quality control, preclinical and clinical testing could delay, limit or prevent marketing approval of a product candidate. Any marketing approval we ultimately obtain may be limited or subject to restrictions or post-approval commitments that render the approved product not commercially viable.

If we experience delays in obtaining approval or if we 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 impaired.

In order to market and sell our products in the EU and any other jurisdictions, we must obtain separate marketing approvals and comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements. The approval procedure varies among countries and can involve additional testing. The time required to obtain approval may differ substantially from that required to obtain approval from the FDA. The regulatory approval process outside the United States generally includes all of the risks associated with obtaining approval from the FDA. In addition, in many countries outside the United States, it is required that the product be approved for reimbursement before the product can be approved for sale in that country. We may not obtain approvals from regulatory authorities outside the United States on a timely basis, if at all.

Approval by the FDA does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries or jurisdictions, and approval by one regulatory authority outside the United States does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries or jurisdictions or by the FDA. However, failure to obtain approval in one jurisdiction may impact our ability to obtain approval elsewhere. We may not be able to file for marketing approvals and may not receive necessary approvals to commercialize our products in any market.

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

Obtaining and maintaining regulatory approval of our product candidates in one jurisdiction does not guarantee that we will be able to obtain or maintain regulatory approval in any other jurisdiction, but a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one jurisdiction may have a negative effect on the regulatory approval process in others. For example, even though the FDA, MHRA and EU Commission granted marketing approval for AUCATZYL for the treatment of r/r B-ALL, comparable regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions must also approve the manufacturing, marketing and promotion of AUCATZYL/obe-cel in those countries. Approval procedures vary among jurisdictions and can involve requirements and administrative review periods different from those in the United States, including additional manufacturing quality controls, or additional preclinical studies or clinical trials, as clinical studies conducted in one jurisdiction may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions. In many jurisdictions outside the United States, a product candidate must be approved for reimbursement before it can be approved for sale in that jurisdiction. In some cases, the price that we intend to charge for our products is also subject to approval.

Obtaining foreign regulatory approvals and compliance with foreign regulatory requirements could result in significant delays, difficulties and costs for us and could delay or prevent the introduction of our products in certain countries. If we fail to comply with the regulatory requirements in international markets and/or to receive applicable marketing approvals, our target market will be reduced and our ability to realize the full market potential of our product or product candidates will be harmed.

Table of contents

Even though we have obtained marketing approval by the FDA, MHRA and EU Commission for AUCATZYL, the terms of approvals and ongoing regulation of AUCATZYL may limit how we manufacture and market AUCATZYL and compliance with such requirements may involve substantial resources, which could materially impair our ability to generate revenue.

Even though we have been granted marketing approval by the FDA, MHRA and EU Commission for AUCATZYL, an approved product and its manufacturer and marketer are subject to ongoing review and extensive regulatory requirements for manufacturing processes, labeling, packaging, distribution, adverse event reporting, pharmacovigilance oversight, storage, advertising, promotion, sampling, and recordkeeping, including the potential requirements to implement a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy program in the United States or comparable foreign strategies, or similar schemes in other countries, or to conduct costly post-marketing studies or clinical trials and surveillance to monitor the safety or efficacy of the product. We must also comply with requirements concerning advertising and promotion for AUCATZYL/obe-cel and for any of our other product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. Promotional communications with respect to prescription drugs are subject to a variety of legal and regulatory restrictions and must be consistent with the information in the product’s approved labeling.

Thus, we will not be able to promote any products we develop for indications or uses for which they are not approved. In addition, manufacturers of approved products and those manufacturers’ facilities are required to comply with extensive regulatory requirements of the FDA, the EU and national competent authorities of EU Member States and other regulatory authorities, including ensuring that quality control and manufacturing procedures conform to cGMP and other comparable regulations and standards, which include requirements relating to quality control and quality assurance as well as the corresponding maintenance of records and documentation and reporting requirements. We or our suppliers could be subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA, the competent authorities of EU Member States, or other regulatory authorities to monitor and ensure compliance with cGMP. Failure to comply with applicable regulations could result in sanctions being imposed on us, including shutdown of the third-party vendor or invalidation of drug product lots or processes, fines, injunctions, civil penalties, delays, suspension, variation or withdrawal of approvals, license revocation, seizures or recalls of product candidates or drugs, operating restrictions and criminal prosecutions, any of which could significantly and adversely affect supplies of our products, and product candidates, if approved, and significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Accordingly, we and suppliers will continue to expend time, money and effort in all areas of regulatory compliance, including manufacturing, production, product surveillance and quality control. If we are not able to comply with post-approval regulatory requirements, we could have the marketing approvals for our products withdrawn by regulatory authorities and our ability to market any future products could be limited, which could adversely affect our ability to achieve or sustain profitability. Thus, the cost of compliance with post-approval regulations may have a negative effect on our operating results and financial condition.

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

The FDA and other federal and state agencies, including the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”), closely regulate compliance with all requirements governing prescription drug products, including requirements pertaining to marketing and promotion of products in accordance with the provisions of the approved labeling and manufacturing of products in accordance with cGMP requirements. Similar legislation or provisions may also apply in other jurisdictions. The FDA and DOJ impose stringent restrictions on manufacturers’ communications regarding off-label use and if we do not market our products for their approved indications, or if other of our marketing claims are deemed false or misleading, we may be subject to enforcement action. Physicians, on the other hand, may prescribe products for off-label uses. The FDA and other regulatory authorities do not regulate a physician’s choice of drug treatment made in the physician’s independent medical judgment. However, companies may only share truthful and not misleading information that is otherwise consistent with a product’s FDA approved labeling.

Violations of such requirements may lead to investigations alleging violations of the FDCA and other statutes, including the U.S. federal False Claims Act and other federal and state healthcare fraud and abuse laws as well as state consumer protection laws. Similar legislation or provisions may also apply in other jurisdictions. In the EU, the advertising and promotion of medicinal products are subject to both EU and EU Member States’ laws governing promotion of medicinal products, interactions with physicians and other healthcare professionals, misleading and comparative advertising and unfair commercial practices. General requirements for advertising and promotion of medicinal products, such as direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription medicinal products are established in EU law. However, the details are governed by regulations in individual EU Member States and can differ from one country to another. For example, applicable laws require that promotional materials and advertising in relation to medicinal products comply with the product’s Summary of Product Characteristics, or SmPC, which may require approval by the competent national authorities in connection with an MA. The SmPC is the document that provides information to physicians concerning the safe and effective use of the product. Promotional activity that does not comply with the SmPC is considered off-label and is prohibited in the EU.

Table of contents

Our failure to comply with all regulatory requirements, and later discovery of previously unknown adverse events or other problems with our products, manufacturers or manufacturing processes, may yield various results, including:

•litigation involving patients taking our products;

•restrictions on such products, manufacturers or manufacturing processes;

•restrictions on the labeling or marketing of a product;

•restrictions on product distribution or use;

•requirements to conduct post-marketing studies or clinical trials;

•warning or untitled letters;

•withdrawal of the products from the market;

•refusal to approve pending applications or supplements to approved applications that we submit;

•recall of products;

•fines, restitution or disgorgement of profits or revenues;

•suspension, variation or withdrawal of marketing approvals;

•suspension of any ongoing clinical trials;

•damage to relationships with any potential collaborators;

•unfavorable press coverage and damage to our reputation;

•refusal to permit the import or export of our products;

•product seizure; or

•injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties.

Non-compliance by us or any future collaborator with regulatory requirements regarding safety monitoring or pharmacovigilance, and with requirements related to the development of products for the pediatric population, can also result in significant financial penalties and reputational damage. Similarly, failure to comply with regulatory requirements regarding the protection of personal data can also lead to significant penalties and sanctions.

Failure to comply with EU and EU Member State laws that apply to the conduct of clinical trials, manufacturing approval, marketing authorization of medicinal products and marketing of such products, both before and after grant of the marketing authorization, or with other applicable regulatory requirements may result in administrative, civil or criminal penalties. These penalties could include delays or refusal to authorize the conduct of clinical trials, or to grant marketing authorization, product withdrawals and recalls, product seizures, suspension, withdrawal 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.

Non-compliance with EU requirements regarding safety monitoring or pharmacovigilance, and with requirements related to the development of products for the pediatric population, also can result in significant financial penalties. Similarly, failure to comply with the EU’s requirements regarding the protection of personal data can also lead to significant penalties and sanctions.

If any of these events occurs, our ability to sell such product may be impaired, and we may incur substantial additional expense to comply with regulatory requirements, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Changes in funding for the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, the SEC, and other government agencies could hinder their ability to hire and retain key leadership and other personnel, prevent new products and services from being developed or commercialized in a timely manner, or otherwise prevent those agencies or authorities from performing normal functions on which the operation of our business may rely, which could negatively impact our business.

The ability of the FDA to review and approve new products can be affected by a variety of factors, including government budget and funding levels, ability to hire and retain key personnel and accept payment of user fees, and statutory, regulatory, and policy changes. Average review times at the agency have fluctuated in recent years as a result. In addition, government funding of the FDA and other government agencies on which our operations may rely are subject to the political process, which is inherently fluid and unpredictable.

Disruptions at the FDA and other agencies may also slow the time necessary for new drugs to be reviewed and/or approved by necessary government agencies, which would adversely affect our business. For example, over the last several years, the U.S. government has shut down several times and certain regulatory authorities, such as the FDA and the SEC, have had to furlough critical government employees and stop critical activities. If a prolonged government shutdown occurs, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Table of contents

Further, future government shutdowns could impact our ability to access the public markets and obtain necessary capital in order to properly capitalize and continue our operations due to insufficient funding of the SEC and other government agencies or due to a government shutdown that affects the SEC. Similar considerations are applicable in relation to foreign regulatory authorities.

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

We are exposed to the risk of employee fraud or other misconduct or failure to comply with applicable regulatory requirements. Misconduct by employees and independent contractors, such as principal investigators, consultants, commercial partners, and vendors, could include failures to comply with regulations of the FDA, the EU, EU Member States and other comparable regulatory authorities, to provide accurate information to such regulators, to comply with manufacturing standards we have established, to comply with healthcare fraud and abuse laws, to report financial information or data accurately or to disclose unauthorized activities to us. In particular, sales, marketing and other 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 business activities, including, but not limited to, research, manufacturing, distribution, pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, sales commission, customer incentive programs and other business arrangements.

Employee and independent contractor misconduct could also involve the improper use of individually identifiable information, including, without limitation, information obtained in the course of clinical trials, which could result in regulatory sanctions and serious harm to our reputation. In addition, federal procurement laws impose substantial penalties for misconduct in connection with government contracts and require certain contractors to maintain a code of business ethics and conduct.

It is not always possible to identify and deter employee and independent contractor misconduct, and any precautions we take to detect and prevent improper activities 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 be in compliance with such laws. If any such actions are instituted against us, those actions could have a significant impact on our business, including the imposition of civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, monetary fines, disgorgement of profits, possible exclusion from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other federal healthcare programs, National Health Service in the U.K., or other government supported healthcare in other jurisdictions, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, additional reporting or oversight obligations if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or other agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with the law and curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate.

Our business operations and current and future relationships with healthcare professionals, principal investigators, consultants, customers and third-party payors in the United States and elsewhere may be subject, directly or indirectly, to applicable anti-kickback, fraud and abuse, false claims, physician payment transparency, health information privacy and security and other healthcare laws and regulations, which could expose us to substantial penalties.

Healthcare providers, physicians and third-party payors in the United States and elsewhere will play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of any products or product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. Our current and future arrangements with healthcare professionals, principal investigators, consultants, customers and third-party payors may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws, including, without limitation, the U.S. federal Anti-Kickback Statute and the U.S. federal False Claims Act, that may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we sell, market and distribute any products or product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval, and foreign equivalents. In addition, we will be subject to physician payment transparency laws and patient privacy and security regulation by the U.S. federal government and by the states and foreign jurisdictions in which we conduct our business.

Table of contents

The applicable federal, state and foreign healthcare laws that may affect our ability to operate include the following:

•the U.S. federal Anti-Kickback Statute, which prohibits, among other things, persons or entities from knowingly and willfully soliciting, offering, receiving or providing remuneration, directly or indirectly, in cash or in kind, to induce or reward, or in return for, either the referral of an individual for, or the purchase, lease, order or recommendation of, any good, facility, item or service, for which payment may be made, in whole or in part, under federal and state healthcare programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. The term “remuneration” has been broadly interpreted to include anything of value. This statute has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between pharmaceutical manufacturers on the one hand and prescribers, purchasers and formulary managers on the other hand. Although there are a number of statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting certain common activities from prosecution or other regulatory sanctions, the exceptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly, and practices that involve remuneration that are alleged to be intended to induce prescribing, purchases or recommendations may be subject to scrutiny if they do not qualify for an exception or safe harbor. Failure to meet all of the requirements of a particular applicable statutory exception or regulatory safe harbor does not make the conduct per se illegal under the U.S. federal Anti-Kickback Statute. Instead, the legality of the arrangement will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis based on a cumulative review of all its facts and circumstances. Several courts have interpreted the statute’s intent requirement to mean that if any one purpose of an arrangement involving remuneration is to induce referrals of federal healthcare covered business, the U.S. federal Anti-Kickback Statute has been violated;

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

•HIPAA, which created new federal criminal statutes that prohibit knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program or obtain, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations or promises, any of the money or property owned by, or under the custody or control of, any healthcare benefit program, regardless of whether the payor is public or private, knowingly and willfully embezzling or stealing from a healthcare benefit program, willfully obstructing a criminal investigation of a healthcare offense and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up by any trick or device a material fact or making any materially false statements in connection with the delivery of, or payment for, healthcare benefits, items or services relating to healthcare matters;

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

•the FDCA, which prohibits, among other things, the adulteration or misbranding of drugs, biologics and medical devices;

•the U.S. federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act, created under Section 6002 of Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (collectively, the “ACA”), and its implementing regulations, created annual reporting requirements for certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologicals and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (with certain exceptions), to annually report to the CMS, information related to certain payments and “transfers of value” provided to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors), certain other health care professionals (such as physicians assistants and nurse practitioners) and teaching hospitals, as well as ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members;

Table of contents

•analogous state laws and regulations and foreign laws, such as state anti-kickback and false claims laws, which may apply to sales or marketing arrangements and claims involving healthcare items or services reimbursed by non-governmental third-party payors, including private insurers; state and foreign laws that require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government or to adopt compliance programs as prescribed by state laws and regulations, or that otherwise restrict payments that may be made to healthcare providers; state and foreign laws that require drug manufacturers to report information related to payments and other transfers of value to physicians and other healthcare providers or marketing expenditures; state and local laws that require the registration of pharmaceutical sales representatives; and state and foreign laws governing the privacy and security of health information in certain circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not preempted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts; and

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

Outside the United States, interactions between pharmaceutical companies and health care professionals are also governed by strict laws, such as national anti-bribery laws of European countries, national sunshine rules, regulations, industry self-regulation codes of conduct and physicians’ codes of professional conduct. Failure to comply with these requirements could result in reputational risk, public reprimands, administrative penalties, fines or imprisonment.

Further, the ACA, among other things, amended the intent requirement of the U.S. federal Anti-Kickback Statute and certain criminal statutes governing healthcare fraud. A person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation. In addition, the ACA provided that the government may assert that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the U.S. federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the U.S. federal False Claims Act.

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

Efforts to ensure that our internal operations and future business arrangements with third parties will comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations will involve substantial costs. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of these laws or any other governmental regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, including, without limitation, damages, monetary fines, imprisonment, disgorgement of profits, possible exclusion from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other federal healthcare programs, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, additional reporting or oversight obligations if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or other agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with the law and curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and pursue our strategy. If any of the physicians or other healthcare providers or entities with whom we expect to do business, including future collaborators, are found not to be in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from participation in government healthcare programs, which could also affect our business.

Our products and product candidates are subject to government price controls in certain jurisdictions that may affect our ability to receive adequate coverage and reimbursement for AUCATZYL, which could make it difficult for us to sell AUCATZYL profitably.

There has been heightened governmental scrutiny in the U.K., United States, EU and other jurisdictions of pharmaceutical pricing practices in light of the rising cost of prescription drugs and biologics. In the United States, such scrutiny has resulted in several recent Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for products. For example, on July 4, 2025, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (the “OBBBA”) was signed into law, which narrowed access to ACA marketplace exchange enrollment and declined to extend the ACA enhanced advanced premium tax credits that expired at the end of 2025, which, among other provisions in the law, are anticipated to reduce the number of Americans with health insurance. The OBBBA also is expected to reduce Medicaid spending and enrollment by implementing work requirements for some beneficiaries, capping state-directed payments, reducing federal funding, and limiting provider taxes used to fund the program. Congress is considering proposed legislation intended to further reduce healthcare costs with alternatives to replace the expired ACA subsidies. We expect that additional U.S. federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that the U.S. federal government will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for our product candidates or additional pricing pressures.

Table of contents

The current Trump administration is pursuing policies to reduce regulations and expenditures across government including at HHS, the FDA, CMS and related agencies. These actions, presently directed by executive orders or memoranda from the Office of Management and Budget, may propose policy changes that create additional uncertainty for our business. For example, the current administration has announced agreements with several pharmaceutical companies that require the drug manufacturers to offer, through a direct to consumer platform, U.S. patients and Medicaid programs prescription drug Most-Favored Nation pricing equal to or lower than those paid in other developed nations, with additional mandates for direct-to-patient discounts and repatriation of foreign revenues. Other recent actions may include, for example, (1) directives to reduce agency workforce: (2) directing HHS and other agencies to lower prescription drug costs through a variety of initiatives, including by improving upon the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program and establishing Most-Favored-Nation pricing for pharmaceutical products; (3) imposing tariffs on imported pharmaceutical products; and (4) as part of the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission’s Strategy Report released in September 2025, working across government agencies to increase enforcement on direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising. Additionally, the current administration recently called on Congress to enact “The Great Healthcare Plan,” to codify and expand Most-Favored Nation pricing, lower government subsidies to private insurance companies, increase healthcare price transparency, expand pharmaceutical drugs available for over-the-counter purchase, and enact restrictions on pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) payment methodologies, among other things. These actions and policies may significantly reduce U.S. drug prices, potentially impacting manufacturers’ global pricing strategies and profitability, while increasing their operational costs and compliance risks. In June 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court’s Loper Bright decision greatly reduced judicial deference to regulatory agencies, which could increase successful legal challenges to federal regulations affecting our operations. Congress may introduce and ultimately pass health care related legislation that could impact the drug approval process and make changes to the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program.

On April 1, 2025, the CMS published Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System application summaries and coding determinations, as well as the Outpatient Prospective Payment System Addendum B payment rates. AUCATZYL was included in these CMS publications, formalizing reimbursement for patients on government programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. The CMS policy splits the therapeutic dose of AUCATZYL into two administrations for coding and billing purposes. Because AUCATZYL is administered in two infusions approximately ten days apart, the CMS policy to bill each infusion separately may delay our and our treatment centers’ ability to recognize revenue from a particular treatment. We are working with our authorized treatment centers on implementing the allocation of costs and nonpayment risk in connection with the CMS policy and are assessing any potential impact on the timing of revenue recognition and the amount of rebates or chargebacks.

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

We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative or executive action, either in the United States or abroad. We expect that additional state and federal health care reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for health care products and services, which could result in reduced demand for our development candidates or additional pricing pressures, or otherwise adversely impact our operations.

Outside of the United States, particularly in the U.K. and EU, the pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals is subject to governmental control by individual EU Member States. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after the receipt of marketing approval for a product. In the EU, EU Member States may restrict the range of medicinal products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices of medicinal products for human use. An EU Member State may approve a specific price for the medicinal product, it may refuse to reimburse a product at the price set by the manufacturer or it may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the medicinal product on the market. Many EU Member States also periodically review their reimbursement procedures for medicinal products, which could have an adverse impact on reimbursement status. Moreover, in order to obtain reimbursement for our products in some European countries, including some EU Member States, we may be required to compile additional data comparing the cost-effectiveness of our products to other available therapies. This Health Technology Assessment (“HTA”) of medicinal products is becoming an increasingly common part of the pricing and reimbursement procedures in some EU Member States, including those representing the larger markets. The HTA process is the procedure to assess therapeutic, economic and societal impact of a given medicinal product in the national healthcare systems of the individual country.

The outcome of an HTA will often influence the pricing and reimbursement status granted to these medicinal products by the competent authorities of individual EU Member States. The extent to which pricing and reimbursement decisions are influenced by the HTA of the specific medicinal product currently varies between EU Member States. To obtain coverage and reimbursement or pricing approval in some countries, we may be required to conduct a clinical trial that compares the cost-effectiveness of our product candidate to other available therapies. If reimbursement of our products is unavailable or limited in scope or amount, or if pricing is set at unsatisfactory levels, our business could be harmed.

Table of contents

Current and future legislation in the United States and other countries may affect the prices we may obtain for our products and future candidates and increase the difficulty and cost for us to commercialize our product candidates.

In the United States and many other countries, rising healthcare costs have been a concern for governments, patients and the health insurance sector, which has resulted in a number of changes to laws and regulations, and may result in further legislative and regulatory action regarding the healthcare and health insurance systems that could affect our ability to profitably sell any product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval.

For example, the ACA was enacted in the United States in March 2010 with the stated goals of containing healthcare costs, improving quality and expanding access to healthcare, and includes measures to change healthcare delivery, increase the number of individuals with insurance, ensure access to certain basic healthcare services, and contain the rising cost of care. There have been executive, judicial and Congressional challenges and amendments to certain aspects of the ACA. For example, the IRA, among other things, extends enhanced subsidies for individuals purchasing health insurance coverage in ACA marketplaces through plan year 2025. The IRA also eliminates the “donut hole” under the Medicare Part D program beginning in 2025 by significantly lowering the beneficiary maximum out-of-pocket cost and creating a new manufacturer discount program.

In addition, other federal health reform measures have been proposed and adopted in the United States. For example, as a result of the Budget Control Act of 2011, providers are subject to Medicare payment reductions of 2% per fiscal year until 2032 unless additional Congressional action is taken.

On January 12, 2025, Regulation No 2021/2282 on Health Technology Assessment ("HTA"), entered into application through a phased implementation. It is intended to boost cooperation among EU Member States in assessing health technologies, including new medicinal products by establishing a framework for joint clinical assessments, joint scientific consultations, and the early identification of emerging health technologies. The Regulation permits EU Member States to use common HTA tools, methodologies, and procedures across the EU and requires them to rely on EU‑level joint clinical assessment reports for the clinical components of their national HTA evaluations. Individual EU Member States continue to be responsible for assessing non-clinical (e.g., economic, social, ethical) aspects of health technologies, and making decisions on pricing and reimbursement. As implementation of the HTA Regulation is phased in and key methodological and procedural guidance continues to evolve, there remains uncertainty regarding the evidence requirements, timing, and impact of joint clinical assessments on national reimbursement processes. The new framework may result in additional or differently structured evidentiary expectations, misalignment between assessment and regulatory timelines, or delays in national decisions. Any adverse or delayed HTA outcomes, or divergent national reimbursement decisions, could negatively affect our ability to obtain or maintain favorable pricing and reimbursement status for any of our products and product candidates, if approved. If we are unable to maintain favorable pricing and reimbursement status in EU Member States for our products and product candidates that we may successfully develop and for which we may obtain regulatory approval, any anticipated revenue from and growth prospects for those products in the EU could be negatively affected.

In light of the fact that the United Kingdom has left the EU, Regulation No 2021/2282 on HTA will not apply in the United Kingdom. However, the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulation Agency (“MHRA”) is working with UK HTA bodies and other national organizations, such as the SMC, NICE, and the All-Wales Medicines Strategy Group, to introduce new pathways supporting innovative approaches to the safe, timely and efficient development of medicinal products. There can be no assurance that we will be able to obtain or sustain favorable pricing or reimbursement in the UK under these evolving frameworks, and any such inability could materially and adversely affect our anticipated revenues and growth prospects in that market.

Legislators, policymakers and healthcare insurance funds in the EU and the United Kingdom may continue to propose and implement cost-containing measures to keep healthcare costs down, particularly due to the financial strain that the COVID-19 pandemic placed on national healthcare systems of European countries. These measures could include limitations on the prices we would be able to charge for product candidates that we may successfully develop and for which we may obtain regulatory approval or the level of reimbursement available for these products from governmental authorities or third-party payors. Further, an increasing number of EU and other foreign countries use prices for medicinal products established in other countries as “reference prices” to help determine the price of the product in their own territory. Consequently, a downward trend in prices of medicinal products in some countries could contribute to similar downward trends elsewhere. Individual EU Member States will continue to be responsible for assessing non-clinical (e.g., economic, social, ethical) aspects of health technologies, and making decisions on pricing and reimbursement. If we are unable to maintain favorable pricing and reimbursement status in EU Member States for product candidates that we may successfully develop and for which we may obtain regulatory approval, any anticipated revenue from and growth prospects for those products in the EU could be negatively affected.

The combination of healthcare cost containment measures, increased health insurance costs, reduction of the number of people with health insurance coverage, as well as future legislation and regulations focused on reducing healthcare costs by reducing the cost of or reimbursement and access to pharmaceutical products, may limit or delay our ability to generate revenue, attain profitability, or commercialize our products.

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.

Table of contents

In addition, on December 11, 2025, the European Commission, the Parliament and the European Council reached a political agreement on a comprehensive overhaul of EU pharmaceutical legislation (the “Pharma Package”). The reform has been under negotiation since the European Commission submitted its proposal in April 2023. This package - comprised of a new directive and regulation to replace existing legislation – aims to modernize the EU framework. The political agreement is still subject to formal approval by the European Parliament and Council. If approved in the form proposed, the Pharma Package will, among other changes, reduce the baseline market protection period by one year, with limited opportunities for extensions, capped at a maximum of eleven years; reshape the incentives regime for orphan medicinal products, by introducing “breakthrough” orphan medicinal products – those addressing diseases with no available medicinal treatment – which will benefit from 11 years of market exclusivity; and expand the Bolar exemption to permit generic and biosimilar manufacturers to conduct preparatory activities for regulatory submissions, including pricing and reimbursement, and participate in procurement tenders while patent protection remains in force. A decrease in market exclusivity opportunities for our product candidates in the EU, combined with the expanded Bolar exemption, could open them to generic or biosimilar competition earlier than under the current regime, potentially impacting reimbursement status and the commercial prospects of our product candidates.

If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, our development plans may be impacted.

We are subject to the U.K. Bribery Act, 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 U.K. 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 U.K. 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. The FCPA also obligates companies whose securities are listed in the United States to comply with accounting provisions requiring us to maintain books and records that accurately and fairly reflect all transactions of the corporation, including international subsidiaries, and to devise and maintain an adequate system of internal accounting controls.

Under the U.K. Bribery Act, we may also be liable for failing to prevent a person associated with us from committing a bribery offense. We and those acting on our behalf operate in a number of jurisdictions that pose a high risk of potential U.K. 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 U.K. Bribery Act, FCPA or local anticorruption 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.

Compliance with the U.K. Bribery Act, the FCPA and these other laws is expensive and difficult, particularly in countries in which corruption is a recognized problem. In addition, anti-corruption laws present particular challenges in the pharmaceutical industry, because, in many countries, hospitals are operated by the government, and doctors and other hospital employees are considered foreign officials.

We are also subject to other laws and regulations governing our international operations, including regulations administered by the governments of the United States and the U.K., and authorities in the EU, 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. Compliance with such regulatory requirements may create delays in the introduction of our products in international markets or, in some cases, prevent the export of our products to some countries altogether. Furthermore, export control laws and economic sanctions may prohibit the provision of certain products and services to countries, governments and persons targeted by sanctions.

There is no assurance that we will be completely effective in ensuring our compliance with all applicable anti-corruption laws, including the U.K. Bribery Act, the FCPA or other legal requirements, including Trade Control laws. If we are not in compliance with the U.K. 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 UK Bribery Act, the FCPA, other anti-corruption laws or Trade Control laws by United States, U.K. or other authorities could also have an adverse impact on our reputation, our business, results of operations and financial condition. Further, the failure to comply with laws governing international business practices may result in substantial civil and criminal penalties and suspension or debarment from government contracting.

Table of contents

If we fail to comply with environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, we could become subject to fines or penalties or incur costs that could harm our business.

We 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 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 for failure to comply with such laws and regulations.

Although we maintain insurance to cover us for costs and expenses we may incur due to injuries to our employees resulting from the use of hazardous materials, this insurance may not provide adequate coverage against potential liabilities. We do not maintain insurance for environmental liability or toxic tort claims that may be asserted against us in connection with our storage or disposal of biological or hazardous materials.

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. Our failure to comply with these laws and regulations also may result in substantial fines, penalties or other sanctions.

We previously identified material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting. If we experience additional material weaknesses or otherwise fail to maintain an effective system of internal controls in the future, we may not be able to accurately report our financial condition or results of operations.

As a public company, we are subject to the reporting requirements of the Exchange Act, as well as the requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as amended (the “Sarbanes-Oxley Act”), and the listing standards of the Nasdaq Stock Market.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires, among other things, that we maintain effective disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting. It also requires management to perform an annual assessment of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting and disclosure of any material weaknesses in such controls. In connection with the audit of our financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2023, we identified a material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting in connection with the historic misinterpretation and application of Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) Topic 740, Income Taxes, resulting in our U.K. SME tax credits being incorrectly presented in income tax benefit (expense). Refer to Note 3, Restatement of Previously Issued Consolidated Financial Statements, in the Consolidated Financial Statements in Part II, Item 8 of our Annual Report for additional information. We have taken steps to remediate the material weakness by (i) enhancing the training provided to the individuals operating the income taxation controls and related financial reporting controls and (ii) improving the design of our controls related to the use of taxation subject matter experts in the determination of our U.K. SME tax credits balances. This material weakness was remediated at June 30, 2024, but there can be no assurance that we will not identify further control deficiencies in this area.

In addition, in connection with our review procedures for the three months ended March 31, 2024, we identified an additional material weakness due to an insufficiency of controls over complex accounting transactions. The lack of controls did not allow us to identify, understand and evaluate the impact of certain key judgments that arose during the three months ended March 31, 2024 related to the BioNTech Agreements. Our process, as designed, was inadequate to deal with the complexity of the accounting for the transaction and did not allow for an effective and timely evaluation of these matters and their impact on our financial statements. We have taken steps to remediate the material weakness by (i) implementing structured project plans and project monitoring techniques; (ii) the use of summary outputs allowing for earlier review of key judgements, estimates and other factors which impact the financial statements; and (iii) enhancing our review process, and controls including building in more time to allow for its effective operation and iv) assessing resourcing needs and capabilities. This material weakness was remediated at December 31, 2024, but there can be no assurance that we will not identify further control deficiencies in this area.

Any failure to remediate the identified material weakness, or to develop or maintain effective controls, or any difficulties encountered in the implementation or improvement of such controls, could harm our operating results or cause us to fail to meet our reporting obligations and may result in a restatement of our financial statements for prior periods, such as the restatement of our previously issued consolidated financial statements described in more detail in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the SEC on March 20, 2025.

Table of contents

Any failure to remediate the identified material weakness, or to implement and maintain effective internal control over financial reporting also could adversely affect the results of management evaluations and, to the extent they are required in the future, attestations of our independent registered public accounting firm with respect to our internal control over financial reporting. We can provide no assurance that the measures we are taking and plan to take in the future will remediate the material weaknesses described above, or that any additional material weaknesses or restatements of financial results will not arise in the future due to a failure to implement and maintain adequate internal control over financial reporting or circumvention of these controls. In addition, even if we are successful in strengthening our controls and procedures, in the future those controls and procedures may not be adequate to prevent or identify irregularities or errors or to facilitate the fair presentation of our financial statements. We continue to evaluate steps to remediate the material weakness identified. Any failure to maintain effective internal control over financial reporting could adversely impact our ability to report our financial position and results from operations on a timely and accurate basis. If our financial statements are not accurate, investors may not have a complete understanding of our operations.

Likewise, if our financial statements are not filed on a timely basis, we could be subject to sanctions or investigations by the Nasdaq, the SEC or other regulatory authorities, or other potential claims or litigation. Ineffective internal control over financial reporting could also cause investors to lose confidence in our reported financial information, which could have a negative effect on the trading price of our ADSs.

Ineffective disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting could also cause investors to lose confidence in our reported financial and other information, which may have a negative effect on the trading price of our ADSs. In addition, if we are unable to continue to meet these requirements, we may not be able to remain listed on the Nasdaq Global Select Market.

We may not obtain or maintain the benefits associated with orphan drug designation, including market exclusivity or favorable pricing.

Obe-cel in B-ALL received orphan drug designation from the FDA in November 2019. We may seek orphan drug designation for other indications or product candidates. Even if we were to obtain orphan drug designation for a product candidate, we may not obtain orphan exclusivity and that exclusivity may not effectively protect the drug from the competition of different drugs for the same condition, which could be approved during the exclusivity period. Additionally, after an orphan drug is approved, the FDA could subsequently approve another application for the same drug for the same indication if the FDA concludes that the later drug is shown to be safer, more effective or makes a major contribution to patient care.

Orphan drug exclusive marketing rights may be revoked if the FDA or a comparable regulatory authority later determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient quantity of the drug to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition.

In the EU, an application for the designation of a medicinal product as an orphan medicinal product must be submitted at any stage of development of the medicinal product but before filing of a marketing authorization application. If orphan designation is granted prior to the marketing authorization, alongside applying for marketing authorization, the applicant must submit a report to EMA’s Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products (“COMP”) demonstrating that the criteria for orphan designation are still met; if they are not, orphan status is not maintained. A marketing authorization for an orphan medicinal product may only include indications designated as orphan. For non-orphan indications treated with the same active pharmaceutical ingredient, a separate marketing authorization has to be sought. An applicant can choose to withdraw their application for orphan designation in the EU at any point before the COMP adopts an opinion. Upon grant of a marketing authorization, orphan medicinal products are entitled to a ten-year period of market exclusivity for the approved therapeutic indication. The period of 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 on the basis of which it received orphan medicinal product designation, including where it can be demonstrated on the basis of available evidence that the original orphan medicinal product is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity or where the prevalence of the condition has increased above the threshold. Additionally, an MA may be granted to a similar medicinal product with the same orphan indication during the 10 year period if: (i) the applicant consents to a second original orphan medicinal product application, (ii) the manufacturer of the original orphan medicinal product is unable to supply sufficient quantities; or (iii) the second applicant can establish that its product, although similar, is safer, more effective or otherwise clinically superior to the original orphan medicinal product. A company may voluntarily remove a product from the register of orphan products. The failure to obtain an orphan drug designation for any product candidates we may develop, the inability to maintain that designation for the duration of the applicable period, or the inability to obtain or maintain orphan drug exclusivity could reduce our ability to make sufficient sales of the applicable product candidate to balance our expenses incurred to develop it, which would have a negative impact on our operational results and financial condition. For example, based on feedback from the COMP and the results of the latest COMP assessment, in June 2025, we voluntarily withdrew obe-cel from the EU register of orphan medicinal products. Following a thorough evaluation, we have determined not to proceed with the launch of AUCATZYL in Europe in the near term, in part due to the difficulty of achieving a commercially viable price in the absence of orphan drug designation.

Table of contents

International trade policies, including tariffs, sanctions and trade barriers may adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We operate in a global economy, and our business depends on a global supply chain for the development, manufacturing, and distribution of our pharmaceutical products, and for the advancement of our preclinical and clinical development programs. There is inherent risk, based on the complex relationships among the U.S. and the countries in which we conduct our business, that political, diplomatic, and national security factors can lead to global trade restrictions and changes in trade policies and export regulations that may adversely affect our business and operations. The current international trade and regulatory environment is subject to significant ongoing uncertainty. We source significant quantities of biological materials, active pharmaceutical ingredients (“API”), precursor chemicals, and specialized equipment which are critical to the manufacture of our CAR T products from international suppliers, with substantial reliance on foreign manufacturers. In addition, we manufacture all of our commercial supplies of AUCATZYL and clinical supplies of our other product candidates in the United Kingdom. Tariff policies, particularly those affecting pharmaceutical products, could materially increase our costs of goods and/or costs of manufacture and reduce our profitability, including as a result of our inability to adjust pricing in formulary-based markets. Recent and potential future changes in international trade policies, particularly regarding pharmaceutical-specific tariffs, present material risks to our operations and financial performance.

Even if our own products are not directly subject to tariffs, the administration of a complex, rapidly changing tariff scheme by limited government personnel at the various U.S. ports of entry may prove challenging, and may create delays in our provision of commercial or clinical supply. If the activities of our current or future suppliers and other partners fall within the scope of any of these tariffs, our costs may increase significantly. These parties may experience supply chain disruptions as a result of increased costs and uncertainty, including risks to their long-term viability, which may impact our ability to meet customer demand or cause reputational harm if we are unable to deliver our products on expected timelines.

Recent policy discussions have included potential targeted tariffs or other trade measures specifically aimed at pharmaceutical products and ingredients as part of broader healthcare cost control or national security initiatives. Unlike consumer goods, pharmaceuticals face unique regulatory constraints that make rapid supply chain adjustments particularly difficult and costly. Should the current tariffs hold or additional tariffs be imposed specifically targeting pharmaceutical imports, our production costs could rise significantly, and it would be difficult and costly to qualify alternative sources within another country with a lower tariff rate or within the United States, as developing and qualifying alternative sources typically requires at least 18-24 months and substantial investment and regulatory approvals. Moreover, the dynamic and unpredictable tariff and trade landscape creates substantial uncertainty and significant planning challenges for our operations.

Changes in tariff classifications, country-of-origin requirements, or customs procedures can occur with limited notice. This uncertainty complicates our long-term investment decisions regarding manufacturing facilities, supply chain optimization, and research and development locations.

Unlike many industries, our ability to pass increased costs to customers is limited by the structure of pharmaceutical pricing and reimbursement systems. Many of our products are included in formularies with pricing established through annual or multi-year contracts with commercial, third-party payors and pharmacy benefit managers, and reimbursement methodologies established by government programs, such as Medicare. These arrangements typically include fixed pricing terms that were negotiated prior to the implementation of the recently announced tariffs. As a result, and depending on the timing and scope of the implementation of these tariffs, cost increases due to tariffs may be difficult or impossible to pass through to customers until the next negotiation cycle, which could be up to 36 months away.

Current or future tariffs will also result in increased research and development expenses, including with respect to increased costs associated with APIs, raw materials, laboratory equipment and research materials and components. Trade restrictions could result in delays to our development timelines, either by directly affecting the import of materials necessary for our clinical trials and commercialization efforts, or by creating bottlenecks at the U.S. ports of entry. Increased development costs and extended development timelines could place us at a competitive disadvantage compared to companies operating in regions with more favorable trade relationships and could reduce investor confidence and negatively impact our business, results of operations, financial condition and growth prospects.

The complexity of announced or future tariffs may also increase the risk that we or our customers or suppliers may be subject to civil or criminal enforcement actions in the United States or foreign jurisdictions related to compliance with trade regulations. Foreign governments may also adopt non-tariff measures, such as procurement preferences or informal disincentives to engage with, purchase from or invest in United States entities, which may limit our ability to compete internationally and attract non-U.S. investment, employees, customers and suppliers. Foreign governments may also take other retaliatory actions against the United States entities, such as decreased intellectual property protection, increased enforcement actions, or delays in regulatory approvals, which may result in heightened international legal and operational risks. In addition, the United States and other governments have imposed and may continue to impose additional sanctions, such as trade restrictions or trade barriers, which could restrict us from doing business directly or indirectly in or with certain countries or parties and may impose additional costs and complexity to our business.

Table of contents

Trade disputes, tariffs, restrictions and other political tensions between the United States and other countries may also exacerbate unfavorable macroeconomic conditions including inflationary pressures, foreign exchange volatility, financial market instability, and economic recessions or downturns. The ultimate impact of current or future tariffs and trade restrictions remains uncertain and could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, and prospects. While we actively monitor these risks, any prolonged economic downturn or escalation in trade tensions could materially and adversely affect our business, ability to access the capital markets or other financing sources, results of operations, financial condition and prospects. In addition, tariffs and other trade developments have and may continue to heighten the risks related to the other risk factors described in this Annual Report.

Changes to promotion and advertising rules and regulations may potentially adversely impact sales of our products.

In September 2025, the HHS and the FDA jointly announced a crackdown on deceptive direct-to-consumer (“DTC”) pharmaceutical advertising, including promotion through social media. The announcement follows the presidential memorandum and report by the Trump administration’s Make American Healthy Again Commission, which directed the FDA, HHS, Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice to increase oversight of DTC pharmaceutical advertising, particularly associated with risk information on digital platforms. Although Autolus does not rely on DTC pharmaceutical advertising for sales of its products (including social media channels), there is an indirect relationship between our company and our patients. If the FDA further tightens or restricts the ability of pharmaceutical or biotech companies to engage directly with patients, this could potentially impact upon the demand for products and therapies in the United States.

Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property

If we are unable to obtain and maintain patent protection for our T cell programming technologies and product candidates, or if the scope of the patent protection obtained is not sufficiently broad, our competitors could develop and commercialize technology and biologics similar or identical to ours, and our ability to successfully commercialize our technology and product candidates may be impaired.

Our success depends, in large part, on our ability to obtain and maintain patent protection in the United States, the EU, the U.K. and other countries with respect to our product candidates. We seek to protect our proprietary position by filing patent applications related to our technology and product candidates in the major pharmaceutical markets, including the United States, major countries in Europe and Japan. If we do not adequately protect our intellectual property, competitors may be able to use our technologies and erode or negate any competitive advantage that we may have, which could harm our business and ability to achieve profitability.

To protect our proprietary positions, we file patent applications in the United States and other countries related to our novel technologies and product candidates that are important to our business. The patent application and prosecution 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. We may also fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development before it is too late to obtain patent protection. It is possible that defects of form in the preparation or filing of our patents or patent applications may exist, or may arise in the future, such as with respect to proper priority claims, inventorship, claim scope or patent term adjustments. If any current or future licensors or licensees are not fully cooperative or disagree with us as to the prosecution, maintenance or enforcement of any patent rights, such patent rights could be compromised and we might not be able to prevent third parties from making, using and selling competing products. If there are material defects in the form or preparation of our patents or patent applications, such patents or applications may be invalid and unenforceable. Moreover, our competitors may independently develop equivalent knowledge, methods and know-how. Any of these outcomes could impair our ability to prevent competition from third parties.

Prosecution of our owned and in-licensed patent portfolio is at an early stage for some of our patent families. We currently have 39 patents that have been issued from our pending applications in the United States, and 16 patents that have been issued from our pending applications in Europe. Some of our patent portfolio consists of pending priority applications that are not examined and pending applications under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (“PCT”).

Neither priority applications nor PCT applications can themselves give rise to issued patents. Rather, protection for the inventions disclosed in these applications must be further pursued by applicable deadlines via applications that are subject to examination. As applicable deadlines for the priority and PCT applications become due, we will need to decide whether and in which countries or jurisdictions to pursue patent protection for the various inventions claimed in these applications, and we will only have the opportunity to pursue and obtain patents in those jurisdictions where we pursue protection.

It is also possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development output before it is too late to obtain patent protection. The patent applications that we own or in-license may fail to result in issued patents with claims that cover our current and future product candidates in the United States or in other foreign countries. Our patent applications cannot be enforced against third parties practicing the technology claimed in such applications unless, and until, a patent issues from such applications, and then only to the extent the issued claims cover the technology.

Table of contents

If the patent applications we hold or have in-licensed with respect to our development programs and product candidates fail to issue, if their breadth or strength of protection is threatened, or if they fail to provide meaningful exclusivity for our current and future product candidates, it could threaten our ability to commercialize our product candidates. Any such outcome could have a negative effect on our business.

The patent position of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies generally is highly uncertain. Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of the patent laws in the United States and other countries may diminish the value of our patents or narrow the scope of our patent protection. In addition, the protections offered by laws of different countries vary. No consistent policy regarding the breadth of claims allowed in biotechnology and pharmaceutical patents has emerged to date in the United States or in many foreign jurisdictions. In addition, the determination of patent rights with respect to pharmaceutical compounds and technologies commonly involves complex legal and factual questions, which has in recent years been the subject of much litigation.

As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our patent rights, whether owned or in-licensed, are highly uncertain. Furthermore, recent changes in patent laws in the United States, may affect the scope, strength and enforceability of our patent rights or the nature of proceedings that may be brought by or against us related to our patent rights. Additionally, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on several patent cases in recent years either narrowing the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances or weakening the rights of patent owners in certain situations. In addition to increasing uncertainty with regard to our ability to obtain patents in the future, this combination of events has created uncertainty with respect to the value of patents, once obtained. Depending on decisions by the U.S. Congress, the U.S. federal courts, and the USPTO, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that could weaken our ability to obtain patents or to enforce any patents that we might obtain in the future.

We may not be aware of all third-party intellectual property rights potentially relating to our current and future our product candidates. Publications of discoveries in the scientific literature often lag behind the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the United States and other jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing, or in some cases not at all. Therefore, we cannot be certain that we or our licensors were the first to make the inventions claimed in our patents or pending patent applications, or that we or our licensors were the first to file for patent protection of such inventions. Similarly, should we own or in-license any patents or patent applications in the future, we may not be certain that we or the applicable licensor were the first to file for patent protection for the inventions claimed in such patents or patent applications. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity and commercial value of our patent rights cannot be predicted with any certainty. Moreover, we may be subject to a third-party pre-issuance submission of prior art to the USPTO, or become involved in opposition, derivation, reexamination, inter partes review or interference proceedings, in the United States or elsewhere, challenging our patent rights or the patent rights of others. An adverse determination in any such submission, proceeding or litigation could reduce the scope of, or invalidate, our patent rights, allow third parties to commercialize our technology or product candidates and compete directly with us, without payment to us, or result in our inability to manufacture or commercialize products without infringing third-party patent rights, which could significantly harm our business and results of operations.

Our pending and future patent applications, whether owned or in-licensed, may not result in patents being issued that protect our technology or product candidates, in whole or in part, or which effectively prevent others from commercializing competitive technologies and products. Even if our patent applications issue as patents, they may not issue in a form that will provide us with any meaningful protection against competing products or processes sufficient to achieve our business objectives, prevent competitors from competing with us or otherwise provide us with any competitive advantage. Our competitors may be able to circumvent our owned or licensed patents, should they issue, by developing similar or alternative technologies or products in a non-infringing manner. Our competitors may seek approval to market their own products similar to or otherwise competitive with our products. In these circumstances, we may need to defend and/or assert our patents, including by filing lawsuits alleging patent infringement. In any of these types of proceedings, a court or other agency with jurisdiction may find our patents invalid and/or unenforceable.

The issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity or enforceability, and our owned and licensed patents may be challenged in the courts or patent offices in the United States and abroad. Such challenges may result in loss of exclusivity or freedom to operate or in patent claims being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable, in whole or in part, which could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical technology and products, or limit the duration of the patent protection of our technology and products. In addition, 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.

Third parties may initiate legal proceedings alleging that we are infringing their intellectual property rights, the outcome of which would be uncertain and could significantly harm our business.

Our commercial success depends, in part, on our ability to develop, manufacture, market and sell our product candidates and use our proprietary and modular T cell programming technology without infringing the intellectual property and other proprietary rights of third parties. Numerous third-party U.S. and non-U.S. issued patents exist in the area of biotechnology, including in the area of programmed T cell therapies and including patents held by our competitors. If any third-party patents cover our product candidates or technologies, we may not be free to manufacture or commercialize our product candidates as planned.

Table of contents

There is a substantial amount of intellectual property litigation in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, and we may become party to, or threatened with, litigation or other adversarial proceedings regarding intellectual property rights with respect to our technology or product candidates, including interference proceedings before the USPTO. Intellectual property disputes arise in a number of areas including with respect to patents, use of other proprietary rights and the contractual terms of license arrangements. Third parties may assert claims against us based on existing or future intellectual property rights and claims may also come from competitors against whom our own patent portfolio may have no deterrent effect. The outcome of intellectual property litigation is subject to uncertainties that cannot be adequately quantified in advance. Other parties may allege that our product candidates or the use of our technologies infringes patent claims or other intellectual property rights held by them or that we are employing their proprietary technology without authorization.

As we continue to develop and, if approved, commercialize our current and future product candidates, competitors may claim that our technology infringes their intellectual property rights as part of business strategies designed to impede our successful commercialization. There are and may in the future be additional third-party patents or patent applications with claims to, for example, materials, compositions, formulations, methods of manufacture or methods for treatment related to the use or manufacture of any one or more of our product candidates. For example, we are aware of third-party U.S. patents that may claim technology related to obe-cel. These U.S. patents will expire between 2025 and 2038. There are no counterpart patents in Europe or the rest of the world that extend beyond the earliest expected regulatory approval date of obe-cel in those jurisdictions. Unless we are able to obtain a license or licenses to the third-party U.S. patent or patents on commercially reasonable terms or any applicable patent or patents are invalidated, held to be unenforceable, or deemed uninfringed by our activities. As a result, the future commercial opportunity of AUCATZYL in the United States could be adversely impacted.

Moreover, we may fail to identify relevant third party patents or patent applications, or we may incorrectly conclude that the claims of an issued patent are invalid or are not infringed by our activities. Because patent applications can take many years to issue, third parties may have currently pending patent applications which may later result in issued patents that any of our product candidates may infringe, or which such third parties claim are infringed by our technologies.

If we are found to infringe a third party’s intellectual property rights, we could be forced, including by court order, to cease developing, manufacturing or commercializing the infringing product candidate or product. Alternatively, we may be required or may choose to obtain a license from such third party in order to use the infringing technology and continue developing, manufacturing or marketing the infringing product candidate. However, we may not be able to obtain any required license on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Even if we were able to obtain a license, it could be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors access to the same technologies licensed to us. In addition, we could be found liable for monetary damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees if we are found to have willfully infringed a patent. A finding of infringement could prevent us from commercializing our product candidates or force us to cease some of our business operations. Claims that we have misappropriated the confidential information or trade secrets of third parties could have a similar negative effect on our business. Even if successful, the defense of any claim of infringement or misappropriation is time-consuming, expensive and diverts the attention of our management from our ongoing business operations.

We may need to license intellectual property from third parties, and such licenses may not be available or may not be available on commercially reasonable terms.

A third party may hold intellectual property rights, including patent rights, that are important or necessary to the development or manufacture of our product candidates. It may be necessary for us to use the patented or proprietary technology of third parties to commercialize our product candidates, in which case we would be required to obtain a license from these third parties. Such a license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms, or at all, and we could be forced to accept unfavorable contractual terms. If we are unable to obtain such licenses on commercially reasonable terms, our business could be harmed.

We may become involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our intellectual property, which could be expensive, time-consuming and unsuccessful.

Competitors may infringe our patents, trademarks, copyrights or other intellectual property. To counter infringement or unauthorized use, we may be required to file infringement claims, which can be expensive and time-consuming and divert the time and attention of our management and scientific personnel. Any claims we assert against perceived infringers could provoke these parties to assert counterclaims against us alleging that we infringe their patents, trademarks, copyrights or other intellectual property. In addition, in a patent infringement proceeding, there is a risk that a court will decide that a patent of ours is invalid or unenforceable, in whole or in part, and that we do not have the right to stop the other party from using the invention at issue. There is also a risk that, even if the validity of such patents is upheld, the court will construe the patent’s claims narrowly or decide that we do not have the right to stop the other party from using the invention at issue on the grounds that our patents do not cover the invention. An adverse outcome in a litigation or proceeding involving our patents could limit our ability to assert our patents against those parties or other competitors and may curtail or preclude our ability to exclude third parties from making and selling similar or competitive products.

Table of contents

Similarly, if we assert trademark infringement claims, a court may determine that the marks we have asserted are invalid or unenforceable, or that the party against whom we have asserted trademark infringement has superior rights to the marks in question. In this case, we could ultimately be forced to cease use of such trademarks.

In any infringement litigation, any award of monetary damages we receive may not be commercially valuable. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during litigation. In addition, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments and if securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a substantial adverse effect on the price of our ADSs.

Moreover, there can be no assurance that we will have sufficient financial or other resources to file and pursue such infringement claims, which typically last for years before they are concluded. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of such litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their greater financial resources and more mature and developed intellectual property portfolios. Even if we ultimately prevail in such claims, the monetary cost of such litigation and the diversion of the attention of our management and scientific personnel could outweigh any benefit we receive as a result of the proceedings. Accordingly, despite our efforts, we may not be able to prevent third parties from infringing, misappropriating or successfully challenging our intellectual property rights. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings could have a negative impact on our ability to compete in the marketplace.

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

Many of our employees were previously employed at universities or other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, and our founder and Chief Scientific Officer, Dr. Martin Pulé, is currently employed both by us and UCL. Although we try to ensure that our employees do not use the proprietary information or know-how of third parties in their work for us, we may be subject to claims that these employees or we have inadvertently or otherwise used intellectual property, including trade secrets or other proprietary information, of any such employee’s former employer. We may also in the future be subject to claims that we have caused an employee to breach the terms of his or her non-competition or non-solicitation agreement. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these potential claims.

In addition, while it is our policy to require our employees and contractors who may be involved in the development of intellectual property to execute agreements assigning such intellectual property to us, such employees and contractors may breach the agreement and claim the developed intellectual property as their own.

As of December 31, 2025, our patent portfolio was comprised of 83 patent families, of which 17 patent families originated from UCLB, the technology-transfer company of UCL, and 63 patent families we own and have originated from our own research. Of the 17 live patent families that were originally in-licensed from UCL, 16 have been assigned to us. Because we have acquired or licensed certain of our patents from UCLB and licensed certain other patents from third parties, we must rely on their prior practices with regard to the assignment of such intellectual property. Our and their assignment agreements may not be self-executing or may be breached, and we may be forced to bring claims against third parties or defend claims they may bring against us, to determine the ownership of what we regard as our intellectual property.

If we fail in prosecuting or defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel. A court could prohibit us from using technologies or features that are essential to our products if such technologies or features are found to incorporate or be derived from the trade secrets or other proprietary information of the former employers. Even if we are successful in prosecuting or defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and could be a distraction to management. In addition, any litigation or threat thereof may adversely affect our ability to hire employees or contract with independent service providers. Moreover, a loss of key personnel or their work product could hamper or prevent our ability to commercialize our products.

We may be subject to claims challenging the inventorship or ownership of our owned or in-licensed patent rights and other intellectual property.

We generally enter into confidentiality and intellectual property assignment agreements with our employees, consultants, outside scientific collaborators, sponsored researchers and other advisors. However, these agreements may not be honored and may not effectively assign intellectual property rights to us. For example, disputes may arise from conflicting obligations of consultants or others who are involved in developing our technology and product candidates. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these and other claims challenging inventorship or ownership. The owners of intellectual property in-licensed to us could also face such claims. If we or our licensors fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights, such as exclusive ownership of, or right to use, valuable intellectual property.

Such an outcome could have a material adverse effect on our business. Even if we or our licensors are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management and other employees.

Table of contents

Our existing trademarks and any trademarks we may obtain may be infringed or successfully challenged, resulting in harm to our business.

We expect to rely on trademarks as one means to distinguish AUCATZYL from the products of competitors, and also expect to rely in the future trademarks to protect any of our other product candidates that are approved for marketing. We have a U.S. trademark for AUCATZYL but we have not yet selected trademarks for our other product candidates, including obe-cel for r/r B-ALL in other jurisdictions. For each selected trademark, we will need to apply to register them and our trademark applications may not be approved. Third parties may oppose our trademark applications, or otherwise challenge our use of the trademarks. In the event that our trademarks are successfully challenged, we could be forced to rebrand our products, which could result in loss of brand recognition and could require us to devote resources to advertising and marketing new brands. Our competitors may infringe our trademarks and we may not have adequate resources to enforce our trademarks.

In addition, any proprietary name we propose to use with our clinical-stage product candidates or any other product candidate in the United States must be approved by the FDA, regardless of whether we have registered it, or applied to register it, as a trademark. The FDA typically conducts a review of proposed product names, including an evaluation of the potential for confusion with other product names. If the FDA objects to any of our proposed proprietary product names, we may be required to expend significant additional resources in an effort to identify a suitable proprietary product name that would qualify under applicable trademark laws, not infringe the existing rights of third parties and be acceptable to the FDA.

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

In addition to seeking patent and trademark protection for our product candidates, we also rely on trade secrets, including unpatented know-how, technology and other proprietary information, to maintain our competitive position. We seek to protect our trade secrets, in part, by entering into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to them, such as our employees, consultants, advisors and other third parties. We also enter into confidentiality and invention or patent assignment agreements with our employees and consultants. Despite these efforts, any of these parties may breach the agreements and disclose our proprietary information, including our trade secrets. Monitoring unauthorized uses and disclosures of our intellectual property is difficult, and we do not know whether the steps we have taken to protect our intellectual property will be effective. In addition, we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for any such breaches. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret is difficult, expensive and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, some courts inside and outside the United States are less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets.

Moreover, our competitors may independently develop knowledge, methods and know-how equivalent to our trade secrets. Competitors could purchase our products and replicate some or all of the competitive advantages we derive from our development efforts for technologies on which we do not have patent protection. If any of our trade secrets were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor, we would have no right to prevent them, or those to whom they communicate it, from using that technology or information to compete with us. If any of our trade secrets were to be disclosed to or independently developed by a competitor, our competitive position would be harmed.

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

Filing, prosecuting and defending patents on 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. In some cases, we may not be able to obtain patent protection for certain technology outside the United States. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as federal and state laws in the United States, even in jurisdictions where we do pursue patent protection. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in all countries outside the United States, even in jurisdictions where we do 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 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 product candidates and preclinical programs and our patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing.

Table of contents

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, if pursued and obtained, or marketing of competing products in violation of our proprietary rights generally. Proceedings to enforce our patent rights 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.

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

Periodic maintenance and annuity fees on any issued patent are due to be paid to the USPTO and patent agencies outside the United States in several stages over the lifetime of the patent. The USPTO and various foreign governmental patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions during the patent application process. While an inadvertent lapse can in many cases be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules, there are situations in which noncompliance can result in abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction.

Non-compliance events that could result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application include failure to respond to official actions within prescribed time limits, non-payment of fees and failure to properly legalize and submit formal documents.

If we or our licensors fail to maintain the patents and patent applications covering our products or product candidates, our competitors might be able to enter the market, which would harm our business. In addition, to the extent that we have responsibility for taking any action related to the prosecution or maintenance of patents or patent application in-licensed from a third party, any failure on our part to maintain the in-licensed rights could jeopardize our rights under the relevant license and may expose us to liability.

Risks Related to Ownership of Our Securities and Our Status as a Public Company

The trading price of our ADSs has been and may continue to be highly volatile and may fluctuate due to factors beyond our control.

The trading price of our ADSs has been volatile. The stock market in general, and the market for biopharmaceutical and pharmaceutical companies in particular, has experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have often been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of these companies. Broad market and industry factors, including economic conditions and other adverse effects or developments relating to geopolitical instability, may negatively affect the market price of our ADSs, regardless of our actual operating performance.

As a result of this volatility, you may not be able to sell your ADSs at or above the price paid for the ADSs. In addition to the factors discussed in this “Risk Factors” section and elsewhere in this report, the trading price for our ADSs may be influenced by the following:

•our failure to successfully execute our commercialization strategy with respect to AUCATZYL;

•actions or announcements by third-party or government payors with respect to coverage and reimbursement of AUCATZYL;

•the commencement, enrollment or results of our planned or future clinical trials our product candidates;

•the clinical or commercial success of competitive drugs, therapies or technologies;

•positive or negative results from, or delays in, testing and clinical trials by us, collaborators or competitors;

•the loss of any of our key scientific or management personnel;

•regulatory or legal developments in the US, U.K. and other countries;

•adverse actions taken by regulatory agencies with respect to our clinical trials or manufacturers;

•changes or developments in laws or regulations applicable to our product candidates and preclinical programs;

•changes to our relationships with collaborators, manufacturers or suppliers;

•concerns regarding the safety of AUCATZYL or our product candidates or programmed T cells in general;

•announcements concerning our competitors or the pharmaceutical industry in general;

•actual or anticipated fluctuations in our operating results;

Table of contents

•changes in financial estimates or recommendations by securities analysts;

•potential acquisitions, financing, collaborations or other corporate transactions;

•the results of our efforts to discover, develop, acquire or in-license additional product candidates;

•the trading volume of our ADSs on Nasdaq;

•sales of our ADSs or ordinary shares by us, members of our senior management and directors or our shareholders or the anticipation that such sales may occur in the future;

•general economic, political, and market conditions and overall fluctuations in the financial markets in the United States or the U.K.;

•price and volume fluctuations of the listed securities of comparable companies and, in particular, those that operate in the biopharmaceutical industry;

•investors’ general perception of us and our business; and

•other events and factors, many of which are beyond our control.

These and other market and industry factors may cause the market price and demand for our ADSs to fluctuate substantially, regardless of our actual operating performance, which may limit or prevent investors from selling their ADSs and may otherwise negatively affect the liquidity of our ADSs. In addition, the stock market in general, and biopharmaceutical companies in particular, have experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have often been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of these companies.

Some companies that have experienced volatility in the trading price of their securities have been the subject of securities class action litigation. Any lawsuit to which we are a party, with or without merit, may result in an unfavorable judgment. We also may decide to settle lawsuits on unfavorable terms. Any such negative outcome could result in payments of substantial damages or fines, damage to our reputation or adverse changes to our business practices. Defending against litigation is costly and time-consuming, and could divert our management’s attention and our resources. Furthermore, during the course of litigation, there could be negative public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments, which could have a negative effect on the market price of our ADSs.

Our ADSs are thinly traded and our shareholders may be unable to sell their ADSs quickly or at market price.

Although we have had periods of high volume daily trading in our ADSs, generally our ADSs are thinly traded. As a consequence of this lack of liquidity, the trading of relatively small quantities of ADSs by our shareholders may disproportionately influence the price of those ADSs in either direction. The price for our ADSs could, for example, decline significantly in the event that a large number of ADSs are sold on the market without commensurate demand, as compared to a seasoned issuer that could better absorb those sales without adverse impact on the price of the security.

Future sales of our ADSs in the public market could cause our share price to decline, even if our business is doing well.

Sales of a substantial number of shares of our ADSs in the public market, or the perception that these sales might occur, could depress the market price of our ADSs and could impair our ability to raise capital through the sale of additional equity securities.

We have filed registration statements on Form S-8 under the Securities Act to register ordinary shares (including in the form of ADSs) subject to options or other equity awards issued or reserved for future issuance under our equity incentive plans, and we have also filed an automatic shelf registration statement on Form S-3 under the Securities Act to register an unspecified number of securities. In addition, in the future, we may issue ordinary shares, ADS or other securities if we need to raise additional capital. The number of new ordinary shares or ADSs, or securities convertible into our ordinary shares or ADSs, issued in connection with raising additional capital could represent a material portion of our then-outstanding ordinary shares. For example, in February 2024, we sold ADSs representing 58.3 million ordinary shares in an underwritten offering resulting in gross proceeds of $350.0 million, and we also sold ADSs representing 33.3 million ordinary shares to BioNTech in a private placement, resulting in gross proceeds of $200.0 million.

We filed a resale registration statement on Form S-3 to register the ADSs we sold to BioNTech in 2024. Additionally, we filed two “resale” registration statements on Form F-3 under the Securities Act in 2022, followed by a resale registration statement on Form S-1 under the Securities Act in 2025, to register a total of approximately 33.4 million of our ordinary shares, or securities convertible into our ordinary shares, held by certain of our investors, allowing these shares or ADSs to be sold in the public market. If these shares or ADSs are sold, or if it is perceived that they will be sold, in the public market, the trading price of our ADSs could decline.

Table of contents

Our senior management, directors and principal shareholders, if they choose to act together, have the ability to control or significantly influence all matters submitted to our shareholders for approval.

Members of our senior management, directors and current beneficial owners of 5% or more of our ordinary shares and their respective affiliates beneficially own, in the aggregate, a majority of our outstanding ordinary shares (including ordinary shares in the form of ADSs). As a result, if these shareholders were to choose to act together, they would be able to control or significantly influence all matters submitted to our shareholders for approval, as well as our management and affairs. For example, these persons, if they choose to act together, would control or significantly influence the election of directors and approval of any merger, consolidation or sale of all or substantially all of our assets.

This concentration of ownership control may harm the market price of our ADSs by:

•delaying, deferring, or preventing a change in control;

•entrenching our management and/or the board of directors;

•impeding a merger, scheme of arrangement, consolidation, takeover, or other business combination involving us; or

•discouraging a potential acquirer from making a tender offer or otherwise attempting to obtain control of us.

In addition, some of these persons or entities may have interests different than yours. For example, because many of these shareholders purchased their shares at prices substantially lower than our current trading price and have held their shares for a longer period, they may be more interested in selling our company to an acquirer than other investors, or they may want us to pursue strategies that deviate from the interests of other shareholders.

The rights of our shareholders may differ from the rights typically offered to shareholders of a U.S. corporation.

We are incorporated under English law. The rights of holders of ordinary shares and, therefore, certain of the rights of holders of our ADSs, are governed by English law, including the provisions of the U.K. Companies Act 2006 (the “Companies Act”), and by our Articles of Association. These rights differ in certain respects from the rights of shareholders in typical U.S. corporations.

Holders of our ADSs may not have the same voting rights as the holders of our ordinary shares and may not receive voting materials in time to be able to exercise their right to vote.

Holders of the ADSs do not have the same rights as our shareholders and in accordance with the provisions of the deposit agreement, will not be able to exercise voting rights attaching to the ordinary shares evidenced by the ADSs on an individual basis. The Depositary or its nominee will act as the representative for the holders of the ADSs and will exercise the voting rights attached to the ordinary shares represented by the ADSs. Holders of our ADSs may not receive voting materials in time to instruct the Depositary to vote, and it is possible that they, or persons who hold their ADSs through brokers, dealers or other third parties, will not have the opportunity to exercise a right to vote. Furthermore, the Depositary will not be liable for any failure to carry out any instructions to vote, for the manner in which any vote is cast or for the effect of any such vote. As a result, holders of our ADSs may not be able to exercise voting rights and may lack recourse if their ADSs are not voted as requested. In addition, holders of our ADSs will not be able to call a shareholders’ meeting.

Holders of our ADSs may not receive distributions on our ordinary shares represented by the ADSs or any value for them if it is illegal or impractical to make them available to holders of ADSs.

Although we do not have any present plans to declare or pay any dividends, in the event we declare and pay any dividend, the Depositary for the ADSs has agreed to pay to holders of our ADSs the cash dividends or other distributions it or the custodian receives on our ordinary shares or other deposited securities after deducting its fees and expenses. Holders of our ADSs will receive these distributions in proportion to the number of our ordinary shares their ADSs represent. However, in accordance with the limitations set forth in the deposit agreement, it may be unlawful or impractical to make a distribution available to holders of the ADSs. We have no obligation to take any other action to permit distribution on the ADSs, ordinary shares, rights or anything else to holders of the ADSs. This means that holders of our ADSs may not receive the distributions we make on our ordinary shares or any value from them if it is unlawful or impractical to make them available to you. These restrictions may have an adverse effect on the value of the ADSs.

Because we do not anticipate paying any cash dividends on our ADSs in the foreseeable future, capital appreciation, if any, will be our ADS holders’ and shareholders’ sole source of gains and they may never receive a return on their investment.

Under current English law, a company’s accumulated realized profits must exceed its accumulated realized losses (on a non-consolidated basis) before dividends can be paid. Therefore, we must have distributable profits before issuing a dividend. We have never declared or paid a dividend on our ordinary shares in the past, and we currently intend to retain our future earnings, if any, to fund the development and growth of our business. As a result, capital appreciation, if any, on our ADSs will be our ADS holders’ sole source of gains for the foreseeable future, and they will suffer a loss on their investment if they are unable to sell their ADSs at or above the price at which they purchased the ADSs.

Table of contents

If we are a PFIC, there could be adverse U.S. federal income tax consequences to U.S. Holders.

Under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, (the “Code”), we will be a PFIC, for any taxable year in which (1) 75% or more of our gross income consists of passive income or (2) 50% or more of the average quarterly value of our assets consists of assets that produce, or are held for the production of, passive income, including cash (other than certain cash held in non-interest bearing accounts for short-term working capital needs). For purposes of these tests, passive income includes dividends, interest, gains from the sale or exchange of investment property and certain rents and royalties. In addition, for purposes of the above calculations, a non-U.S. corporation that directly or indirectly owns at least 25% by value of the shares of another corporation is treated as if it held its proportionate share of the assets and directly received its proportionate share of the income of such other corporation.

If we are a PFIC for any taxable year during which a U.S. holder holds our ADSs, the U.S. holder may be subject to adverse tax consequences regardless of whether we continue to qualify as a PFIC, including ineligibility for any preferred tax rates on capital gains or on actual or deemed dividends, interest charges on certain taxes treated as deferred, and additional reporting requirements.

Based on our analysis of our income, assets, activities and market capitalization, we believe we were not a PFIC for our taxable year ended December 31, 2025. However, the determination of whether we are a PFIC is a fact-intensive determination made on an annual basis and the applicable law is subject to varying interpretation. In particular, the characterization of our assets as active or passive may depend in part on our current and intended future business plans, which are subject to change. In addition, for our current and future taxable years, the total value of our assets for PFIC testing purposes may be determined in part by reference to the market price of our ordinary shares or ADSs from time to time, which may fluctuate considerably. Under the income test, our status as a PFIC depends on the composition of our income which will depend on the transactions we enter into in the future and our corporate structure. The composition of our income and assets is also affected by how, and how quickly, we spend the cash we raise in any offering. Even if we determine that we are not a PFIC for a taxable year, there can be no assurance that the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”), will agree with our conclusion and that the IRS would not successfully challenge our position. Accordingly, our U.S. counsel expresses no opinion with respect to our PFIC status for our taxable year ended December 31, 2024, or any future taxable year.

Future changes to tax laws could materially adversely affect our company and reduce net returns to our shareholders.

Our business and our ADSs and ordinary shares are subject to changes in tax laws, regulations and treaties, or the interpretation thereof, and tax policy initiatives and reforms under consideration or being implemented by tax authorities in the jurisdictions in which we operate, including in connection with the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting, or BEPS, Project of the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, or OECD, and initiatives of the European Commission.

Such changes may include (but are not limited to) the taxation of operating income, investment income, dividends received or (in the specific context of withholding tax) dividends paid, or the stamp duty or stamp duty reserve tax treatment of our ADSs or ordinary shares. We are unable to predict what tax reform may be proposed or enacted in the future or what effect such changes would have on our business, but such changes, to the extent they are brought into tax legislation, regulations, policies or practices, could affect our financial position and overall or effective tax rates in the future in countries where we have operations, reduce post-tax returns to our shareholders, and increase the complexity, burden and cost of tax compliance.

Tax authorities may disagree with our positions and conclusions regarding certain tax positions, or may apply existing rules in an unforeseen manner, resulting in unanticipated costs, taxes or non-realization of expected benefits.

A tax authority may disagree with tax positions that we have taken, which could result in increased tax liabilities. For example, His Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (“HMRC”), the U.S. IRS or another tax authority could challenge our allocation of income by tax jurisdiction and the amounts paid between our affiliated companies pursuant to our intercompany arrangements and transfer pricing policies, including amounts paid with respect to our intellectual property development. Similarly, a tax authority could assert that we are subject to tax in a jurisdiction where we believe we have not established a taxable connection, often referred to as a “permanent establishment” under international tax treaties, and such an assertion, if successful, could increase our expected tax liability in one or more jurisdictions. A tax authority may take the position that material income tax liabilities, interest and penalties are payable by us, in which case, we expect that we might contest such assessment. Contesting such an assessment may be lengthy and costly and if we were unsuccessful in disputing the assessment, the implications could increase our anticipated effective tax rate, where applicable.

We may be unable to use net operating loss and tax credit carryforwards and certain built-in losses to reduce future tax payments or benefits from favorable U.K. tax legislation.

As a U.K. resident entity, we are subject to U.K. corporate taxation. Due to the nature of our business, we have generated losses since inception. As of December 31, 2025, we had cumulative carryforward tax losses of $953.6 million. Subject to any relevant utilization criteria and restrictions (including those that limit the percentage of profits that can be reduced by carried forward losses and those that can restrict the use of carried forward losses where there is a change of ownership of more than half the ordinary shares of the company and a major change in the nature, conduct or scale of the trade), we expect these to be eligible for carry forward and utilization against future operating profits.

Table of contents

Research and development, or R&D, expenditure is presented net of reimbursements from reimbursable tax and expenditure credits from the U.K. government. As a company that carries out extensive R&D activities, we benefit from the U.K. R&D tax credit regime.

With effect from our accounting period commencing January 1, 2025, we no longer qualify as a Small and Medium-sized Enterprise, or SME, and are therefore entitled to make claims solely under the R&D expenditure credit, or RDEC, scheme, under which we may only be able to receive cash payments or other tax relief at a rate of up to 16.2% (and not a higher rate available for “R&D-intensive” companies under the SME R&D tax credit regime). The U.K. R&D tax credit regime’s rules are complex, and if a tax authority were to challenge or seek to disallow our claims (in whole or in part, whether under RDEC or otherwise), for example by asserting that we do not (or the relevant expenditure does not) meet the technical conditions to be granted tax credits (or cash rebates), then a successful challenge or disallowance could have a material impact on our cash-flow and financial performance. In addition, future changes to the U.K. R&D tax credit regime (including changes in HMRC practice in respect of such regime) may mean that we no longer qualify or have a material impact on the extent to which we can make claims (or benefit from them). We may also benefit in the future, when we generate profits subject to U.K. corporate taxation, from the U.K.’s “Patent Box” regime, which allows certain profits attributable to revenues from patented products (and other qualifying income) to be taxed at an effective rate of 10% by giving an additional tax deduction.

We are the exclusive licensee or owner of one patent and several patent applications which, if issued, would cover our product candidates, and accordingly, future upfront fees, milestone fees, product revenues and royalties could be eligible for this reduced tax rate. When taken in combination with the enhanced relief available on R&D expenditures, we expect a long-term rate of corporation tax lower than statutory to apply to us. If, however, there are unexpected adverse changes to the U.K. R&D tax credit regime or the “patent box” regime, or for any reason we are unable to qualify for such advantageous tax legislation, or we are unable to use net operating loss and tax credit carryforwards and certain built-in losses to reduce future tax payments then our business, results of operations and financial condition may be adversely affected. This may impact our ongoing requirement for investment and the timeframes within which additional investment is required.

We have been advised by HMRC that the sale of our obe-cel CAR T therapy to U.K. customers in the future will be considered an exempt supply from a U.K. VAT perspective. Consequently, Autolus Limited has reassessed and commenced restricting the amount of U.K. VAT it reclaims. The restriction is based on an estimate of our U.K. market turnover as a percentage of global turnover. We currently expect revenue from U.K. customers to only represent a small proportion of our overall activity. If the proportion of revenue from U.K. customers increases this would further restrict the amount of U.K. input VAT which we are able to recover.

We have incurred, and will continue to incur, significant costs and demands upon management as a result of being a public company, and our management have devoted, and will continue to devote, substantial time to existing and new compliance initiatives.

As a public company listed in the United States, we incur significant legal, accounting and other expenses. These expenses will likely become even more significant now that we no longer qualify as an emerging growth company under SEC rules. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the listing requirements of Nasdaq and other applicable securities rules and regulations impose various requirements on public companies in the United States, including the establishment and maintenance of effective disclosure and financial controls and corporate governance practices. Our senior management and other personnel will need to devote a substantial amount of time to these compliance initiatives. Moreover, these rules and regulations increase our legal and financial compliance costs and will make some activities more time-consuming and costly. For example, we expect that these rules and regulations may make it more difficult and more expensive for us to maintain director and officer liability insurance, which in turn could make it more difficult for us to attract and retain qualified senior management personnel or members for our board of directors.

As a foreign private issuer, we are permitted to and follow certain home country practices in relation to corporate governance matters that differ significantly from Nasdaq corporate governance listing standards applicable to public companies organized in the United States. These practices may afford less protection to shareholders than they would enjoy if we complied fully with Nasdaq corporate governance listing standards.

We are entitled to rely on a provision in Nasdaq’s corporate governance rules that allows us to follow English corporate law with regard to certain aspects of corporate governance. This allows us to follow certain corporate governance practices that differ in significant respects from the corporate governance requirements applicable to domestic issuers listed on Nasdaq.

Table of contents

We are not subject to Nasdaq Listing Rule 5605(b)(2) because English law does not require that independent directors regularly have scheduled meetings at which only independent directors are present. Similarly, we have adopted a compensation committee, but English law does not require that we adopt a compensation committee or that such committee be fully independent. As a result, our practice varies from the requirements of Nasdaq Listing Rule 5605(d), which sets forth certain requirements as to the responsibilities, composition and independence of compensation committees. English law requires that we disclose information regarding compensation of our directors for services as a director of an undertaking that is our subsidiary undertaking and as a director of any other undertaking of which a director is appointed by virtue of our nomination (directly or indirectly) but not other third-party compensation of our directors or director nominees. As a result, our practice varies from the third-party compensation disclosure requirements of Nasdaq Listing Rule 5250(b)(3). In addition, while we have a compensation committee, English law does not require that we adopt a compensation committee or that such committee be fully independent. Additionally, we are not subject to Nasdaq Listing Rule 5605(e) because, under English law, director nominees are not required to be selected or recommended for selection by either a majority of the independent directors or a nominations committee comprised solely of independent directors.

Furthermore, English law does not have a regulatory regime for the solicitation of proxies applicable to us, thus our practice varies from the requirement of Nasdaq Listing Rule 5620(b), which sets forth certain requirements regarding the solicitation of proxies. In addition, we have opted out of shareholder approval requirements for the issuance of securities in connection with certain events such as the acquisition of stock or assets of another company, the establishment of or amendments to equity-based compensation plans for employees, a change of control of us and certain private placements.

To this extent, our practice will vary from the requirements of Nasdaq Listing Rule 5635, which generally requires an issuer to obtain shareholder approval for the issuance of securities in connection with such events. In addition, while we have adopted a code of business conduct and ethics, English law does not require us to publicly disclose waivers from this code that have been approved by our board within four business days. We expect to report any such waivers on our website in lieu of any SEC filing. Moreover, we are not required to comply with Regulation FD, which restricts the selective disclosure of material information, although we have voluntarily adopted a corporate disclosure policy substantially similar to Regulation FD. These exemptions and leniencies will reduce the frequency and scope of information and protections to which you may otherwise have been eligible in relation to a U.S. domestic issuer.

As a result, our practice varies from the requirements for domestic issuers pursuant to Nasdaq Listing Rule 5610.

In accordance with our Nasdaq listing, our audit committee is required to comply with the provisions of Section 301 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and Rule 10A-3 of the Exchange Act, both of which are also applicable to Nasdaq listed U.S. companies. Because we are a foreign private issuer, however, our audit committee is not subject to additional requirements applicable to Nasdaq listed U.S. companies, including an affirmative determination that all members of the audit committee are “independent,” using more stringent criteria than those applicable to us as a foreign private issuer, subject to certain phase-in requirements permitted by Rule 10A-3 of the Exchange Act.

We may lose our foreign private issuer status in the future or reporting exemptions for foreign private issuers may be reduced, which could result in significant additional costs and expenses.

As discussed above, we are a foreign private issuer, and therefore, we are not required to comply with all of the periodic disclosure and current reporting requirements of the Exchange Act. The determination of foreign private issuer status is made annually on the last business day of an issuer’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter, and, accordingly, the next determination will be made with respect to us on June 30, 2026. We would lose our foreign private issuer status if, for example, more than 50% of our ordinary shares are directly or indirectly held by residents of the United States and we fail to meet additional requirements necessary to maintain our foreign private issuer status.

If we lose our foreign private issuer status on this determination date, we would have to comply with U.S. federal proxy requirements, and our officers, directors and principal shareholders would become subject to the short-swing profit disclosure and recovery provisions contained in Section 16 of the Exchange Act. In addition, we would lose our ability to rely upon exemptions from certain corporate governance requirements under the Nasdaq listing rules. As a U.S. listed public company that is not a foreign private issuer, we would incur significant additional legal, accounting and other expenses that we do not currently incur as a foreign private issuer, as well as increased accounting, reporting and other expenses in order to maintain a listing on a U.S. securities exchange. If we lose our foreign private issuer status and are unable to devote adequate funding and the resources needed to maintain compliance with U.S. securities laws, while continuing our operations, we could be forced to deregister with the SEC. A deregistration would substantially reduce or effectively terminate the trading of our securities in the United States.

We also expect that if we were required to comply with the rules and regulations applicable to U.S. domestic issuers, it would make it more difficult and expensive for us to obtain director and officer liability insurance, and we may be required to accept reduced coverage or incur substantially higher costs to obtain coverage. These rules and regulations could also make it more difficult for us to attract and retain qualified members of our board of directors.

Table of contents

Provisions in the U.K. City Code on Takeovers and Mergers that may have anti-takeover effects do not currently apply to us.

Under transitional provisions that apply until February 2, 2027, the U.K. City Code on Takeovers and Mergers (the “Takeover Code”), applies to an offer for, among other things, a public company whose registered office is in the U.K. if the company is considered by the Panel on Takeovers and Mergers (the “Takeover Panel”), to have its place of central management and control in the U.K. (or the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man). This is known as the “residency test.” The test for central management and control under the Takeover Code is different from that used by the U.K. tax authorities.

Under the Takeover Code, the Takeover Panel will determine whether we have our place of central management and control in the U.K. by looking at various factors, primarily where the directors are resident.

In June 2019, the Takeover Panel Executive confirmed that, based on our current circumstances, we are not subject to the Takeover Code. As a result, our shareholders are not entitled to the benefit of certain takeover offer protections provided under the Takeover Code. We believe that this position is unlikely to change at any time in the near future but, in accordance with good practice, we will review the situation on a regular basis and consult with the Takeover Panel if there is any change in our circumstances which may have a bearing on whether the Takeover Panel would determine our place of central management and control to be in the U.K.. From February 3, 2027, the Takeover Code will not apply to us unless our securities are admitted to trading in the UK, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man.

You may face difficulties in protecting your interests, and your ability to protect your rights through the U.S. federal courts may be limited, because we are incorporated under the laws of England and Wales, conduct most of our operations outside the United States and most of our directors, and many members of our senior management, reside outside the United States.

We are incorporated and have our registered office in, and are currently existing under the laws of, England and Wales. In addition, most of our tangible assets are located outside of the United States, and most of our directors, and many members of our senior management, reside outside of the United States. As a result, it may not be possible to serve process within the United States on certain directors or us or to enforce judgments obtained in U.S. courts against such directors or us based on civil liability provisions of the securities laws of the United States. As a result, it may not be possible for investors to effect service of process within the United States upon such persons or to enforce judgments obtained in U.S. courts against them or us, including judgments predicated upon the civil liability provisions of the U.S. federal securities laws.

The United States and the U.K. do not currently have a treaty providing for recognition and enforcement of judgments (other than arbitration awards) in civil and commercial matters. Consequently, a final judgment for payment given by a court in the United States, whether or not predicated solely upon U.S. securities laws, would not automatically be recognized or enforceable in the U.K.. In addition, uncertainty exists as to whether English courts would entertain original actions brought in the U.K. against us or our directors or senior management predicated upon the securities laws of the United States or any state in the United States. Any final and conclusive monetary judgment for a definite sum obtained against us in U.S. courts would be treated by English courts as a cause of action in itself and sued upon as a debt at common law so that no retrial of the issues would be necessary, provided that certain requirements are met.

Whether these requirements are met in respect of a judgment based upon the civil liability provisions of the U.S. securities laws, including whether the award of monetary damages under such laws would constitute a penalty, is subject to determination by the court making such decision. If an English court gives judgment for the sum payable under a U.S. judgment, the English judgment will be enforceable by methods generally available for this purpose. These methods generally permit the English court discretion to prescribe the manner of enforcement.

As a result, U.S. investors may not be able to enforce against us or certain of our directors any judgments obtained in U.S. courts in civil and commercial matters, including judgments under the U.S. federal securities laws.

As an English public limited company, certain capital structure decisions will require shareholder approval, which may limit our flexibility to manage our capital structure.

On June 18, 2018, we altered the legal status of our company under English law from a private limited company by re-registering as a public limited company and changing our name from Autolus Therapeutics Limited to Autolus Therapeutics plc. English law provides that a board of directors may only allot shares (or rights to subscribe for or convertible into shares) with the prior authorization of shareholders, such authorization stating the aggregate nominal amount of shares that it covers and valid for a maximum period of five years, each as specified in the articles of association or relevant shareholder resolution.

We obtained authority from our shareholders at our Annual General Meeting held on June 28, 2024 to allot additional shares (or to grant rights to subscribe for or to convert any security into our shares) for a period of five years from June 28, 2024, up to a maximum nominal amount of $8,400, which authorization will need to be renewed upon expiration (i.e., at least every five years) but may be sought more frequently for additional five-year terms (or any shorter period).

Table of contents

English law also generally provides shareholders with preemptive rights when new shares are issued for cash. However, it is possible for the articles of association, or for shareholders to pass a special resolution at a general meeting, being a resolution passed by at least 75% of the votes cast, to disapply preemptive rights. Such a disapplication of preemptive rights may be for a maximum period of up to five years from the date of adoption of the articles of association, if the disapplication is contained in the articles of association, or from the date of the shareholder special resolution, if the disapplication is by shareholder special resolution. In either case, this disapplication would need to be renewed by our shareholders upon its expiration (i.e., at least every five years). We obtained authority from our shareholders at our Annual General Meeting held on June 28, 2024 to disapply preemptive rights for a period of five years from June 28, 2024 up to a maximum nominal amount of $8,400, which disapplication will need to be renewed upon expiration (i.e., at least every five years) to remain effective, but may be sought more frequently for additional five-year terms (or any shorter period).

English law also generally prohibits a public company from repurchasing its own shares without the prior approval of shareholders by ordinary resolution, being a resolution passed by a simple majority of votes cast, and other formalities. Such approval may be for a maximum period of up to five years.

Our articles of association provide that the courts of England and Wales are the exclusive forum for the resolution of all shareholder complaints other than complaints asserting a cause of action arising under the Securities Act and the Exchange Act, and that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York will be the exclusive forum for the resolution of any shareholder complaint asserting a cause of action arising under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act.

Our articles of association provide that the courts of England and Wales are to be the exclusive forum for resolving all shareholder complaints (i.e., any derivative action or proceeding brought on behalf of us, any action or proceeding asserting a claim of breach of fiduciary duty owed by any of our directors, officers or other employees, any action or proceeding asserting a claim arising out of any provision of the Companies Act or our articles of association or any action or proceeding asserting a claim or otherwise related to the affairs of our company) other than shareholder complaints asserting a cause of action arising under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, and that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York will be the exclusive forum for resolving any shareholder complaint asserting a cause of action arising under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act. In addition, our articles of association provide that any person or entity purchasing or otherwise acquiring any interest in our shares is deemed to have notice of and consented to these provisions.

This choice of forum provision may limit a shareholder’s ability to bring a claim in a judicial forum that it finds favorable for disputes with us or our directors, officers or other employees, which may discourage such lawsuits. The enforceability of similar exclusive forum provisions (including exclusive federal forum provisions for actions, suits or proceedings asserting a cause of action arising under the Securities Act) in other companies’ organizational documents has been challenged in legal proceedings, and there is uncertainty as to whether courts would enforce the exclusive forum provisions in our articles of association. Additionally, our shareholders cannot waive compliance with the federal securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder. If a court were to find either choice of forum provision contained in our articles of association to be inapplicable or unenforceable in an action, we may incur additional costs associated with resolving such action in other jurisdictions, which could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

If equity research analysts do not publish research or reports, or publish unfavorable research or reports, about us, our business or our market, the price and trading volume of our ADSs could decline.

The trading market for our ADSs is influenced by the research and reports that equity research analysts publish about us and our business. We currently have research coverage by several equity research, industry or financial analysts. The price of our ADSs could decline if one or more analysts covering our business downgrade our ADSs or issue other unfavorable commentary or research about us. If one or more equity research analysts ceases coverage of us or fails to publish reports on us regularly, demand for our ADSs could decrease, which in turn could cause the trading price or trading volume of our ADSs to decline.

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments

None.

Item 1C. Cybersecurity

Risk management and strategy

Our information security function is led by our Chief Information Officer, whose team is responsible for leading enterprise-wide cybersecurity strategy, policy, standards, architecture, and processes.

100

Table of contents

The information security function identifies and assesses risks from cybersecurity threats by monitoring and evaluating our threat environment and our risk profile using various methods including, for example, manual tools and automated tools, conducting scans of the threat environment, evaluating our and our industry’s risk profile, evaluating threats reported to us, internal and external audits, leveraging third party threat assessments, and conducting vulnerabilities assessments. In addition, our employees and contractors receive periodic training under our IT security policies, including simulated intrusion attempts, and are required to certify compliance with our cybersecurity practices. In February 2025, we obtained ISO 27001 certification for our information security management systems.

Depending on the environment or system, we implement and maintain various technical, physical, and organizational measures, processes, standards and policies designed to manage and mitigate material risks from cybersecurity threats to our Information Systems and Data, including, for example: an information security policy, access management procedures, data back-up and restoration policy, cyberattack response procedure, network security controls, data segregation for certain data, encryption of certain data, access controls, physical controls, systems monitoring, penetration testing, employee training, and cybersecurity insurance.

Our assessment and management of material risks from cybersecurity threats are integrated into our overall risk management processes. We use third-party service providers to assist us from time to time to identify, assess, and manage material risks from cybersecurity threats, including for example cybersecurity consultants, cybersecurity service providers, and penetration testing services. The results of those assessments and reviews are reported to senior management and the board of directors, including the Audit Committee, by the Head of IT, as appropriate.

In addition, updates on our cyber risks and threats, the status of projects to strengthen our information security systems, assessments of the information security program, and the emerging threat landscape may also be reported to senior management and the board of directors, including the Audit Committee, by the Head of IT, as appropriate. Our senior management team and board of directors include several members with operational experience overseeing IT operations, including risk assessment and implementation of security measures. As of the date of this report, we are not aware of any material risks from cybersecurity threats, that have materially affected or are reasonably likely to materially affect us, including our business strategy, results of operations, or financial condition.

We use third-party service providers to perform a variety of functions throughout our business, such as CROs, contract manufacturing organizations, and other distributors, including those who process clinical trial data on our behalf. Depending on the nature of the services provided, the sensitivity of the critical systems, information and assets at issue, and the identity of the provider, our third-party risk management process may involve different levels of assessment designed to help identify cybersecurity risks associated with a provider, including, for example, a review of security assessments and imposition of contractual obligations related to cybersecurity on the provider.

For a description of the risks from cybersecurity threats that may materially affect us and how they may do so, see our risk factors under Part 1. Item 1A. Risk Factors in this Annual Report, including “If our information technology systems or data, or those of third parties with whom we work, are or were compromised, we could experience adverse consequences resulting from such compromise, including but not limited to regulatory investigations or actions; litigation; fines and penalties; disruptions of our business operations; reputational harm; loss of revenue or profits; and other adverse consequences.”

Governance

Management is responsible for identifying and assessing cybersecurity risks on an ongoing basis, establishing processes designed to ensure that such potential cybersecurity risk exposures are monitored, putting in place appropriate mitigation and remediation measures, and maintaining cybersecurity programs. Our cybersecurity programs are managed under the direction of our Head of IT and monitors the prevention, detection, mitigation, and remediation of cybersecurity risks. Management regularly updates the board of directors on the Company’s cybersecurity programs, material cybersecurity risks and mitigation strategies and provides regular cybersecurity updates.

Our board of directors has overall oversight responsibility for our risk management and has charged our Audit Committee with oversight of our cybersecurity risk management program. The board and Audit Committee are responsible for ensuring that management has policies and processes in place designed to identify, monitor, assess and respond to cybersecurity, data privacy and other information technology risks to which the Company is exposed and implement processes and programs to manage cybersecurity risks and mitigate cybersecurity threats and incidents.

101

Table of contents

Item 2. Properties

Our corporate headquarters are located at the MediaWorks, 191 Wood Lane, White City, London W12 7FP, United Kingdom, where we lease 32,673 square feet of office and laboratory space. We entered the lease in November 2018 with a rent-free period at the beginning of the lease term until August 2020. In addition, in January 2026, we entered into an amendment to the lease agreement that extended the lease term into November 2035. The amendment provides certain rent-free and reduced rent periods as an incentive, and includes a break window during which the Company may terminate the lease early in exchange for payment of a pre-specified rent penalty.

Since September 2017, the Company has had an arrangement with Cell Therapy Catapult Limited to lease manufacturing suites at the Cell and Gene Therapy Catapult manufacturing center in Stevenage, United Kingdom. In March 2023, the parties mutually agreed: (i) to terminate the lease relating to a leased manufacturing suite (known as Module 7) which originally had a lease term until February 2025, (ii) to extend the lease term of Module 3, one of the remaining manufacturing suites, from June 2023 to August 2024, and (iii) to extend the lease term of Module 4 a third manufacturing suite leased by the Company from September 2023 to August 2024. In addition, during the year ended December 31, 2023, the Company recognized a loss on disposal on leasehold improvements of $3.8 million arising from the lease termination of Module 7 on March 31, 2023. In August 2024, the lease term for Module 3 ended and the Company vacated the suite. In September 2024, the Company extended the lease term for Module 4 from August 2024 to December 2026; the Company currently uses this space for clinical manufacturing activities.

In February 2019, we entered into a lease for a manufacturing facility, consisting of approximately 39,558 square feet, in Enfield, U.K.. The lease term is 15 years, commencing in February 2019, with an option to terminate the lease in February 2029. We initially planned on initiating manufacturing activities at this facility in 2020; however, following a strategic review of our manufacturing plan, we chose to discontinue the fit-out of manufacturing capability at the Enfield facility in December 2019. In March 2021, one of the units was split in two separate units and we surrendered one of those units back to the landlord. In October 2021, we subleased a portion of the facility to third party tenants over lease terms from October 2021 to February 2029 and October 2026, respectively.

In September 2021, we entered into an arrangement for lease with Forge Life Sciences Nominee (“Landlord”), an affiliate of the Reef Group, for the design, construction and lease of a new 70,000 square foot commercial manufacturing facility in Stevenage, U.K.. Under this arrangement, the Landlord leased the facility, which is called “The Nucleus,” to us on agreed terms, upon satisfaction of certain conditions and completion of construction. Since November 2022, the Landlord handed over various portions of the facility to us until its practical completion on July 31, 2023. We were required to pay a pro-rated license fee for each portion of the facility which we had been granted access until the execution of the lease agreement. On September 19, 2023, we entered into a 20 year lease agreement with the Landlord for The Nucleus. On September 10, 2024, we and Landlord completed a variation of the lease for the manufacturing facility, related to additional works at the site. The Landlord will provide funding for certain specified improvements to the facility (the “Works”), which we committed to undertake on a mutually agreed schedule. Funding received for the Works done are deemed lease incentives in accordance with ASC Topic 842, Leases. The main Works will complete in March 2026. The deed of variation does not affect the lease term, which continues to run for 20 years from September 19, 2023. However, the deed of variation provides for enhanced rental payments according to a specified formula, commencing in December 2025. The Nucleus will have a GMP cell manufacturing capacity of approximately 2,000 batches a year. We anticipate that the size and layout of the Nucleus will allow for further increases in this capacity.

In September 2021, we also entered into a lease agreement for 2,762 square feet of laboratory and office space in Gaithersburg, Maryland, with a term until March 2024. In September 2023, we extended the original lease term to March 2027. In November 2025, we decommissioned the laboratory space but continue to use the office space.

We also lease shared office facilities in Weil Am Rhein, Germany, and Basel, Switzerland. The German lease runs through March 2027, and the Swiss lease through October 2027. Each lease will automatically renew if we do not provide notice of termination in accordance with the applicable terms.

We anticipate leasing additional office and manufacturing space as we add employees, and we believe that suitable additional or substitute space will be available as needed to accommodate any such expansion of our operations.

Item 3. Legal Proceedings

None.

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosure

Not applicable

102

Table of contents

PART II

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

Our ADSs have been listed on Nasdaq since June 22, 2018 and are traded under the symbol “AUTL”. Each ADS represents one ordinary share. Our ordinary shares are not listed.

Stockholders

As of March 26, 2026, we had approximately 31 holders of record of our ordinary shares (including shares in the form of ADSs). The actual number of holders of our ordinary shares is greater than this number of record holders and includes shareholders who are beneficial owners, but whose shares or ADSs are held in street name by brokers or held by other nominees. The number of holders of record also does not include shareholders whose shares or ADSs may be held in trust by other entities.

Dividend Policy

We have never declared or paid cash dividends on our ordinary shares and do not expect to pay dividends on our ordinary shares for the foreseeable future.

Sales of Unregistered Securities

Except as disclosed in our previous filings with the SEC, we did not sell any unregistered securities during the year ended December 31, 2025.

Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

We did not repurchase any of our equity securities during the year ended December 31, 2025.

Stock Performance Graph

Notwithstanding any statement to the contrary in any of our previous or future filings with the SEC, the following information relating to the price performance of our ADSs shall not be deemed “filed” with the SEC or “soliciting material” under the Exchange Act and shall not be incorporated by reference into any such filings.

The following graph compares the cumulative total shareholder return on our ADSs with that of the Nasdaq Biotechnology Index (“NBI”) and Nasdaq 100 Index for the five years ended December 31, 2025. The NBI has been chosen as an appropriate comparator as it comprises similar companies to us in the pharmaceuticals and biotechnology sectors.

103

Table of contents

Item 6. [Reserved]

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

The following discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations should be read together with our consolidated financial statements and related notes appearing elsewhere in this Annual Report. Some of the information contained in this discussion and analysis or set forth elsewhere in this Annual Report, including information with respect to our plans and strategy for our business and related financing, includes forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. As a result of many factors, including those set forth in the Item 1A. “Risk Factors” section of this Annual Report, our actual results could differ materially from the results described in or implied by these forward-looking statements. Please also see the section titled “Special Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements.”

We maintain our books and records in pounds sterling, our results are subsequently translated to U.S. dollars and we prepare our consolidated financial statements in accordance with U.S. GAAP. All references in this Annual Report to “$” are to U.S. dollars and all references to “£” are to pounds sterling. Our consolidated balance sheets as of December 31, 2025 and 2024 have been translated from pounds sterling into U.S. dollars at the rate of £1.00 to $1.3455 and £1.00 to $1.2535, respectively. Our consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive loss and consolidated statements of cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2025 and 2024 have been translated from pounds sterling to U.S. dollars at the rate of £1.00 to $1.3181, £1.00 to $1.2779, respectively. These translations should not be considered representations that any such amounts have been, could have been or could be converted into U.S. dollars at that or any other exchange rate as of that or any other date.

Autolus, AUCATZYL and our other trademarks or service marks appearing in this report are our property. Solely for convenience, the trademarks and trade names in this report are referred to without the ® and TM symbols, but such references should not be construed as any indicator that their respective owners will not assert, to the fullest extent under applicable law, their rights thereto. Products or service names of other companies mentioned in this report may be trademarks, trade names or service marks of their respective owners.

Overview

We are an early commercial-stage biopharmaceutical company developing next-generation programmed T cell therapies for the treatment of cancer and autoimmune diseases. Using our broad suite of proprietary and modular T cell programming technologies, we are engineering precisely targeted, controlled and highly active T cell therapies that are designed to better recognize target cells, break down their defense mechanisms and attack and kill these cells. We believe our programmed T cell therapies have the potential to be best-in-class and to offer patients substantial benefits over the existing standard of care, including the potential for cure in some patients.

Since our inception, we have incurred significant operating losses. For the years ended December 31, 2025 and 2024, we incurred net losses of $287.5 million and $220.7 million, respectively. As of December 31, 2025, we had an accumulated deficit of $1,386.8 million.

Based on our current commercial and development plans, we believe our existing cash and cash equivalents of $104.1 million and available for sale debt securities (“marketable securities”) of $196.6 million at December 31, 2025, will be sufficient to fund our current and planned operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements through at least the next twelve months from the date of this Annual Report. This forecast of cash resources is forward-looking information that involves risks and uncertainties, and the actual amount of our revenues and expenses, which we have based on assumptions that may prove to be wrong and could prove to be significantly higher than we currently anticipate, could vary materially and adversely as a result of a number of factors. Management does not know whether additional financing will be on terms favorable or acceptable to us when needed, if at all. If adequate additional funds are not available when required, or if we are unsuccessful in entering into partnership agreements for further development of our product candidates, management may need to curtail its development efforts and planned operations.

104

Table of contents

Recent Developments

AUCATZYL launch:

•We reported net product revenue of $74.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2025, driven by sales in the United States.

•Following a successful National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) evaluation in the United Kingdom, AUCATZYL launched in the United Kingdom in December 2025 and is now available under routine commissioning.

•Data from the Real-World Outcomes Collaborative for CAR T in Adult ALL (“ROCCA”) Consortium database evaluating patient characteristics, toxicity and response after real-world administration of AUCATZYL was presented at the American Society of Hematology (“ASH”) Annual Meeting in December 2025 and the TANDEM meeting in February 2026. Real-world data show improvements in both safety and efficacy compared to the FELIX clinical trial that was the basis for regulatory approvals. The ROCCA Consortium registry covers approximately 60% of U.S. commercial patients at a data cutoff of January 5, 2026.

Obe-cel updates:

Obe-cel data in r/r B-ALL

•Preliminary data from the CATULUS Phase 1 trial of obe-cel in pediatric relapsed or refractory r/r B-ALL patients were presented at the ASH Annual Meeting in December 2025. Obe-cel demonstrated high remission rates in pediatric patients with high-risk r/r B-ALL with overall response rate (ORR) of 95.5%. Low rates of high-grade cytokine release syndrome (“CRS”) and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (“ICANS”) were observed, consistent with obe-cel’s adult safety profile. The Phase 2 portion of the trial is underway and Autolus expects to have the trial fully enrolled in the first half of 2027.

•In October 2025, the FDA granted regenerative medicine advanced therapy (“RMAT”) designation to obe-cel for the treatment of pediatric patients with r/r B-ALL. The RMAT designation is a program created under the 21st Century Cures Act to accelerate development and regulatory review of regenerative medicine therapies, including cell therapies, intended to treat serious or life-threatening diseases.

Obe-cel in lupus nephritis (“LN”)

•Data from the ongoing Phase 1 CARLYSLE trial in patients with severe refractory systemic lupus erythematosus were reported at the American College of Rheumatology Convergence 2025 and the ASH Annual Meeting. All patients show deep B-cell depletion after infusion, suggesting an immune reset. No ICANS or high-grade CRS were observed in the nine patients evaluable for safety.

•Data support progressing obe-cel as a treatment for LN and 50 million cells was selected as the recommended Phase 2 dose.

•We have previously aligned with the FDA on a Phase 2 trial design in LN and potential registrational path to approval. The LUMINA trial is now enrolling.

Obe-cel in progressive multiple sclerosis (“MS”)

•We have advanced obe-cel into initial clinical development to explore treatment in progressive MS. The first patient in the Phase 1 BOBCAT trial was dosed in October 2025. The Phase 1 trial, expected to include up to 18 adult patients, will determine the safety, tolerability, and preliminary efficacy of obe-cel in participants with refractory progressive forms of MS. Initial data from the Phase 1 trial are expected to be reported at the end of 2026.

AUTO8 in AL-Amyloidosis

•The first patient was dosed in the Phase 1 ALARIC trial evaluating AUTO8 in light-chain amyloidosis and initial data is expected to be reported at the end of 2026.

Early stage pipeline programs and collaborations:

•Autolus’ translational programs with UCL continue to fuel its early-stage pipeline, providing a cost-efficient path to development to support long-term growth

•In November 2025, Moderna announced that the first patient has been dosed in a Phase 1/2 study of mRNA-2808, an investigational mRNA-based T-cell engager for participants with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. mRNA-2808 utilizes Autolus’ proprietary binder that was licensed to Moderna in 2022.

105

Table of contents

Strategic Financing Agreements

BioNTech

On February 6, 2024, we, through our wholly owned subsidiaries, Autolus Limited and Autolus Holdings (UK) Limited entered into a License and Option Agreement (the “License Agreement”) with BioNTech SE (“BioNTech”) pursuant to which we granted to BioNTech an exclusive, worldwide, sublicensable license (the “License”) to certain binders and to exploit products that express in vivo such binders (collectively, the “Binder Licensed Products”).

In addition to the License, under the License Agreement we granted to BioNTech several time-limited options (the “Options”) to acquire additional rights to specified clinical-stage product candidates, binders and technologies, described in more detail below. In the event that all Options are fully exercised, we would be eligible to receive future maximum aggregate payments of up to $582.0 million pursuant to the License Agreement. This maximum amount includes the potential milestone payments for the Binder Licensed Products described below, all option exercise fees and potential milestone payments for licenses to optioned products and technologies, and additional payments that BioNTech may pay to us for an increased revenue interest with respect to obe-cel as described below.

License and Options

In consideration for the License and the Options, BioNTech has made an initial payment to us of $10.0 million. We are eligible to receive milestone payments of up to $32.0 million in the aggregate upon the achievement of specified clinical development and regulatory milestones for each Binder Licensed Product that achieves such milestones. We are also eligible to receive a low single-digit royalty on net sales of Binder Licensed Products, subject to customary reductions, which reductions are subject to specified limits. The royalty will be increased if BioNTech, its affiliates or sublicensees commercialize a Binder Licensed Product in an indication and country in which we or our affiliates or licensees also commercialize a product containing the same binders. Under the License Agreement, BioNTech is solely responsible for, and has sole decision-making authority with respect to, at its own expense, the exploitation of Binder Licensed Products.

Under the terms of the License Agreement, we have agreed to grant BioNTech the following time-limited Options:

There is also a cap on milestone payments across all agreements entered into as the result of BioNTech exercising one or more of the Technology Options and a cap on the royalty rate payable on any given product for which multiple Options are exercised.

Obe-cel Product Revenue Interest

Under the License Agreement, BioNTech has also agreed to financially support the expansion of the clinical development program and planned commercialization of obe-cel. In exchange for our grant of rights to future revenues from the sales of obe-cel products, BioNTech made an upfront payment to us of $40 million. We will pay BioNTech a low single-digit percentage of annual net sales of obe-cel products, including revenues from sales of AUCATZYL, which may be increased up to a mid-single digit percentage in exchange for milestone payments of up to $100 million in the aggregate on achievement of certain regulatory events for specific new indications upon BioNTech's election. During the year ended December 31, 2025, we made quarterly payments of the revenue interest to BioNTech in an aggregate amount of $1.5 million

106

Table of contents

Manufacturing and Commercial Agreement

Under the terms of the License Agreement, we have granted BioNTech the option to negotiate a joint manufacturing and commercial services agreement pursuant to which we and they may access and leverage each other’s manufacturing and commercial capabilities, in addition to our commercial site network and infrastructure, with respect to certain of each parties’ CAR T products, including BioNTech’s product candidate BNT211 (the “Manufacturing and Commercial Agreement”). The term of this option expired in August 2025, 18 months following execution of the License Agreement.

Securities Purchase Agreement, Registration Rights Agreement and Letter Agreement

Concurrently with the execution of the License Agreement, we and BioNTech entered into a Securities Purchase Agreement (the “Purchase Agreement”) pursuant to which we issued and sold 33.3 million ADSs to BioNTech at $6.00 per ADS for aggregate gross proceeds of $200.0 million. We agreed to register those shares as described in the Registration Rights Agreement. Pursuant to the Letter Agreement, BioNTech also has the right to appoint a non-executive director of the Company and to purchase equity securities sold by us in bona fide financing transactions in amounts that are based on BioNTech maintaining specified ownership thresholds following such financing transactions.

Blackstone

Pursuant to the Blackstone Collaboration Agreement, Blackstone agreed to pay the Company up to $150.0 million to support the continued development of obe-cel, as well as next generation product therapies of obe-cel in B-cell malignancies. These payments include (i) an upfront payment of $50.0 million and (ii) up to $100.0 million payable based on the achievement of certain specified clinical, manufacturing and regulatory milestones (each such payment, a “Blackstone Development Payment” and collectively, the “Blackstone Development Payments”)

In November 2021, the upfront payment of $50.0 million was paid by Blackstone upon execution of the Blackstone Collaboration Agreement. In December 2022, two Blackstone Development Payments were paid by Blackstone of $35.0 million each as a result of (i) the joint steering committee’s review of Autolus’ interim analysis of pivotal FELIX Phase 2 clinical trial of obe-cel in relapsed/refractory (“r/r”) adult Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (“B-ALL”) and (ii) achievement of a pre-agreed manufacturing milestone as a result of completion of planned activities demonstrating the performance and qualification of the Company’s obe-cel’s manufacturing process. In December 2024, the remaining $30.0 million Blackstone Development Payment was paid to the Company on the approval of AUCATZYL by the FDA. The Company considers the achievement of the specified regulatory milestone as probable when actually achieved (i.e., when the contingency resolves). During the year ended December 31, 2025, we made quarterly payments of the revenue interest to Blackstone in an aggregate amount of $2.8 million.

Financial Operations Overview

Product Revenue, Net

As of December 31, 2025, our product revenue comprised of sales of AUCATZYL in the U.S. We use Cardinal Health 105, LLC (“Cardinal Health”) as an agent to deliver the Company's product, AUCATZYL, to Authorized Treatment Centers (“ATCs”). The ATCs are responsible for the treatment of the patient including administration of the product which occurs in two separate doses. Cardinal Health is obligated to pay us for the product upon the delivery and acceptance of the product at the ATC within standard payment terms. The ATC is obligated to pay Cardinal Health for the product upon receipt and acceptance of the product and is entitled to a credit, in certain circumstances, including when the patient is not administered one or both doses.

On April 1, 2025, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) included AUCATZYL in their published Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System coding determinations and Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System payment rates, formalizing reimbursement for patients on government programs. The CMS policy splits the therapeutic dose of AUCATZYL into two administrations for coding and billing purposes.

We account for product revenues pursuant to the provisions of ASC Topic 606, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (“ASC 606”). Under ASC 606, the Company recognize revenue when the customer obtains control of promised goods or services, in an amount that reflects the consideration that the entity expects to receive in exchange for those goods or services. To determine revenue recognition for arrangements we determine are within the scope of ASC 606, we perform the following five steps: (i) identify the contract(s) with a customer; (ii) identify the performance obligations in the contract; (iii) determine the transaction price, including variable consideration, if any; (iv) allocate the transaction price to the performance obligations in the contract; and (v) recognize revenue when (or as) the entity satisfies a performance obligation. We only apply the five-step model to contracts when it is probable that we will collect the consideration to which it is entitled in exchange for the goods or services it transfers to the customer.

107

Table of contents

We have determined that the patient is the customer pursuant to ASC 606 in the arrangement. We have identified a single performance obligation which is satisfied when the patient has received its final dose of the product. The Company records an accounts receivable on the balance sheet when product sales are invoiced and the final dose of the product has been administered to the patient.

In the quarter ended December 31, 2025, we revised our revenue recognition policy to conclude the patient is the customer in the transaction and that revenue should not be recognized until the administration of the final dose to the patient. We had previously recognized a portion of the transaction price as revenue upon the first dose and the remainder of the transaction price as revenue upon the second dose. Further, we had recorded accounts receivable and deferred revenue upon delivery of the product to the ATC. The impact of our revised revenue recognition policy was not considered material to any previously issued financial statements.

Product revenue, net of gross-to-net deductions, is recognized only to the extent that a significant reversal in the amount of cumulative revenue recognized is not probable of occurring when the uncertainty associated with gross-to-net deductions is subsequently resolved. Product revenue is recognized net of estimated rebates and chargebacks, patient travel assistance and patient co-pay assistance deductions. These deductions to product revenue are referred to as gross-to-net deductions and are estimated and recorded in the period in which the related product revenue occurs.

Gross-to-net deductions

Rebates and chargebacks

Rebates and chargebacks are based on contractual arrangements or statutory requirements and include amounts due to payors and healthcare providers under various programs. These amounts may vary by payor and individual plans. Providers qualified under certain programs can purchase our products through our third-party logistics partner at a discount. Our third party logistics partner then charges the discount back to us.

Rebates and chargebacks are estimated primarily based on product sales, including pricing, historical and estimated payor mix, setting of care and discount rates, among other inputs, which require significant estimates and judgment. We assess and updates our estimates each reporting period to reflect actual claims and other current information.

Our wholly-owned subsidiary in the United States also participates in programs with government entities, the most significant of which are the covered entities under the 340B Drug Pricing Program (the “340B Program”), the U.S. Department of Defense (the “DoD”), and the US. Department of Veterans Affairs (the “VA”), whereby pricing on products is extended below list price to participating entities. These entities purchase products at the lower program price then charge the Company the difference between their acquisition cost and the lower program price. The price differential is accrued for as part of the gross to net liabilities and will be reflected as a reduction to accounts receivable, net when actual chargeback is processed and applied.

Our wholly-owned subsidiary in the United States further participates in state government Medicaid programs and the DoD's Tricare program. All discounts and rebates provided through these programs are included in the Company's Medicaid and Tricare rebate accrual. The estimated amount of unpaid or unbilled rebates are to be recognized and presented as a liability.

Patient Travel, Lodging and Meal Assistance

Travel, lodging, and meal assistance represents financial assistance to qualified patients and their caregiver, reimbursing them for certain travel, lodging, and meal expenses required during their treatment. We expense the actual expenses made during the period and accrue the estimated unreported or unrecorded expenses at period end.

Patient Co-Pay Assistance

Co-pay assistance represents financial assistance to qualified patients, assisting them with cost sharing obligations for our product based on benefit design structure required by insurance. Our accrual for copay is based on an estimate of claims and the cost per claim that we expect to receive associated with qualified patients that exist at each reporting period.

License Revenue

We account for our revenue pursuant to the provisions of ASC 606. As of December 31, 2025, we have entered into various license agreements which included non-refundable upfront license fees, options for future commercial licenses, payments based upon achievement of clinical development and regulatory objectives, payments based upon achievement of certain levels of product sales, and royalties on licensed product sales.

In determining the appropriate amount of revenue to be recognized in relation to each license agreement, we perform the following steps: (i) identify the promised goods or services in the contract; (ii) determine whether the promised goods or services are performance obligations, including whether they are distinct in the context of the contract; (iii) measure of the transaction price, including the constraint on variable consideration; (iv) allocate the transaction price to the performance obligations based on estimated selling prices; and (v) recognize of revenue when (or as) we satisfy each performance obligation.

108

Table of contents

License Fees and Multiple Element Arrangements

If a license to our intellectual property is determined to be distinct from the other performance obligations identified in the arrangement, we recognize revenues from non-refundable, upfront fees allocated to the license at such time as the license is transferred to the licensee and the licensee is able to use, and benefit from the license. For licenses that are bundled with other promises, we utilize judgment to assess the nature of the combined performance obligations to determine whether the combined performance obligations are satisfied over time or at a point in time and, if over time, the appropriate method of measuring progress for purposes of recognizing revenue from non-refundable, upfront fees. We evaluate the measure of progress at each reporting period and, if necessary, adjust the measure of performance and related revenue recognition.

Appropriate methods of measuring progress include output methods and input methods. In determining the appropriate method for measuring progress, we consider the nature of service that we promise to transfer to the customer. When we decide on a method of measurement, we will apply that single method of measuring progress for each performance obligation satisfied over time and will apply that method consistently to similar performance obligations and in similar circumstances.

Customer Options

If an arrangement is determined to contain customer options that allow the customer to acquire additional goods or services, the goods and services underlying the customer options that are not determined to be material rights are not considered to be performance obligations at the outset of the arrangement, as they are contingent upon option exercise. We evaluate the customer options for material rights, or options to acquire additional goods or services for free or at a discount. If the customer options are determined to represent a material right, the material right is recognized as a separate performance obligation at the outset of the arrangement. We allocate the transaction price to material rights based on the relative standalone selling price, which is determined based on any identified discount and the probability that the customer will exercise the option. Amounts allocated to a material right are not recognized as revenue until, at the earliest, the option is exercised.

Contingent Research Milestone Payments

ASC 606 constrains the amount of variable consideration included in the transaction price in that either all, or a portion, of an amount of variable consideration should be included in the transaction price. The variable consideration amount should be included only to the extent that it is probable that a significant reversal in the amount of cumulative revenue recognized will not occur when the uncertainty associated with the variable consideration is subsequently resolved. The assessment of whether variable consideration should be constrained is largely a qualitative one that has two elements: the likelihood of a change in estimate, and the magnitude thereof. Variable consideration is not constrained if the potential reversal of cumulative revenue recognized is not significant, for example.

If the consideration in a contract includes a variable amount, we will estimate the amount of consideration in exchange for transfer of promised goods or services. The consideration also can vary if our entitlement to the consideration is contingent on the occurrence or non-occurrence of a future event. We consider contingent research milestone payments to fall under the scope of variable consideration, which should be estimated for revenue recognition purposes at the inception of the contract and reassessed ongoing at the end of each reporting period.

We assess whether contingent research milestones should be considered variable consideration that should be constrained and thus not part of the transaction price. This includes an assessment of the probability that all or some of the milestone revenue could be reversed when the uncertainty around whether or not the achievement of each milestone is resolved, and the amount of reversal could be significant.

U.S. GAAP provides factors to consider when assessing whether variable consideration should be constrained. All of the factors should be considered, and no factor is determinate. We consider all relevant factors.

Royalty Revenue

For arrangements that include sales-based royalties, including milestone payments based on the level of sales, and the license is deemed to be the predominant item to which the royalties relate, we recognize revenue at the later of (i) when the related sales occur, or (ii) when the performance obligation to which some or all of the royalty has been allocated has been satisfied (or partially satisfied).

109

Table of contents

Cost of Sales

Cost of sales represents production costs including raw materials, employee-related expenses, including salaries, related benefits, travel and share-based compensation expense for employees engaged in commercial manufacturing functions, external manufacturing costs including outsourced professional expenses services, allocated facilities costs, depreciation and other expenses, royalties payable to third-parties and other costs incurred in bringing inventories to their location and condition prior to sale. Cost of sales also includes the cost of all commercial product which is recognized as cost of good sold upon final administration to the patient, any cancelled orders, and product related to the patient access program. Cost of sales may also include costs related to excess or obsolete inventory adjustment charges and amortization expense of intangible assets

Cost of sales for a newly launched product does not include the full cost of manufacturing until the initial pre-launch raw materials inventory is depleted. Thus, the cost of sales as a percentage of net sales of AUCATZYL for the year ended December 31, 2025 was affected by use of the initial pre-launch raw materials inventory, which was previously expensed as research and development expense, and is referred to as zero cost inventories. We estimate cost of sales as a percentage of net product revenue and will continue to be positively impacted as we sell products which includes some raw material inventory that was previously expensed prior to the FDA approval.

Research and Development Expenses, Net

Research and development expenses, net (“R&D”) consist of costs incurred in connection with the research and development of our product candidates, which are partially offset by research and development tax credits, including tax credits arising from the U.K. small and medium enterprise (“SME”) regime and research and development expenditure credit (“RDEC”) regime provided by His Majesty's Revenue and Customs (“HMRC”). We expense research and development costs as incurred. These expenses include:

•expenses incurred under agreements with CROs, as well as investigative sites and consultants that conduct our clinical trials, preclinical studies and other scientific development services;

•manufacturing scale-up expenses and the cost of acquiring and manufacturing preclinical and clinical trial materials;

•employee-related expenses, including salaries, related benefits, travel and share-based compensation expense for employees engaged in research and development functions;

•expenses incurred for outsourced professional scientific development services;

•costs for laboratory materials and supplies used to support our research activities;

•allocated facilities costs, depreciation and other expenses, which include rent and utilities; and

•upfront, milestone and management fees for maintaining licenses under our third-party licensing agreements.

We recognize external development costs based on an evaluation of the progress to completion of specific tasks using information provided to us by our service providers.

Our direct research and development expenses are tracked on a program-by-program basis for our product candidates and consist primarily of external costs, such as fees paid to outside consultants and CROs in connection with our preclinical development, manufacturing and clinical development activities. Our direct research and development expenses by program also include fees incurred under license agreements. We do not allocate employee costs or facility expenses, including depreciation or other indirect costs, to specific programs because these costs are deployed across multiple programs and, as such, are not separately classified. We use internal resources primarily to oversee research and development as well as for managing our preclinical development, process development, manufacturing and clinical development activities.

Research and development activities are central to our business model. Product candidates in later stages of clinical development generally have higher development costs than those in earlier stages of clinical development, primarily due to the increased size and duration of later-stage clinical trials. As a result, we expect that our research and development expenses will increase substantially over the next few years as we increase personnel costs, initiate and conduct additional clinical trials and prepare regulatory filings related to our product candidates. We also expect to incur additional expenses related to milestone, royalty payments and maintenance fees payable to third parties with whom we have entered into license agreements to acquire the rights related to our product candidates.

After consultation, we have been advised by HMRC that any sale of our obe-cel CAR T therapy to United Kingdom customers in the future will be considered an exempt supply from a United Kingdom VAT perspective. Consequently, we have assessed and restricted the amount of United Kingdom VAT we have historically reclaimed and will continue to do so in the future. The restriction will be based on the estimated United Kingdom market turnover as a percentage of global turnover. We currently expect revenue from United Kingdom customers to only represent a small proportion of our overall activity. If the proportion of revenue from United Kingdom customers increases this would further restrict the amount of United Kingdom input VAT recovered. Included in research and development expenses is historical irrecoverable input VAT previously claimed on research and development expenses and subsequently reversed.

110

Table of contents

The successful development and commercialization of our product candidates is highly uncertain. At this time, we cannot reasonably estimate or know the nature, timing and costs of the efforts that will be necessary to complete the clinical development of any of our product candidates or when, if ever, material net cash inflows may commence from sales of any of our product candidates. This uncertainty is due to the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with development and commercialization activities, including the uncertainty of:

•the scope, progress, outcome and costs of our clinical trials and other research and development activities, including establishing an appropriate safety profile with IND-directed studies;

•successful patient enrollment in, and the initiation and completion of, clinical trials;

•the timing, receipt and terms of any marketing approvals from applicable regulatory authorities;

•establishing commercial manufacturing capabilities or making arrangements with third-party manufacturers;

•development and timely delivery of commercial-grade drug formulations that can be used in our clinical trials and for commercial manufacturing;

•obtaining, maintaining, defending and enforcing patent claims and other intellectual property rights;

•significant and changing government regulation;

•launching commercial sales of our product candidates, if and when approved, whether alone or in collaboration with others;

•maintaining a continued acceptable safety profile of the product candidates following approval; and

•significant competition and rapidly changing technologies within the biopharmaceutical industry.

We may never succeed in achieving regulatory approval for any of our product candidates other than AUCATZYL. We may obtain unexpected results from our clinical trials. We may elect to discontinue, delay or modify clinical trials of some product candidates or focus on others. Any changes in the outcome of any of these variables with respect to the development of our product candidates in clinical development could mean a significant change in the costs and timing associated with the development of these product candidates. For example, if the European Medicines Agency (“EMA”), national competent authorities of EU Member States, as applicable, the FDA, the MHRA, or another regulatory authority were to delay our planned start of clinical trials or require us to conduct clinical trials or other testing beyond those that we currently expect or if we experience significant delays in enrollment in any of our planned clinical trials, we could be required to expend significant additional financial resources and time on the completion of clinical development of that product candidate. Commercialization of our product candidates will take several years and millions of dollars in development costs.

U.K. Research and Development Tax Credits

Research and development expenditure is presented net of reimbursements from reimbursable tax and expenditure credits from the United Kingdom government. As a company that carries out extensive research and development activities, we benefit from the Research and Development tax incentives provided by United Kingdom tax legislation. The specific provisions available to claim under vary year on year dependent on the criteria met.

The benefits from United Kingdom research and development tax credits are recognized in the statements of operations and comprehensive loss as a reduction of research and development expenses and represents the sum of the research and development tax credits recoverable in the United Kingdom.

The SME program has been particularly beneficial to us as under such program the trading losses that arise from our qualifying R&D activities can be surrendered for a cash rebate of up to 33.35% of qualifying expenditure incurred prior to April 1, 2023 and decreased to 18.6% after April 1, 2023. The United Kingdom government enacted changes to the SME regime effective from April 1, 2023 which included the introduction of a new rate for R&D intensive companies of 27%. Qualifying expenditures largely comprise of employment costs for research staff, consumables, outsourced contract research organization costs and utilities costs incurred as part of research projects for which we do not receive income. A large proportion of costs relate to our pipeline research, clinical trials management and manufacturing development activities, all of which are being carried out by our subsidiary Autolus Limited, are eligible for inclusion within these tax credit cash rebate claims.

Under the RDEC program, the headline rate for qualifying R&D expenditure is 20% and can generate cash rebates of up to 15% on qualifying R&D expenditure.

Amendments to the current SME and RDEC programs contained in the Finance Act 2024 (unless limited exceptions apply) introduce (i) restrictions on the tax relief that can be claimed for expenditure incurred on sub-contracted R&D activities or externally provided workers, where such activities are not carried out in the United Kingdom or such workers are not subject to United Kingdom payroll taxes, and (ii) merge the SME and RDEC programs into a single scheme which would generate net cash benefit of up to 15% of the qualifying expenditure for profit making companies and up to 16.2% for loss making companies. These changes apply to periods commencing after April 1, 2024.

111

Table of contents

In the accounting period ended December 31, 2025, we will not qualify for relief under the SME program, based on size criteria concerning employee headcount, turnover and gross assets. However, we may make a claim under the merged RDEC regime, as detailed above.

Selling, General and Administrative Expenses

Selling, general and administrative expenses consist primarily of salaries, related benefits, travel and share-based compensation expense for personnel in executive, finance, legal and other administrative functions. Selling, general and administrative expenses also include allocated facility-related costs, patent filing and prosecution costs and professional fees for marketing, insurance, legal, consulting, accounting, termination benefits and related charges, audit services, gains and losses on disposal of property and equipment and impairment of operating lease right of use assets and related property and equipment. Included in selling, general and administrative expenses is historical irrecoverable input VAT previously claimed on selling, general and administrative expenses and subsequently reversed.

We anticipate that our selling, general and administrative expenses will increase in the future as we increase our headcount to support the planned development of our product candidates. We anticipate an increase in salaries and related benefits as a result of our preparation for commercial operations, especially as it relates to the sales and marketing of AUCATZYL and our other product candidates.

We have experienced, and expect to continue to experience, increased expense with being a public company, including increased accounting, audit, legal, regulatory and compliance costs associated with maintaining compliance with Nasdaq listing rules and the SEC requirements, director and officer insurance premiums, as well as higher investor and public relations costs. Additionally, should we fail to maintain our status as a foreign private issuer, we would expect to incur increased expenses to remain compliant with the applicable SEC and Nasdaq requirements.

Other Income, Net

Other income, net consists primarily of sublease income and gains or losses arising from the termination of leases.

Foreign Exchange Gains (Losses), Net

Foreign exchange gains (losses), net consist of foreign currency transaction gains and losses arising from transactions denominated in foreign currencies.

Interest Income

Interest income primarily relates to interest on cash, cash equivalents and available-for-sale debt securities and is presented net of amortization or accretion of the premium or discount on purchase and sales of the debt securities.

Interest Expense, Net

Interest expense, net consists primarily of interest expense arising from amortization of the liabilities related to future royalties and milestones, pursuant to our collaboration agreements with BXLS V - Autobahn L.P, (“Blackstone”) and BioNTech SE (“BioNTech”), using the effective interest rate method. On a quarterly basis, we assess the expected present value of the future Blackstone and BioNTech payments under the Blackstone Collaboration Agreement and BioNTech Agreements which may be received by us and future royalties and sales milestone payments to Blackstone and BioNTech which may be paid by us. To the extent the amount or timing of such receipts or payments is materially different than our previous estimates we record a cumulative catch-up adjustment to the liabilities related to future royalties and milestones. Adjustments to increase or decrease the carrying amount are recognized as an adjustment to interest expense, net in the period in which the change in estimate occurred.

Income Tax Expense

We are subject to corporate taxation in the United Kingdom, United States, Germany and Switzerland. Due to the nature of our business, we have generated losses since inception. Our income tax (expense) benefit recognized represents the sum of income tax payable or receivable in the United Kingdom and in the United States.

112

Table of contents

Un-surrendered U.K. losses may be carried forward indefinitely to be offset against future taxable profits, subject to numerous utilization criteria and restrictions. The amount that can be offset each year is limited to £5.0 million plus an incremental 50% of United Kingdom taxable profits. After accounting for tax credits receivable, we had accumulated tax losses for carry forward in the U.K. of $953.6 million at December 31, 2025 and $545.6 million at December 31, 2024. No deferred tax assets are recognized on our U.K. losses and tax credit carryforwards because there is currently no indication that we will make sufficient taxable profits to utilize these tax losses and tax credit carryforwards. We carry a $3.6 million deferred tax asset balance related to the U.S. entity at December 31, 2025. We have recorded a valuation allowance against the net deferred tax asset where the recoverability due to future taxable profits is unknown. On April 1, 2023 the main rate of the U.K. corporation tax was increased to 25% for companies with profits in excess of £250,000, or the small profits rate of 19% for companies with profits of £50,000 or less (with marginal relief from the main rate available to companies with profits between £50,000 and £250,000).

In the event we generate profits in the future, we may benefit from the U.K. “patent box” regime that allows profits attributable to revenues from patents or patented products to be taxed at an effective rate of 10%.

Results of Operations

Comparison of Years Ended December 31, 2025 and 2024

The following table summarizes our results of operations for the years ended December 31, 2025 and 2024 (in thousands):


	Year Ended December 31,				Change (in thousands)		Change (in percentage)
	2025		2024

Product revenue, net	$	74,318	$	—	$	74,318	—	%
License revenue	1,070		10,120		(9,050)		(89)	%
Total revenue, net	75,388		10,120		65,268		645	%
Cost and operating expenses:
Cost of sales	(96,369)		(11,387)		(84,982)		746	%
Research and development expenses, net	(117,689)		(138,436)		20,747		(15)	%
Selling, general and administrative expenses	(131,874)		(101,723)		(30,151)		30	%


Loss from operations	(270,544)		(241,426)		(29,118)		12	%
Other income, net	515		220		295		134	%
Foreign exchange gains (losses), net	2,163		(989)		3,152		(319)	%
Interest income	18,980		32,355		(13,375)		(41)	%
Interest expense, net	(36,670)		(9,294)		(27,376)		295	%
Total other income (expense), net	(15,012)		22,292		(37,304)		(167)	%
Net loss before income tax	(285,556)		(219,134)		(66,422)		30	%
Income tax expense	(1,972)		(1,528)		(444)		29	%
Net loss	$	(287,528)	$	(220,662)	$	(66,866)	30	%

Product Revenue, Net

During the year ended December 31, 2025, we generated product revenue, net amounting to $74.3 million, from the sale of AUCATZYL in the United States. We did not generate any product revenue for the year ended December 31, 2024, as AUCATZYL was approved by the FDA for commercial use on November 8, 2024 and was not launched in the U.S. market until 2025.

License Revenue

License revenue amounting to $1.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2025 related primarily to license revenue recognized pursuant to the License and Option Agreement with Moderna. During the year ended December 31, 2025, we were notified by Moderna of the achievement of a clinical milestone of $1.0 million relating to one of our proprietary binders that was licensed in 2022. License revenue of $10.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2024 primarily related to license revenue recognized pursuant to the License and Option Agreement with BioNTech.

Cost of Sales

Cost of sales increased by $85.0 million to $96.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2025 from $11.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2024 relating to increase in salaries and other employment related costs, including share-based compensation expense, for employees engaged in manufacturing activities related to AUCATZYL, as well as outsourced professional services. It also consisted of direct production costs relating to commercial product manufactured, and allocated facility costs including maintenance, depreciation, utilities and rent. Cost of sales was recognized from November 8, 2024, the date of the FDA approval of AUCATZYL.

113

Table of contents

Certain manufacturing expenses incurred prior to AUCATZYL receiving the FDA approval were classified as research and development expenses, resulting in zero cost related to inventory. If cost of sales included previously expensed inventories, the total cost of sales with these manufacturing costs included would have increased by approximately $8.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2025.

Research and Development Expenses, Net

The following tables provide additional detail on our R&D expenses (in thousands):


	Year Ended December 31,				Change (in thousands)		Change (in percentage)
	2025		2024
Direct research and development expenses
B cell malignancies (Obe-cel & AUTO1/22)	$	38,177	$	24,370	$	13,807	57	%
Other projects (AUTO4, AUTO5, AUTO6, AUTO7 & AUTO8)	2,592		2,003		589		29	%
Total direct research and development expense	40,769		26,373		14,396		55	%

Indirect research and development expenses and unallocated costs:
Personnel related (including share-based compensation)	57,269		74,329		(17,060)		(23)	%
Indirect research and development expense*	19,651		37,734		(18,083)		(48)	%
Total Research and Development Expenses, Net	$	117,689	$	138,436	$	(20,747)	(15)	%
* Indirect research and development expense includes U.K. research and development tax credits

Research and development expenses, net decreased by $20.7 million to $117.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2025 from $138.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2024 primarily due to:

•a decrease of $22.2 million related to our information technology infrastructure, support for information systems, facility costs and depreciation, including the allocation of expense from research and development to cost of sales and inventories related to commercial manufacturing following the FDA approval of AUCATZYL in November 2024; and

•a decrease of $19.3 million in salaries and other employment related costs including share-based compensation expense, which was mainly driven by the reallocation of employees to commercial manufacturing activities included in cost of sales and inventories; offset by

•a decrease of $15.1 million in U.K. R&D tax credits (increase in R&D expense) due primarily to a decrease in qualifying research and development expenditures;

•an increase of $4.4 million in research and development activities including, clinical manufacturing costs, clinical CRO costs and other related activities; and

•an increase of $1.3 million in legal fees and professional consulting fees in relation to our research and development activities.

Selling, General and Administrative Expenses

Selling, general and administrative expenses increased by $30.2 million to $131.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2025 from $101.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2024 primarily due to:

•an increase of $20.4 million in salaries, other employment related costs and termination benefits including share-based compensation expenses, which was mainly driven by an increase in the number of employees engaged in general and administrative activities;

•an increase of $6.9 million in information technology infrastructure and support for information systems, facility costs, depreciation and impairment on right of use assets and related property and equipment relating to the conduct of corporate and commercial operations including increase in space utilized for these activities; and

•an increase of $2.9 million in commercial costs, including legal and professional fees due to increased activity in support of U.S. and international market access;.

114

Table of contents

Foreign Exchange Gains (Losses), Net

Foreign exchange gains (losses), net increased to a gain of $2.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2025 from a loss of $1.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2024. The (loss)/gain arises on a variety of items, including on U.S. dollar monetary assets and liabilities held by our main operating subsidiary in the U.K., including our cash and cash equivalents and liabilities related to future royalties and milestones.

Interest Income

Interest income decreased to $19.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2025, as compared to $32.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2024. The decrease in interest income of $13.4 million primarily relates to lower aggregate balances and yield associated with our cash, cash equivalents and available-for-sale securities during the year ended December 31, 2025 as compared to the year ended December 31, 2024.

Interest Expense, Net

Interest expense, net increased to $36.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2025 as compared to $9.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2024. Interest expense, net increased by $27.4 million primarily due to changes in the assumptions used in the valuation of the Collaboration Agreement with Blackstone and the BioNTech License and Option Agreement for the year ended December 31, 2025 compared to the year ended December 31, 2024.

Income Tax Expense

Income tax expense increased to $2.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2025 as compared to $1.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2024. Income tax expenses increased by $0.4 million primarily due to an increase in Autolus Inc.'s taxable income due to the recognition of product revenue, net and related intra-group recharges during the year ended December 31, 2025 compared 2024.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

Since our inception, we have incurred operating losses and negative cash flows from our operations. We expect to incur significant expenses and operating losses for the foreseeable future as we market AUCATZYL and advance our other product candidates through preclinical and clinical development and seek regulatory approval and pursue commercialization of any additional approved products. As a result, we will need significant additional capital to fund our operations until such time as we can generate significant revenue from sales of AUCATZYL or other products.

As of November 8, 2024, we have one product approved for commercial sale in the United States, AUCATZYL, of which the first commercial sale of AUCATZYL in the United States was made during January 2025. We have funded our operations to date primarily with proceeds from government grants, sales of our equity securities including ADSs, through public offerings and pursuant to our at-the-market equity facility, through U.K. research and development tax credits and receipts from the SME and RDEC schemes, out-licensing arrangements, strategic collaboration agreements and sale of our commercial product. From our inception in 2014 through December 31, 2025, we have raised an aggregate of $1.8 billion from these capital sources.

As of December 31, 2025, we had cash and cash equivalents on hand of $104.1 million and available-for-sale debt securities of $196.6 million.

Cash Flows

The following table summarizes our cash flows for each of the periods presented (in thousands):


	Year Ended December 31,
	2025		2024
Net cash used in operating activities	$	(283,568)	$	(206,271)
Net cash provided by (used in) investing activities	158,458		(394,552)
Net cash (used in) provided by financing activities	(4,339)		589,554
Effect of exchange rate changes on cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash	6,279		(261)
Net decrease in cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash	$	(123,170)	$	(11,530)

115

Table of contents

Net Cash Used in Operating Activities

During the year ended December 31, 2025, operating activities used $283.6 million of cash, resulting from our net loss of $287.5 million, and net cash used resulting from changes in our operating assets and liabilities of $52.0 million, partially offset by non-cash charges of $55.9 million. The non-cash charges related to interest expense accrued and cumulative catch-up adjustment of $36.4 million, share-based compensation of $14.4 million, inventory reserves and write-offs of $12.3 million, depreciation and amortization of $9.8 million and an impairment of operating lease right-of-use assets and related property and equipment of $0.3 million, which is offset by amortization of available-for-sale securities of $8.2 million, non-cash operating lease expense of $5.7 million, foreign exchange differences of $3.1 million and deferred income tax movement of $0.3 million. Net cash used in operating activities resulting from changes in our operating assets and liabilities for the year ended December 31, 2025 consisted primarily of an increase in inventories of $40.2 million, an increase in accounts receivable of $24.1 million and an increase in increase in prepaid expenses and other current and non-current assets of $4.6 million, offset by an increase of $14.6 million in operating lease liabilities, an increase in accounts payable of $1.3 million, and an increase in accrued expenses and other liabilities of $1.0 million,

During the year ended December 31, 2024, operating activities used $206.3 million of cash, resulting from our net loss of $220.7 million, and net cash used resulting from changes in our operating assets and liabilities of $23.6 million, partially offset by non-cash charges of $38.0 million. The non-cash charges related to interest expense accrued and cumulative catch-up adjustment of $8.9 million, share-based compensation of $15.5 million, depreciation and amortization of $7.6 million, non-cash operating lease expense of $4.7 million, foreign exchange differences of $1.9 million, impairment of operating lease right-of-use assets and related property and equipment of $0.4 million, loss on disposal of leasehold improvements of $0.2 million, and loss on termination of operating lease of $0.2 million which is partially offset by accretion of available-for-sale securities of $1.2 million and a deferred income tax movement of $0.2 million. Net cash used in operating activities resulting from changes in our operating assets and liabilities for the year ended December 31, 2024 consisted primarily of an increase in accrued expenses and other liabilities of $11.9 million, an increase in accounts payable of $1.6 million, offset by a $32.5 million increase in prepaid expenses and other current and non-current assets, an increase in inventories of $4.2 million, and a decrease in a $0.4 million in operating lease liabilities.

Net Cash Provided By (Used In) Investing Activities

During the year ended December 31, 2025, net cash provided by investing activities was $158.5 million, including proceeds from maturities and redemptions of marketable securities: available-for-sale debt securities of $428.2 million, offset by, purchases of marketable securities: available-for-sale securities of $242.6 million, purchases of property and equipment of $19.0 million, and acquisition of intangible assets of $8.1 million.

During the year ended December 31, 2024, we used $394.5 million of cash in investing activities, including purchases of marketable securities of $359.7 million, purchases of property and equipment of $22.1 million, and acquisition of intangible assets of $12.7 million.

Net Cash (Used In) Provided By Financing Activities

During the year ended December 31, 2025, net cash used in financing activities was $4.3 million related to revenue share payments.

During the year ended December 31, 2024, net cash provided by financing activities was $589.6 million related to net aggregate proceeds raised from the BioNTech Agreements, our underwritten offering of ADSs and a Blackstone Development Payment paid by Blackstone to us upon the FDA approval of AUCATZYL.

Funding Requirements

We expect our expenses to increase substantially in connection with our ongoing activities, particularly as we begin to market and sell AUCATZYL, operate our new commercial manufacturing facility and advance the preclinical activities and clinical trials of our other product candidates. Our expenses will increase as we:

•establish and expand our sales, marketing and distribution infrastructure in connection with commercializing AUCATZYL and other product candidates for which we may obtain marketing approval and intend to commercialize on our own or jointly;

•seek regulatory approvals for any other product candidates that successfully complete preclinical and clinical trials;

•hire additional manufacturing, clinical, medical and development personnel;

•expand our infrastructure and facilities to accommodate our growing employee base; and

•maintain, expand and protect our intellectual property portfolio.

116

Table of contents

Our primary uses of capital are compensation and related expenses, clinical costs, external research and development services, laboratory and related supplies, legal and other regulatory expenses, and administrative and overhead costs. Our future funding requirements will be heavily determined by the resources needed to support the development of our product candidates and commercialization of AUCATZYL. We also expect to incur significant commercialization expenses related to product manufacturing, sales, marketing and distribution, depending on where we choose to commercialize. We may also require additional capital to pursue in-licenses or acquisitions of other product candidates.

Based on our current clinical development and commercialization plans, we believe our existing cash and cash equivalents of $104.1 million and available-for-sale debt securities of $196.6 million at December 31, 2025, will enable us to fund our current and planned operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements for at least twelve months from the issuance of this Annual Report. We have based these estimates on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we could utilize our available capital resources sooner than we expect. If we receive regulatory approval for our other product candidates, we expect to incur significant commercialization expenses related to product manufacturing, sales, marketing and distribution, depending on where we choose to commercialize. We may also require additional capital to pursue in-licenses or acquisitions of other product candidates.

Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with research, development and commercialization of pharmaceutical product candidates, we are unable to estimate the exact amount of our working capital requirements. Our future funding requirements will depend on and could increase significantly as a result of many factors, including:

•our ability to continue to execute our commercialization strategies for AUCATZYL and, if approved, any of our other product candidates for which we may receive regulatory approval;

•the scope, progress, outcome and costs of our clinical trials and other research and development activities;

•the costs, timing, receipt and terms of any marketing approvals from applicable regulatory authorities;

•the costs of future activities, including product sales, medical affairs, marketing, manufacturing and distribution, for AUCATZYL or any of our product candidates for which we receive marketing approval;

•the revenue, if any, received from commercial sale of AUCATZYL or our other product candidates, should any receive marketing approval;

•the costs and timing of hiring new employees to support our continued growth;

•the costs of preparing, filing and prosecuting patent applications, maintaining and enforcing our intellectual property rights and defending intellectual property-related claims; and

•the extent to which we in-license or acquire additional product candidates or technologies.

Until such time, if ever, that we can generate product revenue sufficient to achieve profitability, we expect to finance our cash needs through a combination of public or private equity offerings, reimbursable United Kingdom research and development tax credits and receipts from the RDEC scheme, out-licensing agreements, or strategic collaboration agreements. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity, the ownership interest of existing shareholders will be diluted. If we raise additional funds through other third-party funding, collaborations agreements, strategic alliances, out-licensing agreements or marketing and distribution arrangements, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our technologies, future revenue streams, research programs or product candidates or grant licenses on terms that may not be favorable to us. If we are unable to raise additional funds when needed, we may be required to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our product development or future commercialization efforts or grant rights to develop and market products or product candidates that we would otherwise prefer to develop and market ourselves.

Contractual Obligations

Operating Lease, Purchase, and Other Obligations

Operating leases

As of December 31, 2025, we had operating lease obligations of $71.4 million under non-cancellable leases for laboratory and office property in the United Kingdom and the United States. Further details of our operating leases are provided in Note 19 to our consolidated financial statements included in this Annual Report as well as Part I, Item 2 of this Annual Report.

Capital expenditures and purchase obligations

We enter into contracts in the normal course of business with CROs and other third parties for clinical trials and preclinical research studies and testing. These contracts are generally cancellable by us upon prior notice. Payments due upon cancellation consist only of payments for services provided or expenses incurred, including noncancellable obligations of our service providers, up to the date of cancellation.

117

Table of contents

As of December 31, 2025, our unconditional purchase obligations for capital expenditures totaled $1.8 million and included signed orders for capital equipment and capital expenditure for construction and related expenditure relating to our properties in the United Kingdom. We expect to incur the full amount of these obligations within one year.

As of December 31, 2025, our unconditional purchase obligations for reagents and disposables totaled $1.7 million, which we expect to incur within one year.

Financing obligations

Blackstone Collaboration Agreement

Pursuant to the Blackstone Collaboration Agreement, entered into on November 6, 2021, Blackstone agreed to pay us up to $150 million to support the continued development of our CD19 CAR T cell investigational therapy product candidate, obecabtagene autoleucel (obe-cel), as well as next generation product therapies of obe-cel in B-cell malignancies. These payments include (i) an upfront payment of $50 million and (ii) up to $100 million payable based on the achievement of certain specified clinical, manufacturing and regulatory milestones (each such payment, a “Blackstone Development Payment” and collectively, the “Blackstone Development Payments”). In exchange for the Blackstone Development Payments, we agreed to make payments to Blackstone (the “Revenue Share Payments”) equal to a mid-single digit royalty, subject to the Aggregate Cap (as defined in the Blackstone Collaboration Agreement) on payments under the Blackstone Collaboration Agreement, based on net sales anywhere in the world of (i) Collaboration Products in B-cell malignancies, (ii) subject to certain conditions set forth in the Blackstone Collaboration Agreement, its CD19 and CD22 CAR T cell investigational therapy product candidate known as AUTO3 in B-cell malignancies, and (iii) certain Collaboration Products to the extent developed or commercialized in indications other than a B-cell malignancy. We are also obligated to make payments, subject to the Aggregate Cap, if certain cumulative net sales levels are achieved.

In November 2021, the upfront payment of $50 million was paid by Blackstone upon execution of the Blackstone Collaboration Agreement. In December 2022, two Blackstone Development Payments were paid by Blackstone of $35 million each as a result of (i) the joint steering committee’s review of Autolus’ interim analysis of pivotal FELIX Phase 2 clinical trial of obe-cel in relapsed/refractory (“r/r”) adult Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (“B-ALL”) and (ii) achievement of a pre-agreed manufacturing milestone as a result of completion of planned activities demonstrating the performance and qualification of the Company’s obe-cel’s manufacturing process. In December 2024, the remaining $30 million Blackstone Development Payment was paid to the Company on the approval of AUCATZYL by the FDA. The Company considers the achievement of the specified regulatory milestone as probable when actually achieved (i.e., when the contingency resolves). Further details of the Blackstone Collaboration Agreement are provided in Note 12 to our consolidated financial statements included in this Annual Report.

BioNTech Collaboration Agreement

Obe-cel Revenue Interest

Under the BioNTech License Agreement, BioNTech has also agreed to financially support the expansion of the clinical development program and planned commercialization of obe-cel. In exchange for our grant of rights to future revenues from the sales of obe-cel, BioNTech made an upfront payment to us of $40 million. In addition, BioNTech made an upfront payment of $10 million in consideration for licenses and options granted under the agreement. We will pay BioNTech a low single-digit percentage of annual net sales of obe-cel, which may be increased up to a mid-single digit percentage in exchange for milestone payments of up to $100 million in the aggregate on achievement of certain regulatory events for specific new indications upon BioNTech's election.

Critical Accounting Estimates

Our consolidated financial statements are prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP. The preparation of our consolidated financial statements and related disclosures requires us to make estimates and judgments that affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities, costs and expenses, and the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities in our financial statements. We base our estimates on historical experience, known trends and events and various other factors that we believe are reasonable under the circumstances, the results of which form the basis for making judgments about the carrying values of assets and liabilities that are not readily apparent from other sources. We evaluate our estimates and assumptions on an ongoing basis. Our actual results may differ from these estimates under different assumptions or conditions.

While our significant accounting policies are described in more detail in Note 2 to our consolidated financial statements included in this Annual Report, we believe that the following accounting policies are those most critical to the judgments and estimates used in the preparation of our consolidated financial statements.

118

Table of contents

Allocation of transaction price using the relative standalone selling price

Upfront payments are allocated between performance obligations using our best estimate of the relative standalone selling price of the performance obligation. The relative standalone selling price is estimated by determining the market values of development and license obligations. As these inputs are not directly observable, the estimate is determined considering all reasonably available information including internal pricing objectives used in negotiating the contract, taking into account the different stage of development of each development program and consideration of adjusted-market data from comparable arrangements. Where performance obligations have been identified relating to material rights, the determination of the relative standalone selling price of these performance obligations also includes an assessment of the likelihood that the options will be exercised and any payments by the customer that are triggered upon exercising the right. This assessment involves significant judgment and could have a significant impact on the amount and timing of revenue recognition.

An assessment of the allocation of transaction price using the relative standalone selling price was required for the year ended December 31, 2025 and 2024 for the BioNTech License and Option Agreement, the Research, Option and License Agreement with Cabaletta and Research, Option and License Agreement with an investee of Syncona Portfolio Limited, respectively.

Liabilities related to future royalties and milestones, net and cumulative catch-up adjustments

We accounted for the Blackstone Collaboration Agreement (“Blackstone Collaboration Agreement Liability”) and the BioNTech Obe-cel Product Revenue Interest, (“BioNTech Liability”) as liabilities measured at amortized cost based on an effective interest rate determined at the outset of the arrangement. The Blackstone Collaboration Agreement Liability is measured based on our current estimates of the timing and amount of expected future royalty and milestone payments to be paid and the Blackstone Development Payments expected to be received over the estimated term of the agreement. Similarly, the BioNTech Liability is measured based on our current estimates of the timing and amount of expected future royalty expected to be paid over the estimated term of the agreement. Milestone payments pursuant to the BioNTech License and Option Agreement are payable upon BioNTech's election, and therefore have not been included in the determination of the effective interest rate or in the measurement of the liability.

The liabilities are amortized using the effective interest rate, resulting in recognition of interest expense over the estimated term of the agreement. Each reporting period we assess the estimated probability, timing and amount of the future expected royalty, milestone payments, the Blackstone Development Payment over the estimated term. If there are changes to the estimates, we recognize the impact to the liability’s amortization schedule and the related interest expense using the catch-up method.

Our estimate of the probability, timing and amount of expected future royalties and milestones to be paid by us and the expected Blackstone Development Payment to be paid to us, considers significant unobservable inputs. These inputs include regulatory approval, the estimated patient population, estimated selling price, estimated sales, estimated peak sales and sales ramp, timing of the expected launch and its impact on the royalties as well as the overall probability of a success. Additionally, the transaction costs associated with the liability will be amortized to interest expense over the estimated term of the agreements.

The carrying amount of the Blackstone Collaboration Agreement Liability and BioNTech Liability is based on our estimate of the future royalties, milestones to be paid to Blackstone by us and the expected Blackstone Development Payment to be received over the life of the arrangement as discounted using the initial effective interest rate. The excess or deficit of estimated present value of future royalty, milestone payments and the future Blackstone Development Payment received over the carrying amount is recognized as a cumulative catch-up adjustment within interest expense, net using the effective interest rate.

Expected rebate and chargeback percentage for product revenue deductions

Since approval of AUCATZYL in the United States in November 2024, we have a short history of actual rebate claims or chargebacks, and such information may have limited predictive value. We use the expected value method to estimate expected rebate and chargeback percentages for revenue deductions, which considers the likelihood of a rebate or chargeback being applicable to sales. The proportion of sales subject to a rebate or chargeback is inherently uncertain and estimates are based on internal assumptions, which may change as we develop more product experience, and third-party data, which we assess for reliability and relevance.

We are subject to state government Medicaid programs and other qualifying federal and state programs in the United States requiring rebates to be paid to participating state and local government entities, depending on the eligibility and circumstances of patients treated with AUCATZYL.

Our wholly-owned subsidiary in the United States also participates in programs with government entities, the most significant of which are the DoD and the VA, and other parties, including covered entities under the 340B Program, whereby pricing on AUCATZYL is extended below list price to participating entities, including ATCs. These entities are entitled to purchase AUCATZYL at the lower program price by charging the Company the difference between their acquisition cost and the lower program price. Estimating expected rebate and chargeback percentages for revenue deductions is judgmental due to the time delay between the date of the sale to ATCs and the subsequent dates on which we are able to determine actual amounts of chargebacks and rebates.

119

Table of contents

We form estimates of the 340B Program, the DoD and the VA chargeback deductions by analyzing sell-through data relating to the hospital mix of onward sales made by ATCs. For Medicaid and Tricare, we form estimates based on information obtained from claims received, historical and estimated payor mix, setting of care, discount rates and other industry data, and external health coverage statistics. Judgment is applied to consider the relevance and reliability of information used to make these estimates.

Total product revenue deductions for the year ended December 31, 2025 of $7.6 million were related to critical estimates subject to significant estimation uncertainty and judgment, as described above. We recorded $5.0 million within accrued expenses and other current liabilities in the consolidated balance sheet related to these deductions as of December 31, 2025.

We believe our expected values of accruals reported in the consolidated balance sheet are materially appropriate; however, due to the uncertainties and judgments outlined above, it is possible eventual amounts could significantly differ to these estimates.

Recently Issued Accounting Pronouncements

A description of recently issued accounting pronouncements that may potentially impact our financial position and results of operations is disclosed in Note 2, “Summary of Significant Accounting Policies,” to our consolidated financial statements included in this Annual Report.

Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk

We are exposed to market risks in the ordinary course of our business, which are principally limited to interest rate fluctuations and foreign currency exchange rate fluctuations. We maintain significant amounts of cash that are in excess of federally insured limits in various currencies, placed with one or more financial institutions for varying periods according to expected liquidity requirements.

Interest Rate Risk

Our exposure to interest rate sensitivity is primarily impacted by changes in the underlying U.S. and U.K. bank interest rates. As of December 31, 2025 and 2024, we had cash and cash equivalents of $104.1 million and $227.4 million, respectively. Our surplus cash has been invested in interest-bearing savings, money market funds and available for sale debt securities. An immediate hypothetical one percentage point change in interest rates would have resulted in a $1.0 million increase in interest income on our consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive loss for the year ended December 31, 2025.

As of December 31, 2025 and 2024, the Blackstone Collaboration Agreement Liability has a fixed effective interest rate and is not subject to any fluctuations due to interest rates. However, the effective interest rate for the BioNTech Liability may be subject to fluctuations due to the discretionary nature of certain contractual payments to us. We have no other debt outstanding that is subject to interest rate variability. The carrying amount of the Blackstone Collaboration Agreement Liability and BioNTech Liability is based on our estimate of the future royalties, milestones to be paid to Blackstone by us and the expected Blackstone Development Payment to be received over the life of the arrangement as discounted using the initial effective interest rate. The excess or deficit of estimated present value of future royalty, milestone payments and the future Blackstone Development Payment received over the carrying amount is recognized as a cumulative catch-up adjustment within interest expense, net using the effective interest rate.

Foreign Currency Exchange Risk

Foreign currency risk is the risk that the fair value or future cash flows of a financial instrument will fluctuate because of changes in foreign exchange rates. Our exposure to the risk of changes in foreign exchange rates relates primarily to fluctuations in value of foreign currency cash and cash equivalent balances and liabilities relating to future royalties and milestones held by our main operating subsidiary in the United Kingdom, our operating activities in the United States, and outsourced supplier agreements denominated in currencies other than pound sterling. We minimize foreign currency risk by maintaining cash and cash equivalents of each currency at levels sufficient to meet foreseeable expenditure to the extent practical.

As of December 31, 2025, substantially all of our cash and cash equivalents were held by one of our U.K. subsidiaries, of which approximately 36% were denominated in pound sterling and approximately 60% were denominated in U.S. dollars, with immaterial amounts denominated in euros and Swiss francs. The significant remainder of our cash and cash equivalents are held by our U.S. subsidiary and denominated in U.S. dollars.

120

Table of contents

We maintain our accounting records in pounds sterling, our functional currency, and present our consolidated financial statements in U.S. dollars for financial reporting purposes. Monetary assets and liabilities denominated in currencies other than the functional currency are translated into the functional currency at rates of exchange prevailing at the balance sheet dates. Non-monetary assets and liabilities denominated in foreign currencies are translated into the functional currency at the exchange rates prevailing at the date of the transaction. Exchange gains or losses arising from foreign currency transactions are included in the determination of net income (loss) for the respective periods. We recorded a foreign exchange gain of $2.2 million and a foreign exchange loss of $1.0 million for the years ended December 31, 2025 and 2024 respectively in the consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive loss.

Assets and liabilities are translated at the exchange rates at the balance sheet dates and revenue and expenses are translated at the average exchange rates and shareholders’ equity is translated based on historical exchange rates. Translation adjustments are not included in determining net income (loss) but are included in foreign exchange adjustment to accumulated other comprehensive income (loss), a component of shareholders’ equity.

We do not currently engage in currency hedging activities in order to reduce our currency exposure, but we may begin to do so in the future. Instruments that may be used to hedge future risks may include foreign currency forward and swap contracts. These instruments may be used to selectively manage risks, but there can be no assurance that we will be fully protected against material foreign currency fluctuations.

Credit Risk

We are exposed to credit risk from our operating activities, primarily from cash and cash equivalents and available for sale debt securities. Our cash and cash equivalents and available for sale debt securities are held with multiple counterparties for varying periods according to our expected liquidity requirements. We monitor the credit rating of these counterparties on a regular basis. Our investment policy limits investments to certain types of instruments, such as available for sale debt securities, money market funds, bank term deposits and bank notice accounts and places restrictions on maturities and concentration by type and issuer and specifies the minimum credit ratings for all investments and the average credit quality of the portfolio.

Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data

The consolidated financial statements required to be filed pursuant to this Item 8 begin on page F-1 of this Annual Report.

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

None.

Item 9A. Controls and Procedures

Disclosure Controls and Procedures

We maintain “disclosure controls and procedures,” as defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Exchange Act, that are designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed by us in the reports that we file or submit under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported, within the time periods specified in the SEC’s rules and forms, and is accumulated and communicated to our management, including our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, as appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure. In designing and evaluating our disclosure controls and procedures, management recognizes that disclosure controls and procedures, no matter how well conceived and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the objectives of the disclosure controls and procedures are met. Additionally, in designing disclosure controls and procedures, our management necessarily was required to apply its judgment in evaluating the cost-benefit relationship of possible disclosure controls and procedures.

The design of any system of controls also is based in part upon certain assumptions about the likelihood of future events, and there can be no assurance that any design will succeed in achieving its stated goals under all potential future conditions; over time, controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or the degree of compliance with policies or procedures may deteriorate. Because of the inherent limitations in a control system, misstatements due to error or fraud may occur and not be detected.

Our management, with the participation of our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, has evaluated the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) as of December 31, 2025. Based on such evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer have concluded that, as of December 31, 2025, our disclosure controls and procedures were effective.

121

Table of contents

Management’s Annual Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting

Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over our financial reporting. Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) define this as a process designed by, or under the supervision of, our Chief Executive Officer and our Chief Financial Officer and effected by the Board of Directors, management and other personnel, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements in accordance with U.S. GAAP.

Due to its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect all misstatements. Furthermore, projections of any evaluation of the effectiveness of internal controls to future periods may prove invalid due to changes in our circumstances and the risk that compliance with policies, procedures and controls is not sustained.

Management has assessed the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2025, based on the Internal Control - Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. Based on this assessment, our management has concluded that our internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2025 was effective.

Changes in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting

There were no changes in our internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Rule 13a-15(f) of the Exchange Act) that occurred during the fourth quarter of our fiscal year ended December 31, 2025 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.

Attestation Report of the Registered Public Accounting Firm.

This Annual Report does not include an attestation report of our registered public accounting firm due to an exemption for “non-accelerated filers.”

Item 9B. Other Information

Insider Trading Arrangements

During the three months ended December 31, 2025, none of our directors or officers (as defined in Rule 16a-1(f) under the Exchange Act) adopted or terminated a “Rule 10b5-1 trading arrangement” or “non-Rule 10b5-1 trading arrangement,” as each term is defined in Item 408(a) of Regulation S-K.

Transition of Principal Accounting Officer

The Company's Board of directors previously designated Rob Dolski, the Company’s Chief Financial Officer, as the Company’s Principal Financial Officer and the Company’s Principal Accounting Officer for purposes of the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On November 7, 2025, Mr. Dolski notified the Company of his intention to resign as principal accounting officer of the Company; Mr. Dolski continues to serve as the Company’s Chief Financial Officer and Principal Financial Officer. On November 10, 2025, the Board of Directors of the Company appointed Patrick McIlvenny to serve as the principal accounting officer of the Company, effective November 7, 2025. No additional compensation will be paid to Mr. McIlvenny in connection with the performance of these additional duties. There are no arrangements or understandings between Mr. McIlvenny and any other persons, pursuant to which he was appointed to serve as the Company’s principal accounting officer in addition to his current roles, there are no family relationships between Mr. McIlvenny and any of the Company’s other directors or executive officers and there are no transactions between Mr. McIlvenny and the Company that would be required to be disclosed pursuant to Item 404(a) of Regulation S-K.

Item 9C. Disclosure Regarding Foreign Jurisdictions that Prevent Inspections

Not applicable.

122

Table of contents

PART III

Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance

The following table sets forth information regarding members of our senior management and our directors, including their ages as of March 27, 2026. There are no family relationships among any of our senior management or our directors.

NAME

AGE

POSITION(S)

Senior Management:

Christian Itin, Ph.D.

Chief Executive Officer and Director

Robert Dolski

Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer

Alex Driggs

Senior Vice President, Legal Affairs and General Counsel

Patrick McIlvenny

Senior Vice President, Finance and Chief Accounting Officer

Miranda Neville

Senior Vice President, Chief Technology Officer

Cintia Piccina

Senior Vice President, US Chief Commercial Officer and Country GM

Martin Pulé, MBBS

Senior Vice President, Founder, Chief Scientific Officer

Alexander Swan

Senior Vice President, Chief Human Resources Officer

Christopher Vann

Senior Vice President, Chief Operating Officer

Matthias Will, M.D.

Senior Vice President, Chief Development Officer

Christopher Williams, Ph.D.

Senior Vice President, Chief Business Development Officer

Non-Executive Directors:

Michael Bonney

Chairman of the Board of Directors

Robert Azelby

Director

Linda Bain

Director

John Berriman

Director

Cynthia Butitta

Director

Robert Iannone, M.D., M.S.C.E.

Director

Elisabeth Leiderman, M.D.

Director

Ravi Rao, M.D.

Director

Ryan Richardson

Director

William Young, Ph.D.

Director

Senior Management

Christian Itin, Ph.D. has served as our Chief Executive Officer since March 2016 and as a director since October 2014. He served as Chairman of our board of directors from October 2014 to September 2021. Dr. Itin has also served as a board member for Innate Pharma SA since May 2025. Prior to joining us, Dr. Itin served as chief executive officer and chairman of the board of directors at Cytos Biotechnology Ltd, a biotechnology company, from November 2012 until it merged with Kuros Biosurgery Holding Ltd in January 2016. From January 2016 until June 2018, he served as chairman, and from June 2018 to May 2019 as non-executive director, of Kuros Biosciences Ltd. Prior to that, Dr. Itin served as president, chief executive officer and director of Micromet, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, from 2006 until it was acquired by Amgen Inc. in 2012. From 1999 until 2006, he served in a number of capacities with Micromet, Inc.’s subsidiary, Micromet AG, including head of IP and licensing, vice president of business and corporate development, chief business officer and ultimately as its chief executive officer. Before joining Micromet, Dr. Itin was a co-founder of Zyomyx, a protein chip company. Dr. Itin also served as a non-executive director of Kymab Ltd., a privately held biopharmaceutical company, from 2012 until its sale to Sanofi in April 2021. Dr. Itin received a Diploma in Biology and a Ph.D. in Cell Biology from the University of Basel, Switzerland. In addition, he also performed post-doctoral research at the Biocenter of University of Basel and at the Stanford University School of Medicine. We believe that Dr. Itin is qualified to serve on our board of directors because of his deep knowledge of our company and his extensive experience serving in executive and non-executive leadership positions at other public and private biotechnology companies.

123

Table of contents

Rob Dolski joined Autolus as our Chief Financial Officer in August 2023. He previously served as Chief Financial Officer at Checkmate Pharmaceuticals, from January 2021 until its acquisition by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals in May 2022 where he was responsible for investor relations and the Company’s financial strategy and management. Prior to that he served as Vice President, Finance at Akcea Therapeutics, from May 2019 until its acquisition by Ionis Pharmaceuticals in October 2020, where he held similar finance responsibilities and supported the development and commercialization of several rare disease programs. He has also held senior finance positions at Moderna Therapeutics between June 2016 to May 2019, Forum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Human Genome Sciences, Inc., prior to its acquisition by GlaxoSmithKline. Mr. Dolski started his career at Amgen, Inc. He holds an MBA from The Wharton School and a BSc in civil engineering and strategic management from the University of Pennsylvania.

Alex Driggs has served as our Senior Vice President, Legal Affairs and General Counsel since January 2024. He joined the Company in August 2018 as Vice President, Legal Affairs and General Counsel. Prior to joining Autolus, Mr. Driggs served in roles of escalating responsibility at Sucampo Pharmaceuticals between May 2015 and February 2018, where as Senior Vice President and General Counsel, he oversaw all legal aspects of Sucampo’s acquisition by Mallinckrodt. Earlier in his career, he served as Associate General Counsel for Micromet prior to its acquisition by Amgen, and following the acquisition, as Senior Counsel in the licensing transactions group at Amgen. Mr. Driggs began his legal career as an associate in the Life Sciences and Technology Transactions groups at Cooley LLP. He holds a J.D. from the New York University School of Law and an A.B. in Philosophy from Harvard University.

Patrick McIlvenny has served as our Senior Vice President, Finance and Chief Accounting Officer since November 2025, having previously served as Senior Vice President, Finance from June 2025 to November 2025. Before joining Autolus, Mr. McIlvenny served as Senior Vice President, Chief Accounting Officer for Horizon Therapeutics plc, until its acquisition by Amgen, and in various finance roles of increasing responsibilities at Ardagh Group S.A and Elan Corporation plc. Prior to joining Elan, Mr. McIlvenny worked with PricewaterhouseCoopers and Deloitte. Mr. McIlvenny is a Fellow of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales. He holds a B.A. in Business Studies from Ulster University.

Miranda Neville has served as our Chief Technical Officer since October 2025, having previously served as Chief Project Officer from March 2025 to October 2025, Senior Vice President, Programme and Portfolio Management from July 2023 to March 2025, VP, Head of Programme and Portfolio Management from January 2023 to June 2023, VP, Global Operations & Delivery from October 2021 to January 2023, Executive Director, Global Head of Engineering from October 2020 to October 2021 and Senior Director, Global Engineering from November 2018 to September 2020. Prior to joining Autolus, Ms. Neville was a Partner in the consulting firm AllianceBio, where she spent four years supporting several clinical stage CDMO and commercial biopharmaceutical companies. She started her career at Human Genome Sciences, Inc., where she spent ten years in a variety of roles including manufacturing, engineering & program management, prior to its acquisition by GlaxoSmithKline. Ms. Neville holds a B.S. in Biology from West Virginia University.

Cintia Piccina has served as the U.S. Chief Commercial Officer and Country General Manager since September of 2025, with responsibilities for the US operations and commercialization of AUCATZYL. Prior to joining Autolus, she served as the Chief Commercial Officer at Adaptimmune from February 2022 until June 2023 and from March 2024 until August 2025 where she was responsible for the commercial team, leading commercial development and the design and implementation of the commercialization capabilities for the company, launch readiness for the late stage pipeline, and launch in 2024 of Adaptimmune’s first commercial product in synovial sarcoma, Tecelra, the first engineered cellular therapy product in solid tumors. Before that, she was the Chief Commercial Officer at AlloVir from June 2023 until March 2024 where she led the design and implementation of the commercialization capabilities for the company’s first commercial product, an allogeneic cellular therapy indicated to prevent and treat post-transplant infections, posoleucel. From April 2020 until February 2022, she served as the Head of Commercial at 2Seventy Bio, and as SVP Commercial Oncology and US General Manager, leading the launch of the first cell therapy product in multiple myeloma, Abecma (idecabtagene vicleucel), for bluebird bio. Before that, she spent over 20 years at Novartis, where she held a series of commercial, business franchise leadership, marketing and sales roles across multiple therapeutic areas including oncology. In her last role at Novartis, Ms. Piccina was VP, Global Oncology Cell and Gene Strategy & Program Management Office, for Kymriah (tisagenlecleucel) and the CAR-T pipeline, working with the cross-functional leadership teams for business (marketing, medical affairs, market access), manufacturing, and pipeline. Ms. Piccina graduated in Pharmacy and Biochemistry from University of Sao Paulo, and in Business from Escola Superior de Propaganda e Marketing, Sao Paulo, Brazil.

Martin Pulé, MBBS has served as our Senior Vice President, Founder and Chief Scientific Officer since August 2014. He also served as a member of our board of directors from August 2014 to June 2018. Dr. Pulé has served as a clinical senior lecturer in the Department of Haematology at University College London Cancer Institute since 2010 and as an Honorary Consultant in Haematology at University College London Hospital since 2010. He entered the T cell engineering field in 2001 as a travelling Fulbright Scholar at the Center for Cell and Gene Therapy at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas. Dr. Pulé holds a Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS) from University College Dublin and is a Fellow of the Royal College of Pathologists.

124

Table of contents

Alexander Swan has served as our Chief Human Resources Officer since January 2023. Mr. Swan joined Autolus in May 2018 as our Vice President, Human Resources and was promoted to Senior Vice President, Human Resources in October 2021. Prior to joining Autolus, he was EMEA Head of Human Resources for Kite where he was responsible for all aspects of HR, ranging from talent management, organization development, policy and procedure development and compensation and benefits. Previously Mr. Swan was involved in a number of start-up companies, including Amryt Pharmaceuticals, Taiho Oncology and Aegerion Pharmaceuticals. In these roles he specialized in start-up strategies and processes for HR, preparing and enabling these companies for success. From 2004 to 2012 Mr. Swan was responsible for developing and leading all HR associated activities for Celgene in EMEA. He has also held a number of positions within local government and NHS, helping strategically with talent acquisition and organization development. Mr. Swan holds a master’s degree in law from the University of Leicester and is also a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.

Christopher Vann has served as our Senior Vice President, Chief Operating Officer since October 2016. Prior to joining us, he worked at Hoffmann-La Roche’s Swiss headquarters from February 1994 to September 2016, most recently serving as its commercial director from December 2011 to September 2016 where he was primarily responsible for leading the lung cancer commercial team and general management of the Tarceva brand. Mr. Vann has significant experience of global lifecycle management of oncology products as well as implementing marketing strategy at a regional and national level. This includes launching several oncology, immunology and transplant products in the United States, United Kingdom, Romania, Russia, South Africa and countries in Asia, including Japan. Mr. Vann holds a B.S. in Toxicology and Pharmacology from the School of Pharmacy, University of London.

Matthias Will, M.D., has served as our Chief Development Officer since September 2024. Previously he served as Chief Medical Officer at the privately held biotech company, Dren Bio, Inc., During his tenure, Dr. Will led the expansion of the clinical team and oversaw the submission of two INDs for candidates to potentially treat hematologic cancers. Prior to that he served as Vice President of Clinical Development for CRISPR Therapeutics where he led the development of that company's allogeneic CAR T programs targeting CD70 in T-cell lymphomas and renal cell carcinoma and the early stage CD70-NK cell program in collaboration with NKarta Inc. Previously, Dr. Will was in charge of clinical development at CytomX Therapeutics Inc. and held roles of increasing responsibility in clinical development at Gilead Sciences, Inc. and Novartis Oncology. Earlier in his career he served with McKinsey & Company, where he strategically advised clients in the pharmaceutical industry. Dr. Will received his Medical Degree from the Hannover Medical School and his training in hematology/oncology at the University of Tȕbingen, Germany.

Christopher Williams, Ph.D. has served as our Chief Business Officer since February 2024. Prior to this role, he served as Senior Vice President, Corporate Development from October 2021 until February 2024, and as Vice President, Global Head of Business Development from December 2018 until October 2021. Dr. Williams was part of the team that founded Autolus in 2014 and he initially served as a non-executive director of Autolus Limited, our predecessor entity. In 2016, he transitioned into the Company to establish our business development function as Director, Business Development. Previously he worked at UCL Business where he led the establishment of strategic collaborations, licensing deals, new companies, and financing transactions across a portfolio of cell and gene therapies in oncology and rare diseases. Prior to that he served as non-executive director of Orchard Therapeutics Limited, another company he founded during his tenure at UCL Business, and has worked in business development roles at Thiologics, Canbex and Eli Lilly. He has also worked in research roles at GSK, Inpharmatica and Imperial College London. Dr Williams holds a PhD in Biochemistry from Imperial College London and a B.Sc. in Genetics from Cardiff University.

Non-Executive Directors

Michael Bonney has served as a member of our board of directors since April 2024. He has also served as chair of the board for Santa Ana bio since September 2025. He served as a director of Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. between December 2014 and December 2025; he previously served as chair of Alnylam from December 2015 to August 2021 and as its executive chair from August 2021 to January 2023. Mr. Bonney previously served as the Chair of the board of directors of Kaleido Biosciences, Inc., a biotechnology company, from June 2017 until August 2021. Between August 2018 and October 2020, he served as Kaleido’s Executive Chair and served as Kaleido’s Chief Executive Officer from June 2017 until August 2018. Mr. Bonney was a Partner at Third Rock Ventures, a healthcare venture firm, from January to July 2016. Mr. Bonney previously served as the Chief Executive Officer and a member of the board of directors of Cubist Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company (now a wholly owned subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc.), from June 2003 until his retirement in December 2014. From January 2002 to June 2003, he served as Cubist’s President and Chief Operating Officer. Mr. Bonney previously served as the Chair of the board of directors of Magenta Therapeutics, Inc. and as a director of Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Celgene Corpoartion (which was acquired by Bristol-Myers Squibb), Syros Pharmacetuicals, Inc. and Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. Mr. Bonney holds a B.A. in economics from Bates College. We believe that Mr. Bonney is qualified to serve on our board of directors because of his experience serving in leadership positions at a wide variety of biotechnology companies.

125

Table of contents

Robert Azelby has served as a director since January 2024. Mr. Azelby served as President and Chief Executive Officer of Eliem Therapeutics, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, from October 2020 to February 2023. Prior to Eliem, he served as the Chief Executive Officer of Alder BioPharmaceuticals, Inc. from June 2018 until its acquisition by H. Lundbeck A/S in October 2019. Mr. Azelby previously served as Executive Vice President, Chief Commercial Officer of Juno Therapeutics, Inc. from 2015 through its acquisition by Celgene in March 2018. Earlier, during a 15-year tenure at Amgen, Mr. Azelby served in commercial roles including Vice President and General Manager of Amgen Oncology, Vice President of Oncology Sales, Vice President of the Commercial Effectiveness Unit and General Manager of Amgen Netherlands. He currently serves as a non-executive director of ADC Therapeutics SA since June 2023, of Cardinal Health since March 2024, and of Terns Pharmaceuticals since February 2025. Mr. Azelby previously served on the Board of Directors of Chinook Therapeutics Inc. between April and August 2023, Clovis Oncology Inc. from October 2018 until July 2023, Eliem Therapeutics Inc. from October 2020 until February 2023, Alder BioPharmaceuticals Inc. from June 2018 until November 2019, and Immunomedics, Inc. from February 2020 to October 2020. He holds a B.A. in Economics and Religious Studies from the University of Virginia and an MBA from Harvard Business School. We believe that Mr. Azelby is qualified to serve on our board of directors because of his broad experience in our industry, his commercial and management background and his track record of effective leadership.

Linda Bain has served on our board of directors since June 2018. Since April 2025, she has served as a Venture Partner for Atlas Venture. From May 2023 to April 2025, she served as the Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Mariana Oncology, a Novartis Company as of May 2024. She has also served as a non-executive director of Arvinas, Inc. since June 2020, Hemab Therapeutics since January 2022, and VBI Vaccines, Inc. between July 2021 and September 2022. Prior to joining Mariana Oncology, Ms. Bain served as the chief financial officer of Codiak BioSciences, Inc. between December 2015 and April 2023 and chief financial officer and treasurer of Avalanche Biotechnologies, Inc. from April 2014 until November 2015. Previously, Ms. Bain served at bluebird bio, Inc., a gene therapy biotechnology company, as vice president of finance and business operations from October 2011 to March 2014, and chief accounting officer and treasurer from June 2013 to March 2014. From September 2008 to September 2011, Ms. Bain served as vice president of finance at Genzyme Corporation. From September 2007 to September 2008, she served as vice president at Fidelity Investments, and from May 2000 to September 2007, she held a number of positions at AstraZeneca plc. She received her B.S. in Accounting and Business Administration and an Honors Degree in Accounting and Business Administration from the University of the Free State in South Africa. Ms. Bain is a certified public accountant. We believe that Ms. Bain is qualified to serve on our board of directors because of her extensive experience in our industry, her background in accounting and finance and her leadership skills.

John Berriman has served on our board of directors since August 2014. He has served as chairman of the board of directors of Autifony Therapeutics Ltd since 2011. He previously served as chairman of the board of directors of Depixus SAS between December 2015 and August 2024 and Confo Therapeutics NV between December 2016 and August 2023. Prior to this, from 1997 to 2004, he was a director of Abingworth Management, an international healthcare venture capital firm, where he was involved in founding, financing and serving as a director of several biotechnology companies in Europe and the United States, many of which obtained listings on public stock exchanges. Prior to that, Mr. Berriman spent 14 years with Celltech Group plc and was a member of its board when it listed on the London Stock Exchange in 1994. He holds a Master’s degree in Chemical Engineering from the University of Cambridge and an M.B.A. from the London Business School. We believe that Mr. Berriman is qualified to serve on our board of directors because of his extensive experience in our industry, including his strategic management and operational experience, his experience serving on public company boards and his experience with public offerings, private investments and mergers.

Cynthia Butitta has served on our board of directors since March 2018. Ms. Butitta served as the executive vice president and Chief Financial Officer of Kite Pharma Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, from January 2014 to May 2016 and as its chief operating officer from March 2014 to September 2017. From May 2011 to December 2012, she served as senior vice president and Chief Financial Officer at NextWave Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company. Prior to that, Ms. Butitta served as Chief Operating Officer of Telik, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, from March 2001 to December 2010 and as its chief financial officer from August 1998 to December 2010. Ms. Butitta also served as principal accounting officer of Telik, Inc. until December 2010. She has served as a member of the board of directors of UroGen Pharma Ltd. since October 2017, Olema Pharmaceuticals Inc. since August 2020 and Century Therapeutics from February 2021 until August 2025. Ms. Butitta holds a B.S. with honors in Business and Accounting from Edgewood College in Madison, Wisconsin and an M.B.A. in Finance from the University of Wisconsin, Madison. We believe that Ms. Butitta is qualified to serve on our board of directors because of her extensive financial and operational experience within the biotechnology and high-technology industries, as well as her leadership skills.

126

Table of contents

Robert Iannone, M.D., M.S.C.E., was appointed to our Board of Directors in June 2023. Since May 2019, he has served as the Executive Vice President, Global Head of Research and Development at Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc, and as their Chief Medical Officer from December 2019 until October 2021. From April 2018 until May 2019, Dr. Iannone served as Head of Research and Development and Chief Medical Officer of Immunomedics, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company. Prior to that, from July 2014 to April 2018, Dr. Iannone served in the roles of Senior Vice President and Head of Immuno-oncology, Global Medicines Development and the Global Products Vice President at AstraZeneca plc, a global science-led biopharmaceutical company. From 2004 to 2014, Dr. Iannone served in management roles at Merck Co., Inc., a global biopharmaceutical company, culminating in his role as Executive Director and Section Head of Oncology Clinical Development. From 2001 to 2004, he served as Assistant Professor of Pediatrics and from 2004 to 2012 as Adjunct Assistant Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine. Dr. Iannone has served on the board of directors of iTeos Therapeutics, Inc., a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company, since May 2021, and on the Cancer Steering Committee of the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health since 2011. He also served as a director of Jounce Therapeutics, Inc., a clinical-stage immunotherapy company, between January 2020 and its acquisition by Concentra Biosciences in May 2023. Dr. Iannone received a B.S. from The Catholic University of America, an M.D. from Yale University and an M.S.C.E. from University of Pennsylvania and completed his residency in Pediatrics and fellowship in Pediatric Hematology-Oncology at Johns Hopkins University.We believe that Dr. Iannone is qualified to serve on our board of directors because of his extensive experience as a pharmaceutical company executive and in the clinical development and regulation of pharmaceuticals.

Elisabeth Leiderman, M.D, has served on our board of directors since December 2023. She has served as Chief Financial & Corporate Development Officer for Dewpoint Therapeutics, a clinical-stage biotechnology company applying condensate biology to the discovery and development of novel therapeutics, from June 2024 to September 2025. Before joining Dewpoint, she served as Chief Financial Officer and Chief Business Officer at Atsena Therapeutics, a clinical-stage ophthalmology gene therapy company, from November 2022 to November 2023. Before joining Atsena, from September 2020 to October 2022, Dr. Leiderman was Chief Financial Officer and Head of Corporate Development at Decibel Therapeutics, a gene therapy company focused on hearing and balance disorders. From January 2020 to August 2020, Dr. Leiderman served as Chief Business Officer for Complexa, Inc. Prior to Complexa, Dr. Leiderman was Senior Vice President, Head of Corporate Development at Fortress Biotech from November 2016 to November 2019. Earlier in her career, from 2007 to 2016, Dr. Leiderman developed her transaction and capital markets expertise in the healthcare investment banking groups at Nomura, Credit Suisse, Jefferies and UBS. Dr. Leiderman began her career in medical affairs at AstraZeneca, where she analyzed product and industry trends related to the central nervous system. Dr. Leiderman earned an M.D. from the Sackler School of Medicine at Tel Aviv University, an M.B.A. from The Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania and a B.A. from The University of Pennsylvania. We believe that Dr. Leiderman is qualified to serve on our board of directors because of her extensive experience as a pharmaceutical company executive, her financial and operational expertise, and her leadership skills.

Ravi Rao, M.D,. joined our Board in April 2024. He currently serves as Chief Medical Officer of Sitryx Therapeutics, having joined the company in April 2022. He was previously Chief Medical Officer at Oxford Biomedica, between April 2022 and November 2023, and Head of Research and Development and Chief Medical Officer at Swedish Orphan Biovitrum, where he led the development of several medicines in rare diseases across immunology and hematology, between September 2020 and February 2022. Before that, he worked at Roche Genentech and GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Rao serves as a Board Member for DBV Technologies SA. Dr. Rao is an accredited rheumatologist and was an academic physician-scientist at Imperial College (London). He is a Member of the Royal College of Physicians, London and an Honorary Member of the Faculty of Pharmaceutical Medicine. He received his MB. BChir from Cambridge University and his Ph.D. in vascular biology from Imperial College, completing a postdoctoral fellowship at Harvard Medical School. We believe that Dr. Rao is qualified to serve on our board of directors because of his experience leading the development of drug pipelines at several biopharmaceutical companies.

Ryan Richardson has served on our board of directors since December 2025. He previously served as Chief Strategy Officer and member of the Management Board of BioNTech from September 2018 to September 2025. In addition to leading BioNTech’s Corporate Development and Strategy, Capital Markets, and Investor Relations functions, Mr. Richardson played a central role in BioNTech’s global expansion and transition to a commercial stage company, including its initial public offering, subsequent private placement and follow-on equity financings, and multiple strategic BD and M&A transactions. He served as Chairman of the Board of Directors of Instadeep Ltd., a leading global technology company active in the field of AI and machine learning, following BioNTech’s acquisition of Instadeep in 2023. Prior to BioNTech, Mr. Richardson was an Executive Director in J.P. Morgan’s Global Healthcare Investment Banking team in London, where he worked on a wide range of strategic transactions from 2011 to 2018. Earlier in his career, Mr. Richardson served as a life sciences management consultant and health economist. He was the recipient of the 2004 Robert. R. Bosch Fellowship and a recipient of the 2018 Eisenhower Zhi-Xing Fellow in China. Mr. Richardson holds an International M.B.A. from the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, an M.Sc. from the London School of Economics, and a B.S. from the University of Kansas. We believe that Mr. Richardson is qualified to serve on our board of directors because of his experience leading corporate development and strategy efforts at other well-established life sciences and technology companies.

127

Table of contents

William D. Young, Ph.D. has served on our board of directors since November 2021 and was appointed to our board of directors as Blackstone’s designee pursuant to the terms of the collaboration and financing agreement we entered into with Blackstone in November 2021. He is a Senior Advisor to the Blackstone Life Sciences group since November 2018, following Blackstone’s acquisition of Clarus Ventures. Dr. Young became a Venture Partner with Clarus in 2010 after serving as Chief Executive Officer of Monogram Biosciences, a leader in personalized medicine, from 1999 through to the sale of the company to LabCorp in 2009. Prior to Monogram he was at Genentech since 1980 in positions of increasing responsibility, including COO, responsible for all of the biotechnology company's development, operations and commercial functions. Prior to Genentech, Dr. Young was at Eli Lilly and Company for fourteen years. Dr. Young has served as a non-executive director of Praxis Precision Medicine since December 2016, of SFJ Pharma since July 2014 and of Satellite Bio since July 2022. He also served as Chairman of the Board of Directors of Nanostring Technologies from January 2010 until April 2024, as a non-executive director of Theravance Biopharma between October 2013 and April 2014, and as Theravance Biopharma's lead independent director between April 2014 and May 2023. Previously he was Chairman of the Board of Biogen Inc. and served on the Board of Directors of BioMarin Pharmaceutical and Vertex Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Young received his B.A. in chemical engineering from Purdue University, his MBA from Indiana University and an honorary doctorate in engineering from Purdue University. In 1993 he was elected to the National Academy of Engineering for his leadership in research, development and manufacturing of recombinant proteins using recombinant DNA technology. He is the founder of the Young Institute for the Advanced Manufacturing of Pharmaceuticals at Purdue University and a member of the Institute’s Advisory Counsel. We believe that Dr. Young is qualified to serve on our board of directors because of his extensive experience in the life sciences industry.

Code of Ethics

We have adopted a Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, or the Code of Ethics, that is applicable to all of our employees, officers and directors and is available on our website at https://www.autolus.com/investor-relations/corporate-governance/documents-charters. Information contained on, or that can be accessed through, our website does not constitute a part of this report and is not incorporated by reference herein. If we make any amendment to the Code of Ethics or grant any waivers, including any implicit waiver, from a provision of the Code of Ethics, we will disclose the nature of such amendment or waiver on our website to the extent required by the rules and regulations of the SEC.

Insider Trading Policy

Our board of directors has adopted an Insider Trading Policy that governs all transactions involving our securities by directors, officers, employees, consultants, and contractors and is reasonably designed to promote compliance with any insider trading laws, rules and regulations, and listing standards applicable to us. A copy of our current Insider Trading Policy is filed as Exhibit 19.1 to this Annual Report.

Composition of Our Board of Directors

Our board of directors presently has ten members. As a foreign private issuer, under the listing requirements and rules of Nasdaq, we are not required to have independent directors on our board of directors, except that our audit committee is required to consist fully of independent directors, subject to certain phase-in schedules. However, our board of directors has determined that Drs. Iannone, Leiderman, Rao and Young, Mses. Butitta and Bain and Messrs. Azelby, Berriman, Bonney and Richardson representing nine of our ten directors, do not have a relationship that would interfere with the exercise of independent judgment in carrying out the responsibilities of director and that each of these directors is “independent” as that term is defined under Nasdaq rules.

In connection with the BioNTech License Agreement, BioNTech received the right to nominate a director to the Company’s board of directors. If BioNTech acquires beneficial ownership of at least 30% of the issued and outstanding Ordinary Shares of the Company within five years of February 6, 2024, BioNTech will have the right to designate an additional director who shall be independent. BioNTech’s director nomination rights shall automatically terminate upon BioNTech’s ownership of Ordinary Shares dropping below certain specified percentages.

In accordance with our Articles of Association, our board of directors are divided into three classes with staggered three-year terms. At each annual general meeting of shareholders, the directors whose terms expire will retire and are eligible for re-appointment by ordinary resolution at such annual general meeting. At each annual general meeting, the successors to directors whose terms then expire or the directors who have been re-appointed will be elected to serve from the time of election and qualification until the third annual meeting following election. Our directors are divided among the three classes as follows:

•Class I, which consists of Ravi Rao, Robert Iannone and Ryan Richardson, whose terms will expire at our 2028 annual general meeting;

•Class II, which consists of Michael Bonney, Robert Azelby, John Berriman and Elisabeth Leiderman, whose terms will expire at our 2026 annual general meeting;

128

Table of contents

•Class III, which consists of Christian Itin, Cynthia Butitta, Linda Bain and William Young, whose terms will expire at our 2027 annual general meeting.

Each director shall serve until his or her successor is duly elected and qualified or until his or her earlier death, resignation or removal.

Committees of Our Board of Directors

Our board of directors has four standing committees: an audit committee, a compensation committee, a nominating and corporate governance committee, and a research and development committee. The board has adopted a written charter for each of the committees below that is available to shareholders on our website at http://www.autolus.com/investor-relations/corporate-governance.

Audit Committee

The audit committee is composed of Ms. Bain (chair), Mr. Azelby, Ms. Butitta, and Dr. Leiderman, and assists the board of directors in overseeing our accounting and financial reporting processes. The audit committee consists exclusively of members of our board who are financially literate, and our board of directors has determined that Ms. Bain is an “audit committee financial expert” as defined by applicable SEC rules and has the requisite financial sophistication as defined under the applicable Nasdaq rules and regulations. Our board of directors has determined that each member of the audit committee is an independent director under Nasdaq listing rules and under Rule 10A-3 under the Exchange Act. Our audit committee meets at least four times per year and oversees and reviews our internal controls, accounting policies and financial reporting, and provides a forum through which our independent registered public accounting firm reports. Our audit committee meets regularly with our independent registered public accounting firm without management present.

The primary functions of the audit committee include:

•recommending the appointment of the independent auditor to shareholders for approval at the general meeting of shareholders;

•the appointment, compensation, retention and oversight of any accounting firm engaged for the purpose of preparing or issuing an audit report or performing other audit services;

•pre-approving the audit services and non-audit services to be provided by our independent auditor before the auditor is engaged to render such services;

•evaluating the independent auditor’s qualifications, performance and independence, and presenting its conclusions to the full board of directors on at least an annual basis;

•reviewing and discussing with management and our independent registered public accounting firm our financial statements and our financial reporting process; and

•reviewing, approving or ratifying any related party transactions.

Compensation Committee

The compensation committee is composed of Mr. Berriman (chair), Ms. Butitta and Mr. Bonney. Under the SEC and Nasdaq rules, there are heightened independence standards for members of the compensation committee, including a prohibition against the receipt of any compensation from us other than standard board member fees. Although foreign private issuers are not required to meet this heightened standard, all of our compensation committee members meet this heightened standard.

The primary functions of the compensation committee include:

•identifying, reviewing, overseeing and proposing policies relevant to the compensation and benefits of our directors and senior management;

•evaluating the performance of senior management in light of such policies and reporting to the board; and

•overseeing and administering our share option plan, equity incentive plan and other benefit plans in operation from time to time.

Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee

The nominating and corporate governance committee is composed of Mr. Young (chair), Mr. Azelby and Ms. Bain.

The primary functions of the nominating and corporate governance committee include:

•drawing up selection criteria and appointment procedures for directors;

•recommending nominees for appointment to our board of directors and its corresponding committees; and

•assessing the functioning of individual members of our board of directors and management and reporting the results of such assessment to the full board of directors.

129

Table of contents

Research and Development Committee

The research and development committee is composed of Drs. Iannone (chair), Itin, Rao and Young.

The primary functions of the research and development committee include:

•overseeing our scientific, technical, research and development strategy, and the implementation thereof;

•advising our board of directors and management regarding program prioritization, clinical development strategy, regulatory strategy and interactions, intellectual property, product manufacture and supply, and related matters; and

•reviewing and assessing business development opportunities related to research collaborations, licensing or strategic transactions.

Corporate Governance.

We qualify as a “Foreign Private Issuer,” as defined in Rule 3b-4 under the Exchange Act. As a result, in accordance with Nasdaq listing requirements, we may rely on home country governance requirements and certain exemptions thereunder rather than complying with Nasdaq corporate governance standards.

Although we have voluntarily chosen to file registration statements, periodic reports and current reports on U.S. domestic issuer forms, we will maintain our status as a foreign private issuer. While we voluntarily follow most Nasdaq corporate governance rules, we may choose to take advantage of limited exemptions from the following:

•U.S. federal proxy rules pursuant to Section 14 of the Exchange Act and Regulations 14A and 14C thereunder;

•Regulation FD;

•liability under Section 16(b) of the Exchange Act for insiders who profit from trades in a short period of time;

•the requirement that our board have a compensation committee that is composed entirely of independent directors with a written charter addressing the committee’s purpose and responsibilities; and

•the requirement to have independent director oversight of director nominations.

We intend to follow U.K. corporate governance practices in lieu of Nasdaq corporate governance requirements as follows:

•We do not intend to follow Nasdaq Rule 5620(c) regarding quorum requirements applicable to meetings of shareholders. Such quorum requirements are not required under English law. In accordance with generally accepted business practice, our Articles of Association provide alternative quorum requirements that are generally applicable to meetings of shareholders.

•We do not intend to follow Nasdaq Rule 5605(b)(2), which requires that independent directors regularly meet in executive sessions where only independent directors are present. Our independent directors may choose to meet in executive sessions at their discretion.

Although we may rely on certain home country corporate governance practices, we must comply with Nasdaq’s Notification of Noncompliance requirement (Nasdaq Rule 5625) and the Voting Rights requirement (Nasdaq Rule 5640). Further, we must have an audit committee that satisfies Nasdaq Rule 5605(c)(3), which addresses audit committee responsibilities and authority and requires that the audit committee consist of members who meet the independence requirements of Nasdaq Rule 5605(c)(2)(A)(ii).

We intend to take all actions necessary for us to maintain compliance as a foreign private issuer under the applicable corporate governance requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the rules adopted by the SEC and Nasdaq listing rules. Accordingly, our shareholders will not have the same protections afforded to shareholders of companies that are subject to all of the corporate governance requirements of Nasdaq.

Item 11. Executive Compensation

As a foreign private issuer, we are permitted by Item 402(a)(i) of Regulation S-K to respond to this Item 11 by providing the information required by Items 6.B. and 6.E.2 of Form 20-F. Accordingly, we are not required to disclose executive compensation according to the requirements of Regulation S-K that are applicable to U.S. domestic issuers.

The following discussion provides the amount of compensation paid, and benefits in-kind granted, by us and our subsidiaries to our directors, members of our senior management and non-employee directors for services in all capacities to us and our subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2025, as well as the amount contributed by us or our subsidiaries into money purchase plans for the year ended December 31, 2025 to provide pension, retirement or similar benefits to, our directors, members of our senior management and non-employee directors.

130

Table of contents

Director Compensation

For the year ended December 31, 2025, the table below sets forth the compensation paid to our directors. In the case of Dr. Itin, our Chief Executive Officer, the table below sets forth the compensation paid to him for services as a member of our senior management. He does not receive any compensation for serving as an executive director. All such amounts are established and paid in pounds sterling.


Name	Salary/Fees		Annual Bonus		Pension Benefit		All Other Compensation		Total
Christian Itin, Ph.D. Executive Director	£	500,000	£	367,500	£	—	£	1,134,476	£	2,001,976
Michael Bonney* Chairman of the Board	£	59,951	£	—	£	—	£	216,435	£	276,386
Joseph Anderson, Ph.D.** Non-Executive Director	£	21,364	£	—	£	—	£	24,185	£	45,549
Robert Azelby Non-Executive Director	£	44,083	£	—	£	—	£	176,685	£	220,768
Linda Bain Non-Executive Director	£	51,417	£	—	£	—	£	102,808	£	154,225
John Berriman Non-Executive Director	£	44,417	£	—	£	—	£	102,808	£	147,225
Cynthia Butitta Non-Executive Director	£	45,917	£	—	£	—	£	102,808	£	148,725
Robert Iannone, M.D., M.S.C.E Non-Executive Director	£	44,750	£	—	£	—	£	102,808	£	147,558
Elisabeth Leiderman, M.D. Non-Executive Director	£	40,083	£	—	£	—	£	159,585	£	199,668
Martin Murphy, Ph.D.*** Non-Executive Director	£	30,561	£	—	£	—	£	24,185	£	54,746
Ravi Rao, M.D. Non-Executive Director	£	38,750	£	—	£	—	£	178,559	£	217,309
Ryan Richardson**** Non-Executive Director	£	3,034	£	—	£	—	£	6,945	£	9,979
William Young, Ph.D. Non-Executive Director	£	46,750	£	—	£	—	£	102,808	£	149,558
* Mr. Bonney was appointed as a member of the Compensation committee effective July 9, 2025.
** Dr. Anderson resigned from the board of directors effective June 26, 2025, prior to the Company's Annual General Meeting of shareholders, having previously notified the Company of his intention not to stand for re-election.
*** Dr. Murphy resigned from the board of directors effective June 26, 2025, prior to the Company's Annual General Meeting of shareholders, having previously notified the Company of his intention not to stand for re-election.
**** Mr. Richardson joined the board of directors effective December 1, 2025. His fees for December 2025 have been accrued but not yet paid.

Non-Executive Letters of Appointment

Non-executive directors are engaged on letters of appointment that set out their duties and responsibilities. The non-executive directors do not receive benefits upon termination or resignation from their respective positions as directors.

Non-Executive Director Compensation Policy

Under our non-executive director compensation policy, we pay each of our non-executive directors a cash retainer for service on our board of directors and committees of our board of directors. Our chair or lead independent director, as applicable, also receives an additional cash retainer. These retainers are payable in arrears in twelve equal monthly installments at the end of each calendar month, provided that the amount of such payment will be prorated for any portion of such month that the director is not serving on our board. Non-executive directors residing outside the U.K. will be paid the applicable amounts converted from pounds sterling into a currency of their request at the time of payment. We will also reimburse our directors for their reasonable out-of-pocket expenses in connection with attending board and committee meetings.

131

Table of contents

In March 2025, following market research and advice from its compensation consultant, our board of directors amended our non-executive director compensation policy to set the retainer fees for our non-executive directors to be:


						Annual Cash Retainer (£)
Annual retainer for board of director chair						58,000
Annual retainer for board of director member						33,000

Additional retainer for audit committee chair						15,000
Additional retainer for audit committee member						7,500
Additional retainer for compensation committee chair						12,000
Additional retainer for compensation committee member						6,000
Additional retainer for nominating and governance committee chair						8,000
Additional retainer for nominating and governance committee member						4,000
Additional retainer for research and development committee chair						12,000
Additional retainer for research and development committee member						6,000

In January 2026, based on further benchmarking analyses conducted by its compensation consultant, our board of directors amended our non-executive director compensation policy to increase the annual retainer for the chair to £65,000 and the annual retainer for other directors to £35,000. These changes are effective as of February 1, 2026, together with the equity compensation changes described below.

Equity Compensation

In addition to cash compensation, each non-executive director is eligible to receive share options under our equity incentive plans. Any share options granted under this policy shall have a term of ten years from the date of grant, subject to earlier termination in connection with a termination of service. Vesting schedules for equity awards are subject to the non-executive director’s continuous service on each applicable vesting date.

Notwithstanding any vesting schedule, for each non-executive director who remains in continuous service with us until immediately prior to the closing of a change in control (as such term is defined in our 2018 Plan), the shares subject to his or her then-outstanding initial or annual equity awards that were granted pursuant to this policy will become fully vested immediately prior to the closing of such change in control.

Upon the termination of the membership of the non-executive director on the board for any reason, his or her options granted under this policy shall remain exercisable for three months following his or her date of termination (or such longer period as the board may determine in its discretion on or after the date of grant of such options).

Initial Award

Effective February 1, 2026, each new non-executive director elected to our board of directors is granted an initial, one-time equity award on the date of such director’s initial election or appointment to the board of directors of (i) options to purchase 47,500 of our ADSs , which will vest in equal monthly installments through the third anniversary of the grant date, and (ii) restricted share units representing 31,667 of our ADSs, which will vest in equal installments through the third anniversary of the grant date. In addition, a non-executive director who is initially appointed to serve as chair of the board receives an option to purchase 40,000 of our ADSs on the date of such appointment to chair, which will vest in equal monthly installments through the third anniversary of the grant date. Similarly, a non-executive director who, in connection with their initial appointment to the board, is designated to serve as chair of a committee of the board shall receive an option to purchase 25,000 of our ADSs on the date of such appointment, which will vest in equal monthly installments through the third anniversary of the grant date.

Annual Awards

On the date of each of our annual meeting of shareholders, each non-executive director that continues to serve will be granted (i) an option to purchase 47,500 of our ADSs or ordinary shares, which will vest in equal monthly installments through the first anniversary of the grant date, and (ii) restricted share units representing 31,667 of our ADSs, which will vest in a single installment on the first anniversary of the grant date.

132

Table of contents

Senior Management Compensation

The compensation for each member of our executive management comprises the following elements: base salary, annual bonus, personal benefits, pension or 401(k) plan and long-term incentives. For the year ended December 31, 2025, the aggregate compensation accrued or paid to the members of our senior management for services, whether or not a director, in all capacities was $16.5 million.

Management Incentive Compensation Plan

In May 2016, the board of directors adopted the Management Incentive Compensation Plan, which it amended in October 2024 to reflect additional management tiers added since the plan's inception. The Management Incentive Compensation Plan is designed to offer annual incentive compensation to our members of senior management and managers by rewarding the achievement of corporate goals and specifically measured personal goals that are consistent with and support the achievement of the corporate goals. The key terms of the Management Incentive Compensation Plan are summarized below.

Administration and Eligibility

Our Chief Executive Officer is responsible for the administration of the Management Incentive Compensation Plan; however, the compensation committee of the board of directors is responsible for approving any incentive awards to our Chief Executive Officer and other members of our senior management.

In order to be eligible to receive an incentive award under the Management Incentive Compensation Plan, an individual must have been employed with us for at least three consecutive months during a plan year, which runs from January 1 to December 31, and must achieve a rating of at least 75% of his or her personal goal.

For the year ended December 31, 2025 the compensation committee of our board of directors determined that our corporate goals were achieved at a level of 105%. Pursuant to the terms of the Management Incentive Compensation Plan, our Chief Executive Officer and executive director will receive an incentive award of £367,500, based on his target bonus percentage of 74%, an overall goal achievement level of 105%, and his base salary of £500,000.

Form and Determination of Incentive Awards

Incentive award payments may be made in cash, or, at the discretion of the compensation committee and subject to the approval of our board of directors, through the issuance of equity.

An individual’s potential incentive award is calculated by multiplying their base salary as of the end of the plan year by the participant’s “target award multiplier”, which is a percentage ranging from 5% to 70%. The resulting amount is then divided between a corporate component and an individual component based on the weighting assigned for the individual’s management level. After the end of the plan year, the actual achievement of the corporate and individual goals is determined, each expressed as a percentage of complete achievement, resulting in the calculation of the individual’s total incentive award.

Annual performance reviews for participants in the Management Incentive Compensation Plan are completed following the end of the applicable plan year, with payment of incentive awards made as soon as practicable thereafter.

Termination of Employment

If a participant in the Management Incentive Compensation Plan gives or receives notice of termination or his or her employment is terminated prior to the payment of an incentive award under the Management Incentive Compensation Plan, our board of directors has discretion as to whether or not to pay an incentive award and whether to pay the full amount of the incentive award or a portion thereof.

Amendment

Our board of directors may abolish or alter the Management Incentive Compensation Plan at any time before, during or after a plan year is completed.

Senior Management Employment Arrangements

We have entered into arrangements with members of our senior management to grant restricted shares that are subject to vesting and a repurchase right in favor of us in the event the individual terminates his or her employment prior to the vesting date.

133

Table of contents

In order to align the interests of our executive management with our shareholders, members of our executive management are eligible to receive share-based awards pursuant to our equity incentive plans. The amount of the awards will generally be subject to the discretion of our board of directors and our compensation committee.

Outstanding Equity Awards, Grants and Option Exercise

The following table summarizes the equity awards that we granted to members of our board of directors and senior management pursuant to the terms of the 2018 Plan or 2025 Inducement Plan during the year ended December 31, 2025.

Name

Ordinary Shares Underlying Option

Exercise Price

Grant

Date

Expiration

Date

Senior Management

Christian Itin, Ph.D.

1,500,000

1.89

3/14/2025

3/14/2035

Robert Dolski

300,000

1.89

Autolus Therapeutics plc 10-K