UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, DC 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

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

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021

OR

☐ 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: 001-37465

Seres Therapeutics, Inc.

(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter)

(617) 945-9626

(Registrant’s Telephone Number, Including Area Code)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant based on the closing price of the registrant’s common stock as reported on the Nasdaq Global Select Market on June 30, 2021, was $1,645,330,768. Solely for purposes of this disclosure, shares of common stock held by executive officers, directors and certain stockholders of the registrant as of such date have been excluded because such holders may be deemed to be affiliates.

As of February 24, 2022, there were 92,014,368 shares of the registrant’s common stock, par value $0.001 per share, outstanding.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains forward-looking statements. We intend such forward-looking statements to be covered by the safe harbor provisions for forward-looking statements contained in Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. All statements other than statements of historical facts contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including without limitation statements regarding our future results of operations and financial position, business strategy, prospective products, product approvals, research and development costs, timing and likelihood of success, manufacturing activities and related timing, commercialization efforts, plans and objectives of management for future operations and future results of anticipated products, are forward-looking statements. These statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other important factors that may cause our actual results, performance or achievements to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements.

In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by terms such as “may,” “will,” “should,” “expect,” “plan,” “anticipate,” “could,” “intend,” “target,” “project,” “contemplate,” “believe,” “estimate,” “predict,” “potential” or “continue” or the negative of these terms or other similar expressions. The forward-looking statements in this Annual Report on Form 10-K are only predictions. We have based these forward-looking statements largely on our current expectations and projections about future events and financial trends that we believe may affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. These forward-looking statements speak only as of the date of this report and are subject to a number of important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements, including the risks, uncertainties and assumptions described under the sections in this report titled “Summary Risk Factors,” “Risk Factors” and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Moreover, we operate in an evolving environment. New risk factors and uncertainties may emerge from time to time, and it is not possible for management to predict all risk factors and uncertainties.

You should read this Annual Report on Form 10-K and the documents that we reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K completely and with the understanding that our actual future results may be materially different from what we expect. We qualify all of our forward-looking statements by these cautionary statements. Except as required by applicable law, we do not plan to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements contained herein, whether as a result of any new information, future events, changed circumstances or otherwise.

TRADEMARKS, SERVICE MARKS AND TRADENAMES

We have proprietary rights to trademarks used in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, which are important to our business and many of which are registered under applicable intellectual property laws. Solely for convenience, the trademarks, service marks, logos and trade names referred to in this Annual Report on Form 10-K are without the ® and ™ symbols, but such references are not intended to indicate, in any way, that we will not assert, to the fullest extent under applicable law, our rights to these trademarks, service marks and trade names. This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains additional trademarks, service marks and trade names of others, which are the property of their respective owners. All trademarks, service marks and trade names appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K are, to our knowledge, the property of their respective owners. We do not intend our use or display of other companies’ trademarks, service marks, copyrights or trade names to imply a relationship with, or endorsement or sponsorship of us by, any other companies.

SUMMARY RISK FACTORS

Our business is subject to numerous risks and uncertainties, including those described in Part I, Item 1A. “Risk Factors” in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. You should carefully consider these risks and uncertainties when investing in our common stock. The principal risks and uncertainties affecting our business include the following:

3

4

PART I

Item 1. Business

Overview

We are a microbiome therapeutics company developing a novel class of live biotherapeutic drugs, which are consortia of microbes designed to treat disease by modulating the microbiome to treat or reduce disease by repairing the function of a disease susceptible microbiome to a non-disease state. We have an advanced drug pipeline with late-stage clinical assets that are formulated for oral delivery and a differentiated microbiome therapeutics drug discovery and development platform including good manufacturing practices, or GMP, manufacturing capabilities for this novel drug modality.

Our highest priority is preparing a biologics license application, or BLA, for submission to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, and preparing for potential commercialization of SER-109, an investigational oral microbiome therapeutic in development for recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection, or CDI. We intend to seek agreement with the FDA to begin a rolling BLA submission for SER-109 in the first half of 2022 and to finalize the submission with data from the safety database in mid-2022. SER-109 has obtained Breakthrough Therapy designation, and as a result, we expect priority review by the FDA.

We are also designing microbiome therapeutics to decolonize pathogens and modulate host function to reduce and prevent infections. We believe that the scientific and clinical data from our SER-109 program validate this novel approach, which we refer to as infection protection. We believe the infection protection approach may be replicable across different bacterial pathogens to develop microbiome therapeutics with the potential to protect a range of medically compromised patients from infections. We are evaluating SER-155 in a Phase 1b study in patients receiving allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, or allo-HSCT, to reduce incidences of gastrointestinal infections, bloodstream infections and graft-versus-host disease, or GvHD. We are also evaluating additional preclinical stage programs in indications such as cancer neutropenia, solid organ transplant, and antimicrobial resistant infections more broadly.
 

We continue to focus our resources on evaluating SER-301 in a Phase 1b study in patients with mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis, or UC, and on analyzing additional biomarker data from our Phase 2b study evaluating SER-287 in patients with mild-to-moderate UC. In July 2021, we announced topline results from the SER-287 Phase 2b study, which did not meet its primary endpoint of improving clinical remission rates compared to placebo. Following the data readout, in December 2021, we completed preliminary microbiome drug pharmacology analyses that demonstrated the successful engraftment of SER-287 bacterial species. However, unlike the Phase 1b study, anticipated changes in disease-relevant metabolites post-administration with SER-287 in the Phase 2b study were not observed. In addition, we have completed preliminary analysis of data from the first cohort of the SER-301 Phase 1b study, which included 15 subjects. Evaluation of the first cohort data by an independent Data Safety Monitoring Board indicated that it would be safe to proceed to the placebo-controlled second cohort. While efficacy was not a defined endpoint in the first cohort, evaluation of clinical outcome data collected as part of the study indicated that no subjects in the first cohort achieved clinical remission as defined by the FDA using the Three-Component Modified Mayo Score after 10 weeks of treatment, though there were improvements in one or more individual components (endoscopic, stool frequency and rectal bleeding subscores) in some patients. Strains in SER-301 were observed to engraft in subjects across the trial period, and based on the assessment of metabolomic data, SER-301 demonstrated pharmacological properties consistent with its design and led to baseline-dependent modulation of the metabolic landscape in the gastrointestinal tract of patients treated. We continue to conduct analyses of data from our SER-287 and SER-301 UC clinical stage programs to inform next steps for further development.
 

In addition, we continue to evaluate opportunities to advance our technology in modulating host immunity to have an impact on and treat diseases such as cancer and various autoimmune diseases.

SER-109, our lead clinical candidate, which has successfully completed a Phase 3 clinical study, is designed to rapidly modulate the gastrointestinal microbiome in patients with recurrent CDI. CDI is most often caused by the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics, which disrupt the gastrointestinal microbiome by decreasing microbial diversity, thus increasing susceptibility to infection by Clostridioides difficile, or C. difficile, a spore forming bacterium. C. difficile expresses toxins leading to debilitating diarrhea in infected patients, and can also cause more severe outcomes, such as inflammation of the colon (colitis), toxic megacolon and death. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control, or CDC, has identified CDI as one of the top three most urgent bacterial threats in the United States. It is the most common cause of hospital acquired infection in the United States and has overtaken methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, or MRSA, in incidence of disease. CDI is responsible for the deaths of over 20,000 Americans each year. There are approximately 453,000 cases of primary CDI within the United States each year and approximately 170,000 incidences of recurrent CDI. The standard of care for CDI is to treat with antibiotics. In many cases, antibiotic treatments may kill vegetative toxin-producing C. difficile bacteria thus resolving symptoms of C. difficile. However, these antibiotic treatments also kill beneficial bacteria indiscriminately, thus maintaining or exacerbating the disrupted microbiome, potentially making patients more susceptible to a recurrence of CDI. Furthermore, antibiotics do not eliminate C. difficile spores, allowing the spores to rapidly germinate in a disrupted microbiome and cause a recurrence of the infection. Published data suggests that the risk of recurrence is approximately 25% after the

5

primary CDI and increases to greater than or equal to 40% after a first recurrence. SER-109, if approved, is designed to treat individuals with recurrent CDI.

SER-109 is an oral microbiome therapeutic candidate consisting of a consortium of purified Firmicutes spores. The SER-109 manufacturing purification process is designed to remove unwanted microbes in an effort to reduce the risk of pathogen transmission beyond donor screening alone. SER-109 is designed to reduce recurrent CDI in patients with a history of CDI by modulating the microbiome to a state that resists C. difficile germination and growth.

The Phase 3 ECOSPOR III study was a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled study that enrolled 182 patients with multiply recurrent CDI. The study was designed to evaluate patients for 24 weeks with the primary endpoint comparing the C. difficile recurrence rate in subjects who received SER-109 verses placebo at up to eight weeks after dosing. Previously reported topline data demonstrated that the study achieved its primary endpoint where SER-109 was superior to placebo in reducing CDI recurrence at eight weeks, reflecting a sustained clinical response rate of approximately 88% at eight weeks post-treatment. SER-109 resulted in a 27% absolute reduction of recurrence of CDI compared to placebo at eight weeks post-treatment, which is a relative risk reduction of 68%. The number-needed-to treat was 3.6. The rate of recurrence at 12 weeks in the SER-109 arm was 18.0%, compared to a rate of 46.2% in the placebo arm, representing an absolute risk reduction of 28% (relative risk 0.40; 95% CI 0.24-0.65; p <0.001 and p< 0.002 for the test sequence), and thereby consistent with the results seen at eight weeks. Results across stratifications of age and antibiotics remained similar. The study’s efficacy results related to the primary endpoint from all analyses exceeded the statistical threshold previously provided in consultation with the FDA that could allow this single clinical study to fulfill efficacy requirements for a BLA. The efficacy results remained durable through 24 weeks of follow-up, as SER-109 was observed to significantly reduced recurrence rates compared to placebo over 24 weeks, 21.3% vs. 47.3%, respectively. In January 2022, these data were published in the New England Journal of Medicine (N Engl J Med 2022;386(3):220-229).

We believe the SER-109 safety results across completed studies have been favorable, with an adverse event profile comparable to placebo. In September 2021, we achieved target enrollment of 300 subjects with the ECOSPOR IV open-label study. The target enrollment of a minimum of 300 subjects for the SER-109 safety database was reached in conjunction with the prior completed Phase 3 ECOSPOR III study. To support a BLA submission, Seres is required by the FDA to provide safety data from at least 300 subjects who have received the proposed commercial dose of SER-109 with a 24-week follow-up period. The ECOSPOR IV open-label study includes patients with recurrent CDI, including individuals with a first recurrence of CDI. We intend to seek agreement with the FDA to begin a rolling BLA submission for SER-109 in the first half of 2022 and finalize the submission with data from the safety database in mid-2022. SER-109 has obtained Breakthrough Therapy designation, and as a result, we expect priority review by the FDA.

In November 2021, we initiated a SER-109 expanded access program across the United States. The program is designed to enable eligible adults with recurrent CDI to obtain access to SER-109 prior to a potential FDA product approval.

SER-155, an oral microbiome therapeutic candidate consisting of a consortium of cultivated bacteria, is designed to decrease infection and translocation of antibiotic resistant bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract and modulate host immune responses to decrease GvHD. The rationale for this program is based in part on published clinical evidence from our collaborators at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center showing that allo-HSCT patients with decreased diversity of commensal microbes were significantly more likely to die due to infection and/or lethal GvHD. SER-155 was designed using our reverse translational discovery platform to potentially reduce incidences of gastrointestinal infections, bloodstream infections and GvHD in patients receiving allo-HSCT. The SER-155 Phase 1b study is designed to include approximately 70 patients in both an open-label and a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled cohort that will evaluate safety and tolerability before and after HSCT. Additionally, the engraftment of SER-155 bacteria (a measure of pharmacokinetics) and the efficacy of SER-155 in protecting patients from infections and GvHD will be evaluated. In November 2021, we enrolled the first patient in the SER-155 Phase 1b study.

SER-287, an oral microbiome therapeutic candidate consisting of a consortium of purified Firmicutes spores, is designed to restore a healthy gastrointestinal microbiome in individuals with UC. There are over 700,000 UC patients in the United States and fewer than one-third of patients on current therapies achieve remission. Approved treatments are often inadequate to control disease activity and are often associated with significant side effects, including immunosuppression.

In July 2021, we announced topline results from the Phase 2b study evaluating SER-287 in patients with mild-to-moderate UC. The study did not meet its primary endpoint of improving clinical remission rates compared to placebo. The primary objective of the induction portion of the Phase 2b study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of SER-287, after 10 weeks of induction dosing (following vancomycin pre-conditioning) in achieving clinical remission in participants with mild-to-moderate UC. The trial was a randomized, placebo controlled, double blind, parallel group multicenter study which enrolled 203 UC patients at approximately 100 sites throughout the U.S. and Canada. Dosing was explored in two SER-287 cohorts (full induction dose and step-down induction dose) versus placebo and patients were randomized according to a 1:1:1 ratio. Clinical remission was analyzed and defined by a 3-component modified Mayo Score. No statistically significant differences were observed in absolute clinical remission rates between the three treatment arms (10.3% for the full induction dose, n=68 and 10.6% for the step-down induction dose, n=66 versus 11.6% for placebo, n=69). There were also no statistically significant differences observed across the three treatment groups for endoscopic improvement, endoscopic remission or symptomatic remission.

6

Both dosing regimens of SER-287 were generally well tolerated. Treatment emergent adverse events, or AEs, were observed in 67.6%, 46.2% and 50.7% of subjects in the induction dose, step-down dose (both of which included six days of oral vancomycin preconditioning) and placebo treatment arms, respectively. The majority of observed AEs were mild or moderate in severity. The most commonly observed AEs were UC, diarrhea, nausea and abdominal distension. Four participants on active treatment reported serious treatment emergent adverse events (worsening UC, colonic dysplasia, congestive heart failure with decreased hemoglobin, and appendicitis), as did one on placebo (worsening UC).

In December 2021, we completed preliminary microbiome drug pharmacology analyses from the Phase 2b study that demonstrated the successful engraftment of SER-287 bacterial species. Based on the SER-287 Phase 2b microbiome data analyses, engraftment of SER-287 bacteria, measured as the median number of bacteria observed across patients post treatment, was statistically significant in patients receiving SER-287 versus placebo (p ≤ 0.001 at all timepoints). The magnitude and kinetics of engraftment were comparable to our Phase 1b study. However, unlike the Phase 1b study, anticipated changes in disease-relevant metabolites post-administration with SER-287 in the Phase 2b study were not observed. Analysis of the genomic and metabolomic data characterizing the microbiome of SER-287 study participants at baseline and post dosing suggest potential biomarkers for inclusion of targeted patient subpopulations in future development efforts.

We are also advancing SER-301, a therapeutic candidate for UC. SER-301 is a rationally-designed consortia of cultivated bacteria designed using our reverse translational discovery platform that incorporates analysis of microbiome biomarkers from human clinical data and preclinical assessments using human cell-based assays and in vitro/ex vivo and in vivo disease models. SER-301 is formulated for oral delivery. The design of SER-301 incorporates insights obtained from the SER-287 Phase 1b clinical and microbiome results, as well as from our clinical portfolio more broadly, and additional functional data from preclinical assessments, in an effort to optimize desired pharmacological properties. SER-301 is designed to reduce induction of pro-inflammatory activity, improve epithelial barrier integrity and TNF-α driven inflammation in intestinal epithelial cells, or IECs, and modulate UC-relevant anti-inflammatory, innate and adaptive immune pathways. SER-301 is being produced by our advanced fermentation, formulation and delivery platforms. It includes strains delivered in spore form, as well as strains fermented in non-spore (vegetative) form and delivered using enterically-protected technology designed to release in the colon.

The SER-301 Phase 1b study is being conducted in Australia and New Zealand in subjects with mild-to-moderate UC and is designed to include approximately 65 patients distributed across two cohorts.

We have completed preliminary analysis of data from the first cohort of the SER-301 Phase 1b study, which included 15 subjects. Evaluation of the first cohort data by an independent Data Safety Monitoring Board indicated that it would be safe to proceed to the placebo-controlled second cohort. While efficacy was not a defined endpoint in the first cohort, evaluation of clinical outcome data collected as part of the study indicated that no subjects in the first cohort achieved clinical remission as defined by the FDA using the Three-Component Modified Mayo Score after 10 weeks of treatment, though there were improvements in one or more individual components (endoscopic, stool frequency and rectal bleeding subscores) in some patients. Strains in SER-301 were observed to engraft in subjects across the trial period with the number of engrafting strains exceeding expectations at multiple sampling time points. A dual formulation was evaluated in the first cohort and the extent of engraftment across subjects was correlated with whether bacteria were formulated as bacterial spores versus vegetative strains; the former demonstrating stronger engraftment across all patients.

Based on the assessment of metabolomic data, SER-301 demonstrated pharmacological properties consistent with its design and led to baseline-dependent modulation of the metabolic landscape in the gastrointestinal tract of patients treated; changes were observed in short-chain and medium-chain fatty acids, tryptophan-derived metabolites, bile acids, and other microbe-associated metabolites, as well as host metabolites associated with a non-disease state. These SER-301 metabolomic results were encouraging compared with the results observed in the SER-287 Phase 2b study, in which the metabolic changes were not observed in general across subjects administered with SER-287. Additionally, changes in disease-relevant metabolites in SER-301 were observed to be greater in a definable subpopulation of patients.

The degree of metabolic changes observed following SER-301 administration appeared to be dependent on the baseline metabolic profile of the study subjects, providing support for the potential for microbiome therapeutics to be developed in biomarker-identified UC patient subpopulations.

We continue to conduct analyses of data from our SER-287 and SER-301 UC clinical stage programs to inform next steps for further development.

We have assembled a world class group of scientists, clinicians, directors and investors, who have established our leadership in the field of microbiome therapeutics. We were co-founded by Drs. Noubar Afeyan, David Berry and Geoffrey von Maltzahn of Flagship Pioneering. Through Flagship Pioneering’s contribution of foundational scientific concepts and intellectual property, assembly of our management team and critical early-stage support, we launched as the first company focused on the ecological nature of the microbiome. Led by Eric Shaff, our President and Chief Executive Officer, our experienced management team possesses core capabilities and know-how in microbiome therapeutics, drug development, commercialization, chemistry, manufacturing and controls, or CMC, public company management and finance.

7

Our Strategy

Our goal is to remain the leading biopharmaceutical company developing and commercializing microbiome therapeutics to address significant unmet medical needs. We intend to focus in the near term on gaining FDA approval for SER-109 for recurrent CDI and continuing development of our highest priority clinical programs. Additionally, we continue to advance our differentiated microbiome drug discovery, development and manufacturing platforms and capabilities.

Advancing our Programs

8

Advancing Our Capabilities

Our Microbiome Therapeutics Platform

We have developed the leading microbiome therapeutics platform which we believe enables us to apply our capabilities to efficiently identify, manufacture and develop novel microbiome therapeutics for serious human diseases. We use a reverse translational discovery platform that incorporates analysis of microbiome biomarkers from human clinical data and preclinical assessments using human cell-based assays and in vitro/ex vivo and in vivo disease models. Specifically, we start with data sets from both healthy subjects and subjects with disease to delineate at high-resolution the composition of the microbiome and physiological state of subjects and to identify specific microbiome and host signatures that associate with disease or the onset of disease. These in-human insights on how different microbe species and strains and microbe-associated metabolites are associated with disease along with how these microbes and metabolites directly or indirectly modulate disease-relevant functional pathways in the host are leveraged in preclinical drug design and development.

Our discovery process begins with human data derived from clinical trials and cohort studies, which we use as a basis for target identification and the design of our microbiome therapeutic candidates. We compare healthy, normal colonic microbiomes to those in an unhealthy disrupted or disease state, revealing the ecological, compositional and functional differences between various states of disease and during the transition from health to disease or vice versa. Specifically, we utilize high-value clinical data sets combined with advanced data sciences and microbiome analytics to identify microbiome signatures of disease at the resolution of specific species and strains, metabolites, and even genes that are associated with disease states. These microbiome biomarkers are associated with host signatures and biomarkers of disease to identify drug targets for our microbiome therapeutics. Our clinical data from the SER-109, SER-262, SER-287 and SER-301 programs, and microbiome data generated with external collaborators, serve to instruct us on how the introduction of certain keystone microbes have the potential to restructure the microbiome and modulate the metabolic state of the gut to shift it to a non-disease state.

We have developed a proprietary functionally characterized strain library and a suite of assays and screens, bioinformatics and computational tools, and databases, which facilitate our insights into the human microbiome. We have established proprietary, curated, reference databases and algorithms that: (i) integrate high-resolution genomic, metagenomic, metabolomic, and transcriptomic data sets, and data from in vitro and human cell-based assays, and in vitro/ex vivo and in vivo disease models, and (ii) enable us to track changes in the microbiome at the level of microbial species and individual strains and associate these changes with changes in the metabolic state of the gut and host physiology. Our analytics can integrate gene profiling and metabolomics data (the small molecules made by the microbiome) with genomic data (the collection of microbes defined by sequencing) to delineate microbiome biomarkers (the specific species or strains and functional pathways) that contribute to the state of disease or health. Further, we have established de novo analytics for pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic assessments of microbiome therapeutics. Additionally, leveraging all of these data we have curated and continue to build a database that links and associates: (i) functional properties of microbial species/strains, (ii) functional pathways in hosts that can be modulated by the microbiome, (iii) the association of functional pathways to disease, and (iv) the association of existing non-microbiome drugs to the functional pathways. This continually growing database can be mined to inform drug design and disease area and patient population prioritization.

9

Our proprietary strain library of bacterial isolates from healthy donors and patients enables us to translate microbiome biomarker insights into defined consortia of bacteria. The strain library contains bacterial species isolated from individuals that are either healthy or that have a disease. Seres has developed extensive isolation and cultivation know-how. The strain library contains a majority of the Human Microbiome Project’s “most wanted” and many novel species not described in other databases or the scientific literature. The functional properties of strains are characterized using proprietary in vitro and ex vivo human cell-based assays as well as full-genome sequences and genome functional annotation. Functional characterization of target strains includes properties such as how the bacteria interact with human colonic epithelial cells and human immune cells. We also seek to understand how these microbes improve the health of barrier cells in the gut and how they may impact immune responses.

We select bacteria from our library with specific predicted properties using novel algorithms for in silico functional design and optimization and grow the compositions in the lab to be tested both in vitro/ex vivo models as delineated above and in in vivo animal models. Our animal models include conventional mice, germ-free mice, and “humanized avatar” mice that possess only bacteria derived from humans; these models were developed to minimize confounding variables presented by model organism microbes. Data from our in vitro/ex vivo and in vivo screens are analyzed and used to optimize compositional designs; introducing new bacterial strains and optimizing existing strains until we identify a lead composition suitable for clinical testing.

Finally, we manufacture the bacterial composition under current Good Manufacturing Practices, or cGMP, which are required by FDA and European regulators. We believe our unique manufacturing capacities position us to exploit the insights of our proprietary human data and the novel biology of species and strains that have not previously been used for therapeutics. We have optimized fermentation conditions to generate spores and enhance bacterial yields in anaerobic fermentation and have in-house capabilities to formulate both spores and live non-spore bacteria. Our manufacturing facility in Cambridge, Massachusetts was designed to be fit-for-purpose and is highly differentiated compared to the offerings of commercial contract research organizations. We have secured additional capacity, designed to our specifications, via contract manufacturing organizations, or CMOs, to ensure adequate supply for potential commercial products. We continue working to address quality control requirements for our microbiome therapeutic candidates using proprietary microbiological and sequence-based testing schemes, including high-throughput quantitative analytics to assess the identity, potency, and purity of the final product. We intend to work with regulators to meet the requirements for product approval.

Taken together, we believe our platform, spanning drug discovery, preclinical translation, and novel manufacturing and quality control approaches, has enabled a field leading pipeline across a range of therapeutics areas.

Disease Overview and Our Product Pipeline

We believe our microbiome therapeutic candidates represent a novel approach with potential application across a broad range of human diseases. Our lead product candidate, SER-109, is designed to reduce further recurrence of CDI, a debilitating infection of the colon, in patients who have received antibiotic therapy for recurrent CDI by restructuring the gastrointestinal microbiome and modulating the metabolic landscape to address CDI. In August 2020, we announced that SER-109 had achieved its primary endpoint of superiority to placebo in reducing CDI recurrence at week 8 in our Phase 3 ECOSPOR III clinical trial in patients with recurrent CDI. SER-109 was observed to be well tolerated, with no treatment-related serious adverse events observed in the active arm and adverse events comparable to placebo. If approved by the FDA, we believe SER-109 will be a first-in-field oral microbiome drug. Building upon SER-109, we are developing novel microbiome therapeutics, such as SER-155, to specifically target infections and antimicrobial resistance. SER-155, a microbiome therapeutic candidate consisting of a consortium of cultivated bacteria, is designed to reduce incidences of gastrointestinal infections, bloodstream infections and GvHD in patients receiving allo-HSCT. In addition, using our microbiome therapeutics platform, we are also developing SER-287 and SER-301 to treat UC. We continue to evaluate microbiome pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data from across our clinical and pre-clinical portfolios using our reverse translation microbiome therapeutics capabilities to conduct research on various indications, including inflammatory and immune diseases, cancer, and metabolic diseases.

CDI Overview and SER-109

Clostridioides difficile Infection

C. difficile is a Gram-positive, toxin-producing, spore forming bacterium that may cause debilitating diarrhea in infected individuals, but can also lead to more severe outcomes, such as inflammation of the colon, or colitis, toxic megacolon and death. C. difficile bacteria express toxins that disrupt the structural architecture of cells causing leakage of fluids through the gastrointestinal, or GI, epithelium. The cells disrupted by these toxins eventually undergo apoptosis and die, disrupting the epithelial barrier and exposing the immune system to inflammatory stimuli, severe and persistent diarrhea and, in the most serious cases, death.

CDI is most often associated with the prior use of antibiotics, although age and poor immune status are important risk factors as well. Antibiotics are thought to decrease colonization resistance to CDI by disrupting the microbiome. Since C. difficile spores are able to survive for long periods of time outside the body, and because healthcare settings are often sites of significant antibiotic use, CDI is a leading cause of healthcare-associated infections in the United States. CDI is also a cause of morbidity and mortality among hospitalized cancer patients and bone marrow transplant patients as their immune systems are suppressed by cytotoxic drugs, which

10

inhibit or prevent the functioning of cells, and they may be heavily treated with antibiotics to prevent or treat infections. More recently, the rise of community-acquired CDI has been recognized as a growing problem.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or CDC, has identified C. difficile as one of the top three most urgent antibiotic-resistant bacterial threats in the United States. It is the most common cause of hospital acquired infection in the United States, having overtaken MRSA. CDI is responsible for the deaths of over 20,000 Americans each year. There are approximately 453,000 cases of primary CDI within the United States each year and approximately 170,000 incidences of recurrent CDI. CDI is also costly to the healthcare system. According to a study published in Clinical Infectious Diseases, the economic burden of CDI in 2008 in U.S. acute care facilities alone was estimated to be as much as $4.8 billion. In addition, the average recurrent CDI treatment cost in the U.S. is estimated to be $34 thousand per patient, comprising mostly (88%) hospital-related costs (Rodrigues Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2017). The national incidence of CDI remains high despite declining from 476,000 in 2011 to 462,000 in 2017 (Guh, New England Journal of Medicine 2020). Further, according to a 2014 article in the American Journal of Infection Control, from 2001 to 2010, incidence of CDI per 1,000 patients discharged increased from 4.5 to 8.2 with an average hospital stay of eight days. Due to suboptimal approaches to treatment, patients with primary CDI have an approximate 20% - 25% change of recurrent infection increasing to greater than 40% after the first recurrence (Gerding, CID 2018; Lashner ACG 2020; Dubberke CID 2018).

Current and developing treatment alternatives and their limitations

Antibiotics. According to the Infectious Disease Society of America, or IDSA, guidelines, the current standard of care for primary CDI is to treat with antibiotics, such as fidaxomicin or vancomycin. Fidaxomicin is recommended to treat primary CDI, it does not have a label claim to reduce or prevent CDI recurrence. No antibiotic therapeutics are currently approved for treatment of recurrent CDI.

Recurrent CDI, defined as the presence of diarrhea and a positive C. difficile stool assay within two to eight weeks following the initial episode, is not well addressed by any of the available antibiotics. The risk of recurrent CDI increases to greater than 40% after the first recurrence. In extreme cases, patients may be treated continuously for years with vancomycin.

Antibiotics have two major limitations: they have no effect on the spores that germinate in a disrupted microbiome and their use appears to exacerbate microbiome disruption, resulting in increased risk of future CDI. Research in animal models has shown that antibiotic use not only eliminates many healthy bacteria in the GI tract, but also leads to the release of nutrients that facilitate the growth of C. difficile. Antibiotics have also been shown to change the ratio of primary versus secondary bile acids in the colon by killing bacteria required to metabolize bile acids. This shift to a predominance of primary bile acids further facilitates the growth of C. difficile, as it requires primary bile acids for germination of its spores. As a result, antibiotic use may induce a lasting microbiome disruption that makes it possible for C. difficile to colonize a person and then cause, or further perpetuate, disease.

Fecal microbiota transplantation. FMT, also known as a stool transplantation, is an unapproved procedure during which donated stool, including fecal microbes, is typically instilled via colonoscopy into a patient with recurrent CDI. FMT presents several challenges for effective treatment of the disease. FMT has the potential to transmit infectious or allergenic agents between hosts, involves the transmission of hundreds of unknown strains of bacteria, fungi, viruses and potentially parasites from donor to subject, and is difficult to perform on a mass scale. In November 2019 the FDA held a public hearing to obtain input on the use of FMT to treat Clostridioides difficile infection not responsive to standard therapies. Presentations were made by the academic community and development companies regarding the current and future use of FMT. In January, 2020, we submitted comments to the docket for the meeting that recommended: 1) increased scrutiny and regulation of unapproved, commercially available FMT that does not comply with IND requirements; 2) implementation of guidance for establishing safety of source materials for all microbiome products; and 3) safety and efficacy of all microbiome products to reduce recurrent CDI must be based on adequate and well controlled clinical trials including accurate assurance of diagnosis of the disease state – specifically toxin testing.

Additionally, FMT is inherently non-standardized so that different desired and/or undesired material may be transmitted in any given donation. FMT is not approved by the FDA and we believe that, as currently practiced by clinical centers in the United States, it may be unable to gain such approval since the product, to our knowledge, cannot be characterized according to current regulatory requirements for identity, potency, purity and safety and has not been tested in rigorous, placebo controlled, randomized and blinded clinical studies. Commercial providers of FMT must meet FDA regulatory requirements for a biologics license and must produce FMT material using cGMP.

Antibodies. Bezlotoxumab a fully human monoclonal antibody directed against C. difficile toxin B was approved in the United States in October 2016 and in Europe in 2017 for the treatment of CDI. The antibody demonstrated 10% absolute risk reduction in preventing recurrence of CDI. Antibodies bind toxins to alleviate the symptoms of CDI, but they do not address the underlying disruption of the microbiome, which we believe is the cause of recurrent CDI. Bezlotoxumab requires intravenous infusion.

SER-109

SER-109 is an oral microbiome therapeutic candidate consisting of a consortium of purified Firmicutes spores. The SER-109 manufacturing purification process is designed to remove unwanted microbes in an effort to reduce the risk of pathogen transmission beyond donor screening alone. SER-109 is designed to reduce recurrent CDI in patients with a history of CDI by modulating the

11

microbiome to a state that resists C. difficile germination and growth. SER-109 is designed to treat individuals with recurrent CDI, a patient population which includes approximately 170,000 cases per year in the United States.

Phase 1b/2 clinical study

The Phase 1b/2 clinical study was an open-label, single arm, descending-dose study that enrolled 30 patients with recurrent CDI. All enrolled patients received standard-of-care antibiotic treatment, followed by oral administration of SER-109. Of the 30 study patients, 26 (87%) achieved the primary endpoint of absence of CDI (defined in this study as more than three unformed bowel movements in a 24-hour period with laboratory confirmation of a positive C. difficile stool test) up to eight weeks following dosing. Three of the four patients who did not meet the primary endpoint were determined by their primary investigator to be recovering from CDI, and all symptoms resolved without further therapeutic intervention or antibiotics. In total, 29 of 30 patients (97%) achieved the clinical cure rate, which we defined as the absence of CDI requiring antibiotic treatment during the eight-week period after SER-109 dosing. SER-109 was well tolerated in the study, with the most common adverse events being mild to moderate gastrointestinal symptoms. No drug related serious adverse events were observed.

Phase 2 clinical study

The Phase 2 clinical study was a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, parallel-group two arm trial that enrolled a total of 89 patients with a history of multiply-recurrent CDI, defined as 3 or more CDI episodes within 9 months. SER-109 was administered orally following the completion of antibiotic treatment for CDI. The predefined study primary efficacy endpoint was the relative risk of CDI recurrence up to 8 weeks after treatment with SER-109 compared to treatment with placebo. CDI recurrence was defined as diarrhea for 2 or more consecutive days, a positive CDI test, and the requirement for antibiotic treatment. Based on 8-week data, CDI recurrence occurred in 44% of subjects (26 of 59) who received SER-109, compared to 53% of subjects (16 of 30) who received placebo. The relative risk of CDI recurrence for the placebo population compared to the SER-109 population was not statistically significant. The most commonly reported AEs in both the SER-109 and placebo arms were in the GI category, and were diarrhea, abdominal pain, flatulence, and nausea. No drug-related SAEs were observed.

Analysis of Phase 1b/2 and Phase 2 clinical study results

In our Phase 2 clinical study, the study’s primary endpoint of reducing the relative risk of CDI recurrence at up to 8 weeks after treatment was not achieved. In order to understand the difference in outcome between Phase 1b/2 and Phase 2 clinical studies, we conducted an analysis of the available clinical, microbiome and CMC data. We identified key factors that potentially explain the Phase 2 clinical study results, including issues related to both the accurate diagnosis of C. difficile recurrent infection, and potential suboptimal dosing of subjects in the trial.

The key factors include:

From our reanalysis of the phase 1b/2 and 2 trials, we learned that there is a dose-dependent response governing early SER-109 pharmacokinetics, with increased engraftment associated with successful CDI resolution through 8 weeks. In the Phase 2 trial, SER-109 was dosed at 1 × 108 spores based on equivalent clinical outcomes and week 8 engraftment measures observed between the phase 1 dosing cohorts. However, our integrated analysis of both trials revealed that (1) engraftment kinetics at week 1 were of greater importance for reducing rCDI than later time points, (2) week 1 engraftment was highly variable in Phase 2 subjects, and (3) rapid engraftment was dependent on dose, which was clearly suboptimal in the Phase 2 trial (McGovern, 2020; Young, 2020). We hypothesized that rapid engraftment of a microbiome therapeutic may be critical to efficacy since CDI recurrence usually occurs within 1–3 weeks of antibiotic discontinuation, the “window of vulnerability”; consistent with this hypothesis, in the Phase 2 trial, greater engraftment of SER-109 species at week 1 was correlated with reduced CDI rates. This correlation was not previously appreciated due to the use of lower resolution 16S rRNA gene amplicon–based methods used in the Phase 1b/2 study for determining drug engraftment (Khanna, 2016).

Phase 3 clinical study design

In the Phase 3 clinical study of SER-109, patients with multiply recurrent CDI were randomized 1:1 between SER-109 and placebo. Diagnosis of CDI for both study entry and for endpoint analysis utilized a C. difficile cytotoxin assay, compared to the Phase 2 clinical study, where most patients were diagnosed by PCR. Patients in the SER-109 arm received a total SER-109 dose,

12

administered over three days, approximately 10-fold higher than the dose used in the Phase 2 clinical study to drive rapid engraftment of SER-109 bacteria in treated patients. The study evaluated patients for 24 weeks and the primary endpoint was to compare the C. difficile recurrence rate in subjects who receive SER-109 verses placebo at up to eight weeks after dosing. CDI recurrence is defined as diarrhea (>3 unformed bowel movements/day for 2 or more consecutive days), a positive CDI toxin test, and the decision by the primary investigator that antibiotic treatment is warranted. The study was conducted at approximately 100 sites in the United States and Canada.

Phase 3 clinical study results

The study enrolled 182 patients with multiply recurrent CDI. Previously reported topline data demonstrated that the study achieved its primary endpoint where SER-109 was superior to placebo in reducing CDI recurrence at eight weeks, reflecting a sustained clinical response rate of approximately 88% at eight weeks post-treatment. SER-109 resulted in a 27% absolute reduction of recurrence of CDI compared to placebo at eight weeks post-treatment, which is a relative risk reduction of 68%. The number-needed-to treat was 3.6. The rate of recurrence at 12 weeks in the SER-109 arm was 18.0%, compared to a rate of 46.2% in the placebo arm, representing an absolute risk reduction of 28% (relative risk 0.40; 95% CI 0.24-0.65; p <0.001 and p< 0.002 for the test sequence), and thereby consistent with the results seen at eight weeks. Results across stratifications of age and antibiotics remained similar. The study’s efficacy results related to the primary endpoint from all analyses exceeded the statistical threshold previously provided in consultation with the FDA that could allow this single clinical study to fulfill efficacy requirements for a BLA. The efficacy results remained durable through 24 weeks of follow-up, as SER-109 was observed to significantly reduced recurrence rates compared to placebo over 24 weeks, 21.3% vs. 47.3%, respectively. In January 2022, these data were published in the New England Journal of Medicine (N Engl J Med 2022;386(3):220-229).

We believe the SER-109 safety results across completed studies have been favorable, with an adverse event profile comparable to placebo. There was no clinically meaningful imbalance in incidence of adverse events between SER-109 and placebo arms. Overall incidence of patients who experienced treatment-emergent adverse events, or TEAEs, was 92.2% for SER-109 and 91.3% for placebo. SER-109 had no related serious treatment-related adverse events and no treatment related infections. The most commonly observed TEAEs were gastrointestinal disorders, the majority of which were mild to moderate in nature.

The study also examined the pharmacokinetics (i.e., drug bacterial species engraftment) and pharmacodynamics (i.e., metabolic changes) following SER-109 dosing. The data demonstrate that SER-109 administration resulted in the rapid and durable engraftment of SER-109-derived bacterial species into the gastrointestinal tract as soon as one week following dosing, and that this engraftment was maintained at subsequent timepoints evaluated, including at the eight-week timepoint corresponding to the study’s primary endpoint and the 24-week safety follow-up timepoint. The presence of SER-109 bacterial species was significantly greater (p<0.001) in SER-109 treated patients than in placebo patients at all timepoints evaluated. Significant differences were maintained in predefined subpopulation analyses of age and antibiotic use. Seres utilized advanced microbiome biomarker analytics and proprietary genomic reference datasets to identify, at a resolution of bacterial species, the gastrointestinal microbiome signatures associated with SER-109 engraftment.

SER-109 administration also resulted in modulation of the gastrointestinal metabolic landscape. Notably, data demonstrated a significant decrease in primary bile acids (p=0.038) and an increase in secondary bile acids (p<0.001) by one-week post-dosing; significant differences were maintained through week eight for secondary bile acids. Notably, SER-109 subjects had less variance across subjects in bile acid response than placebo subjects. Observations for both primary and secondary bile acids were maintained in predefined subpopulation analyses of age and antibiotic use. All microbiome analyses were conducted according to the treatment subjects actually received. Published research as well as preclinical studies have demonstrated that primary bile acids support germination of C. difficile spores that are the source of disease recurrence. In contrast, secondary bile acids have been reported to inhibit germination and the growth of C. difficile (Theriot and Young, Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 2015).

In September 2021, we achieved target enrollment of 300 subjects with the ECOSPOR IV open-label study. The target enrollment of a minimum of 300 subjects for the SER-109 safety database was reached in conjunction with a prior completed Phase 3 study, ECOSPOR III. To support a BLA submission, Seres is required by the FDA to provide safety data from at least 300 subjects who have received the proposed commercial dose, with a 24-week follow-up period. The ECOSPOR IV open-label study includes patients with recurrent CDI, including individuals with a first recurrence of CDI. We intend to seek agreement with the FDA to begin a rolling BLA submission for SER-109 in the first half of 2022 and finalize the submission with data from the safety database in mid-2022. SER-109 has obtained Breakthrough Therapy designation, and as a result, we expect priority review by the FDA.

In November 2021, we initiated a SER-109 expanded access program across the United States. The program is designed to enable eligible adults with recurrent CDI to obtain access to SER-109 prior to a potential FDA product approval.

Sales and Marketing

13

If SER-109 is approved in the United States and Canada, we believe it can be commercialized with a focused specialty sales force that will target gastrointestinal and infectious disease physicians, which are the two primary groups of physicians who treat recurrent CDI patients. While preparing a BLA for submission, we have also initiated commercial readiness activities that include: C. difficile market assessments, publication and presentation planning, stakeholder and advocacy relationship mapping, brand name selection, and initiation of payer and reimbursement strategic planning.

In addition, in July 2021, we entered into an agreement with NHSc Pharma Partners, or, together with Société des Produits Nestlé S.A, Nestlé, to jointly commercialize SER-109 in the United States and Canada. Under the terms of the agreement, Nestlé will utilize its global pharmaceutical business Aimmune Therapeutics, Inc. and will assume the role of lead commercialization party. We received license payments of $175 million up front, and will receive an additional $125 million upon FDA approval of SER-109. The agreement also includes sales target milestones which, if achieved, could total up to $225 million. We will be responsible for development and pre-commercialization costs in the United States. Upon commercialization, we will be entitled to an amount equal to 50% of the commercial profits.

The agreement to co-commercialize SER-109 in the United States and Canada represents a second strategic collaboration between the companies. Nestlé already has commercial rights to our investigational treatments for CDI and IBD outside of the United States and Canada, and with the July 2021 expansion, Nestlé became our global collaborator in SER-109.

Infection Protection and SER-155

We believe that the scientific and clinical data from our SER-109 program validate our novel approach of using microbiome therapeutics to decolonize pathogens, resulting in reduced rate of infections in medically compromised patients. Data from the SER-109 Phase 3 trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine show that microbiome therapeutics can restructure the gut microbiome and shift the gut metabolic landscape. Additional data show that SER-109 rapidly reduces the abundance of bacteria associated with common antibiotic resistance genes, or ARGs, and reduces ARG abundance in the gut. Collectively, these data demonstrate the potential for microbiome therapeutics to restore colonization resistance and ultimately to reduce infections and antimicrobial resistance. This approach, which we refer to as infection protection, may be replicable in protecting a range of medically compromised patients from infections seeded by the gut microbiome. It may also enable us to reduce antimicrobial resistant infections, which the World Health Organization declared as a top ten global public health threat facing humanity.

We are evaluating SER-155 in a Phase 1b study in allo-HSCT recipients to reduce incidences of gastrointestinal infections, bloodstream infections and GvHD. We are also evaluating additional preclinical stage programs in indications such as cancer neutropenia, solid organ transplant, and antimicrobial resistant infections more broadly.

SER-155, an oral microbiome therapeutic candidate consisting of a consortium of cultivated bacteria, is designed to decrease infection and translocation of antibiotic resistant bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract and modulate host immune responses to decrease GvHD. The rationale for this program is based in part on published clinical evidence from our collaborators at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center showing that allo-HSCT patients with decreased diversity of commensal microbes are significantly more likely to die due to infection and/or lethal GvHD. SER-155 was designed using our reverse translational discovery platform to reduce incidences of gastrointestinal infections, bloodstream infections and GvHD in patients receiving allo-HSCT. The SER-155 Phase 1b study is designed to include approximately 70 patients in both an open-label and a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled cohort that will evaluate safety and tolerability before and after HSCT. Additionally, the engraftment of SER-155 bacteria (a measure of pharmacokinetics) and the efficacy of SER-155 in preventing infections and GvHD will be evaluated. In November 2021, we enrolled our first patient in the SER-155 Phase 1b study.

Ulcerative Colitis, SER-287 and SER-301

UC is a relapsing-remitting chronic inflammatory disorder affecting the mucosal surface of the colon, leading to episodes of bloody diarrhea, urgency and mucosal inflammation (Danese and Fiocchi, 2011), which generally begins in young adulthood and endures for life. As the disease mostly affects young and middle-aged individuals, a time of peak reproductive and economic productivity, the disease leads to decreased quality of life in those affected by the condition, high morbidity, and significant health economic burden. (Ghosh and Mitchell, 2007; Kappelman et al., 2008; Rubin et al., 2014; Theede et al., 2015) The incidence of UC is rising worldwide, and the prevalence of the disease is highest in the United States, Canada, and Europe. In the United States alone, the prevalence of UC in adults is estimated to be 263 per 100,000, while in the pediatric population (age <20 years), prevalence of the disease is estimated to be 33.9 per 100,000. (Kappelman et al., 2013)

UC is characterized by recurring episodes of inflammation limited to the mucosal layer of the colon. The severity of symptoms, diarrhea associated with blood and abdominal pain, may range from mild disease to severe disease with more than 10 stools per day with severe cramps and continuous bleeding. The severity, extent, and duration of disease are also risk factors for developing colon cancer, which occurs at a rate as high as 0.5-1.0% per year, an important complication given the young age at which the disease strikes. Patients with UC also experience increased risk of CDI and primary sclerosing cholangitis, compared to the general population.

14

The pathogenesis of UC is unclear but thought to arise from an aberrant immune response to a change in the colonic environment in a genetically susceptible individual. The key features of UC include diffuse mucosal inflammation in a continuous pattern starting distally in the rectum to more proximal disease in the left colon to pancolitis.

Symptoms of UC include rectal bleeding, tenesmus, increased stool frequency, urgency, incontinence, fever, fatigue and malaise, which negatively impact quality of life, physical and mental health and productivity. A subset of patients has extra-intestinal manifestations ranging from iron deficiency anemia to primary sclerosing cholangitis with implications for increased morbidity. In pediatric patients, the symptoms of UC have a more damaging impact, as they affect children’s growth and lead to delayed puberty. These patients also suffer from weight loss, anemia and joint symptoms and current therapy itself adversely impacts normal growth and development. (Kelsen et al., 2008). Treatment of UC with corticosteroids and immunosuppressive agents adds further medical complications to these vulnerable patients, including corticosteroid toxicity and increased risk of invasive infections and malignancy. Both environmental and genetic factors contribute to the etiology of the disease. Environmental factors may induce an ongoing immune response and inflammation in the genetically predisposed host. Efforts to identify specific environmental factors has implicated commensal bacteria or their products as key determinants of the inflammatory response in UC patients (Xavier et al., 2007). Thus, we believe SER-287 may target an “underlying cause” of UC rather than its symptoms.

Current and developing treatment alternatives and their limitations

Currently, patients with UC require life-long therapy. The goals of medical therapy are to induce and maintain clinical and endoscopic remission. Endoscopic remission is recognized as a key treatment goal since it better predicts short- and long-term clinical outcomes than symptomatic improvement alone. Attainment of these goals is generally associated with improved quality of life and decreased need for corticosteroids, and lower risk of hospitalization, colectomy, and colon cancer.

Although the etiology of UC is not fully understood, much progress has been made in the understanding of pathogenesis. Under homeostatic conditions, there is a balance between pro-inflammatory and anti-inflammatory cytokine signals mediated by epithelial and immune cells in the gastrointestinal tract. However, UC is characterized by dysregulated mucosal immune responses and translocation of inflammatory mediators of microbiological origin across a disrupted gastrointestinal barrier that may cause or perpetuate inflammation leading to chronic inflammatory disease. Migration of innate and adaptive immune cells into gut mucosal tissues is potentiated by locally produced cytokines and chemokines, and by the expression of integrins that enhance cellular trafficking into the gut lamina propria. Inhibition of the immune response, via antibodies and proteins that sequester pro-inflammatory cytokines or block the function of integrins, has been an important target of UC drug development over the past decade.

Management of UC includes medications that decrease general inflammation (e.g., 5-aminosalicylate derivatives, or 5-ASA, corticosteroids) or dampen specific components of the host immune response (e.g., immunomodulators, inhibitors of tumor necrosis factor, anti-integrin antibodies).

For mild-to-moderate disease, the 5-ASA derivatives are the standard of care for both induction and remission. 5-ASA derivatives achieve clinical remission in only 25-40% of patients during induction and approximately one-third of responders have disease flares during the first year of maintenance therapy, necessitating additional treatment interventions such as corticosteroids and immunomodulators (e.g. 6-mercaptopurine, methotrexate, azathioprine). Corticosteroids are not recommended by guideline panels for chronic therapy since these drugs are ineffective for maintaining remission and are associated with significant adverse events. Patients taking thiopurines require ongoing monitoring for hepatotoxicity, myelosuppression, and opportunistic infections, as well as counseling on the potential risk of lymphoma.

Current medical therapies for the treatment of UC suppress the immune system rather than reduce the triggers of immune activation. We believe there remains an unmet need for safer agents with novel non-immunosuppressive mechanisms of action. Moreover, alternative therapy is needed for patients with mild-to-moderate UC who experience frequent flares or are intolerant to the aminosalicylate class of medication or where there are safety concerns relating to the use of immunomodulator or steroid therapy.

SER-287

Given the modulation of the microbiome seen in UC patients, studies have explored the use of FMT to treat UC. (Angelberger et al., 2013; Colman and Rubin, 2014; Kump et al., 2013; Kunde et al., 2013; Moayyedi et al., 2015; Paramsothy et al., 2017; Costello SP et al JAMA 2019). Early reports of enhanced clinical remission and endoscopic improvement with repetitive FMT compared to placebo motivated the preclinical development and clinical testing of SER-287.

SER-287, an oral microbiome therapeutic candidate consisting of a consortium of purified Firmicutes spores, is designed to restore a healthy gastrointestinal microbiome in individuals with UC. SER-287 has been granted Fast Track Designation by the FDA for the induction and maintenance of clinical remission in adult subjects with active mild-to-moderate UC. SER-287 has been designated an Orphan Drug for pediatric UC by the FDA.

Phase 1b clinical study design

The Phase 1b clinical study was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multiple dose study utilizing weekly or daily dosing with SER-287. We enrolled eligible subjects at approximately 20 sites in the United States. The Phase 1b

15

clinical study was designed to enroll adults 18 years of age and older who had mild-to-moderate UC as defined by a Total Modified Mayo score between 4 and 10, inclusive, with a modified Mayo endoscopic subscore ≥ 1, who were failing current therapies.

Patients were randomized to one of four study arms:

The primary objectives of the study were to evaluate the safety and tolerability of SER-287 compared to placebo; to compare the baseline composition of the intestinal microbiome to the composition at 8 weeks post-initiation of SER-287 or placebo; and to determine the engraftment of SER-287 bacteria into the intestinal microbial community in each of the SER-287 arms compared to the placebo arm.

The secondary objectives of the study were to determine the proportion of subjects in each of the treatment arms who at eight weeks post-initiation of treatment achieve a clinical response, complete remission, and endoscopic improvement; to assess changes in serum and fecal biomarkers from baseline throughout treatment; to determine the complement of metabolic pathways; and to compare the changes in exploratory biomarkers from mucosal biopsies and stool in each of the treatment arms from baseline through eight weeks.

This study was designed to provide evidence of safety of SER-287 compared to placebo for the UC population, describe the changes in the microbiome as a result of treatment with SER-287 and provide potential predictive biomarkers for future studies. UC is characterized by a decrease in microbial diversity and richness, with a lower prevalence of spore-forming organisms within the phylum Firmicutes. Preliminary data using repetitive enema FMT suggest that microbial interventions can affect clinical outcomes in UC, and this study evaluated whether the ecology of bacterial spores in SER-287 could correct the modulation of the microbiome in UC, increase microbial diversity and safely lead to a clinical response in UC patients with mild-to-moderate disease.

Phase 1b clinical study results

Results were analyzed using the intent to treat, or ITT, “missing equals failure” analysis and the ITT “observed case” analysis methods. The ITT “missing equals failure” analysis, included all 58 randomized subjects. For this analysis, incalculable clinical endpoints due to missing data, UC medication added due to UC flare during the treatment period and discontinuation from the trial prior to Day 48 were considered as not achieving the clinical endpoints (worst outcome). However, if the end-of-trial endoscopy at Day 48, or later, was available, and the subject did not take additional UC medication due to UC flare, then the observed data was used to define success or failure for the subject. A period of 48 days of microbiome therapy was considered sufficient treatment to estimate the outcome of clinical endpoints and was prespecified. The ITT “observed case” analysis included 53 of 58 subjects randomized, excluding those who were missing their end-of-treatment endoscopies and used the observed data to define success or failure for each subject in the analysis. A paper titled “A Phase 1b Safety Study of SER-287, a Spore-Based Microbiome Therapeutic, For Active Mild-To-Moderate Ulcerative Colitis” was published as the highlighted over article in the January 2021 print edition of the leading journal Gastroenterology including data analysis from the Phase 1b trial of Ser-287 demonstrating that SER-287 administration was associated with positive impacts on clinical remission, endoscopic improvement, modulation of the gastrointestinal microbiome, and a favorable safety profile.

Clinical efficacy results

In the “missing equals failure” analysis, remission showed a statistically significant improvement in the vancomycin pre-conditioning / SER-287 once-daily dosing arm as compared to the placebo/placebo daily arm: 40% (6 of 15 in SER-287) vs 0% (0 of 11 in placebo); change from placebo of 40.0% (95% confidence interval: 15.2%, 64.8%), (p-value, 0.0237). (See Figure 1).

16

The SER-287 weekly treatment arms also showed an improvement over placebo in both remission and endoscopic improvement but the effect was less than with the daily dosing regimen, showing a dose-response to SER-287 in these efficacy endpoints. Addition of vancomycin to the SER-287 weekly dosing regimen did not clearly alter efficacy results, although we believe this may be due to the small size of the study.

Clinical response (data not shown), showed a numeric increase in the vancomycin/SER287 daily treatment arm compared to placebo but did not reach statistical significance.

Figure 1: SER-287 Phase 1b Clinical Study Efficacy Data – Missing Equals Failure

Legend: Δ = change from placebo; Remission was defined as a Total Modified Mayo score of less than or equal to 2, and an endoscopic sub-score of 0 or 1; Endoscopic improvement was defined as a decrease in endoscopic sub score of greater than or equal to 1. Endoscopy measures were analyzed by a Central Reader.

Clinical Safety Results

The primary safety objective (short-term safety) was to evaluate the safety and tolerability of SER-287 in adults with active mild-to-moderate UC up to 92 days after randomization as determined by clinical and laboratory safety assessments.

The treatment-emergent adverse events, or TEAEs, were balanced across all the treatment arms. No drug-related serious adverse events, or SAEs, were reported. All adverse events, or AEs, were considered mild to moderate in intensity. Gastrointestinal, or GI, disorders had the greatest number of AEs compared to other system organ classes, with the most efficacious treatment arm (vancomycin/SER-287 daily) experiencing the lowest percentage of GI AEs.

SER-287 was observed to be well-tolerated in all treatment arms, showing a safety profile consistent with the placebo arm. The safety profile, when evaluating GI AEs, showed an improvement in the vancomycin/SER-287 treatment arm compared to vancomycin/placebo and the vancomycin/SER-287 weekly treatment arms.

A paper titled “A Phase 1b Safety Study of SER-287, a Spore-Based Microbiome Therapeutic, For Active Mild-To-Moderate Ulcerative Colitis” was published as the highlighted over article in the January 2021 print edition of the leading journal Gastroenterology including data analysis from the Phase 1b trial of Ser-287 demonstrating that SER-287 administration was associated with positive impacts on clinical remission, endoscopic improvement, modulation of the gastrointestinal microbiome, and a favorable tolerability profile

Microbiome results showed engraftment of SER-287-derived bacterial species in patients pre-conditioned with vancomycin who received SER-287. The degree of SER-287 engraftment, as measured by the number of detectable SER-287-derived bacterial species, increased in a dose-dependent manner, with daily dosing providing the most rapid and robust change in patients’ microbiome. Engraftment was maintained during the entire dosing period and was observed four weeks after the last dose of SER-287 was administered. Thus, engraftment was durable. Changes in the composition of the GI microbiome were associated with clinical remission and further associated with changes in stool metabolite and intestinal biopsy gene expression signatures associated with inflammation and immune modulation. Vancomycin pre-conditioning, as compared to placebo pre-conditioning, led to an immediate reduction of microbiome diversity followed by rapid and robust engraftment of SER-287-derived bacterial species. These data suggest that vancomycin pre-conditioning opens ecological niches for SER-287 engraftment in the human microbiome of patients with UC.

Phase 2b clinical study design

The Phase 2b study, initiated in December 2018, was a three-arm placebo-controlled trial of approximately 200 patients with active mild-to-moderate UC. Two groups of patients received different doses of SER-287, both following pre-conditioning with a short course of oral vancomycin. A third study arm received placebo. The study’s primary endpoint evaluated clinical remission measured after 10 weeks of SER-287 administration. Endoscopic improvement were measured as a secondary efficacy measure.

Phase 2b clinical study results

17

In July 2021, we announced topline results from the Phase 2b study evaluating SER-287 in patients with mild-to-moderate UC. The study did not meet its primary endpoint of improving clinical remission rates compared to placebo. The primary objective of the induction portion of the Phase 2b study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of SER-287, after 10 weeks of induction dosing (following vancomycin pre-conditioning) in achieving clinical remission in participants with mild-to-moderate UC. The trial was a randomized, placebo controlled, double blind, parallel group multicenter study which enrolled 203 UC patients at approximately 100 sites throughout the U.S. and Canada. Dosing was explored in two SER-287 cohorts (full induction dose and step-down induction dose) versus placebo and patients were randomized according to a 1:1:1 ratio. Clinical remission was analyzed and defined by a 3-component modified Mayo Score. No statistically significant differences were observed in absolute clinical remission rates between the three treatment arms (10.3% for the full induction dose, n=68 and 10.6% for the step-down induction dose, n=66 versus 11.6% for placebo, n=69). There were also no statistically significant differences observed across the three treatment groups for endoscopic improvement, endoscopic remission or symptomatic remission.

Both dosing regimens of SER-287 were generally well tolerated. Treatment emergent adverse events, or AEs, were observed in 67.6%, 46.2% and 50.7% of subjects in the induction dose, step-down dose (both of which included six days of oral vancomycin preconditioning) and placebo treatment arms, respectively. The majority of observed AEs were mild or moderate in severity. The most commonly observed AEs were UC, diarrhea, nausea and abdominal distension. Four participants on active treatment reported serious treatment emergent adverse events (worsening UC, colonic dysplasia, congestive heart failure with decreased hemoglobin, and appendicitis), as did one on placebo (worsening UC).

Given the lack of a clinical efficacy signal identified in the Phase 2b study, we have closed the open label and maintenance portions of the study.

In December 2021, we completed preliminary microbiome drug pharmacology analyses from the Phase 2b study that demonstrated the successful engraftment of SER-287 bacterial species. Based on the SER-287 Phase 2b microbiome data analyses, engraftment of SER-287 bacteria, measured as the median number of bacteria observed across patients post treatment, was statistically significant in patients receiving SER-287 versus placebo (p ≤ 0.001 at all timepoints). The magnitude and kinetics of engraftment were comparable to our Phase 1b study. However, unlike the Phase 1b study, anticipated changes in disease-relevant metabolites post-administration with SER-287 in the Phase 2b study were not observed. Analysis of the genomic and metabolomic data characterizing the microbiome of SER-287 study participants at baseline and post dosing suggest potential biomarkers for inclusion of targeted patient subpopulations in future development efforts.

We continue to conduct analyses of data from our SER-287 and SER-301 clinical stage programs to inform next steps for further development.

SER-301

SER-301 is an investigational, oral, microbiome therapeutic candidate comprised of a consortium of cultivated bacteria for the treatment of mild-to-moderate UC. SER-301 is a consortium of cultivated bacteria designed using our reverse translational discovery platform that incorporates analysis of microbiome biomarkers from human clinical data and preclinical assessments using human cell-based assays and in vitro/ex vivo and in vivo disease models. SER-301 is formulated for oral delivery. The design of SER-301 incorporates insights obtained from the SER-287 Phase 1b clinical and microbiome results, as well as from our clinical portfolio more broadly, and additional functional data from preclinical assessments, in an effort to optimize desired pharmacological properties.

SER-301 is designed to reduce induction of pro-inflammatory activity, improve epithelial barrier integrity and TNF-α driven inflammation in intestinal epithelial cells, or IECs, and modulate UC-relevant anti-inflammatory, innate and adaptive immune pathways. SER-301 is being produced by our advanced fermentation, formulation and delivery platforms. It includes strains delivered in spore form, as well as strains fermented in non-spore (vegetative) form and delivered using enterically-protected technology designed to release in the colon.

Phase 1b clinical study design

The SER-301 Phase 1b study is being conducted in Australia and New Zealand in subjects with mild-to-moderate UC and is designed to include approximately 65 patients distributed across two cohorts. A first open-label cohort of 15 subjects evaluated safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetics (PK), as measured by bacterial engraftment. In the second cohort, 50 subjects will be randomized to receive either SER-301 or placebo, with a 3:2 randomization, respectively. The study utilizes an independent blinded central reader for the endoscopic component. The objectives for this cohort are to evaluate safety and PK, clinical remission, and other measures of drug pharmacology and efficacy will be evaluated as secondary endpoints. In November 2020, we enrolled the first patient in the SER-301 Phase 1b study.

Phase 1b clinical study results - Cohort 1

We have completed preliminary analysis of data from the first cohort of the SER-301 Phase 1b study. Evaluation of the first cohort data by an independent Data Safety Monitoring Board indicated that it would be safe to proceed to the placebo-controlled second cohort. While efficacy was not a defined endpoint in the first cohort, evaluation of clinical outcome data collected as part of the study indicated that no subjects in the first cohort achieved clinical remission as defined by the FDA using the Three-Component

18

Modified Mayo Score after 10 weeks of treatment, though there were improvements in one or more individual components (endoscopic, stool frequency and rectal bleeding subscores) in some patients. Strains in SER-301 were observed to engraft in subjects across the trial period with the number of engrafting strains exceeding expectations at multiple sampling time points. A dual formulation was evaluated in the first cohort and the extent of engraftment across subjects was correlated with whether bacteria were formulated as bacterial spores versus vegetative strains; the former demonstrating stronger engraftment across all patients.

Based on the assessment of metabolomic data, SER-301 demonstrated pharmacological properties consistent with its design and led to baseline-dependent modulation of the metabolic landscape in the gastrointestinal tract of patients treated; changes were observed in short-chain and medium-chain fatty acids, tryptophan-derived metabolites, bile acids, and other microbe-associated metabolites, as well as host metabolites associated with a non-disease state. These SER-301 metabolomic results were encouraging compared with the results observed in the SER-287 Phase 2b study, in which the metabolic changes were not observed in general across subjects administered with SER-287. Additionally, changes in disease-relevant metabolites in SER-301 were observed to be greater in a definable subpopulation of patients.

The degree of metabolic changes observed following SER-301 administration appeared to be dependent on the baseline metabolic profile of the study subjects, providing support for the potential for microbiome therapeutics to be developed in biomarker-identified UC patient subpopulations.

We continue to conduct analyses of data from our SER-287 and SER-301 UC clinical stage programs to inform next steps for further development.

Other Programs

SER-401

In March 2021, we announced that we, in collaboration with study partners, The Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy and The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, voluntarily discontinued further enrollment of our study evaluating the safety and drug activity of SER-401 or fecal microbiota transplant, or FMT, in combination with nivolumab in patients with metastatic melanoma.

A preliminary analysis of results from 10 subjects who received either SER-401 or placebo in combination with nivolumab indicated that SER-401 was generally well-tolerated. There were no patients enrolled in the FMT portion of the study. Subjects currently enrolled in the study will complete the study protocol. Given challenges in enrollment due to the COVID-19 pandemic, subsequent anticipated time to study completion, and progress in our preclinical oncology pipeline, we have decided to deprioritize further development of SER-401. We will continue to advance our research and development efforts in cancer, applying learnings from the SER-401 trial.

Manufacturing

Donor-derived product candidates

SER-109 is a purified consortium of Firmicute spores produced through a process of separation and purification from a natural human stool source, obtained from qualified, highly screened donors. The donor raw material is collected in a controlled setting, under a protocol that is designed to ensure that donors meet appropriate qualification criteria.

Donors are required to be in good health, and to possess a medical history that minimizes the risk of exposure to and transmission of an infectious disease. Donors are tested for infectious agents and screened for GI and other relevant health factors. Donors are monitored for health status changes on an ongoing basis throughout the donation period. At periodic intervals, and at the end of the donation period, the qualification assessment is repeated to help ensure the donor has maintained their health status. After successful completion of a periodic or exit screening, donations are released for use in manufacturing.

We initially process the donor material in our in-house Cambridge manufacturing facility, and then transfer the process intermediate to our partner CMO, GenIbet (acquired by Recipharm in February 2022), to further isolate and concentrate SER-109 for finishing to the oral capsule dosage form. The manufacturing process includes processes to inactivate and clear potential adventitious agents, to help ensure product safety. The purified drug substance is tested for identity, potency and purity, and subsequently formulated into drug product where it is again tested for identity, potency, purity, and pharmaceutical properties. The final drug product oral dosage form is four capsules daily for 3-days. Steps are specifically built into the process to remove and kill non-spore microbes. We have conducted validation studies demonstrating the ability of the process to inactivate and clear any potential extraneous pathogens of concern, and we believe we have sufficient data from these studies to support product registration. If approved, we anticipate that we will be able to produce a sufficient commercial supply of SER-109 to meet estimated demand in the United States using donations from a modest number of donors.

Commercial product supply for the initial phase of U.S. commercial launch is being produced at our Cambridge manufacturing facility and further processed at GenIbet. In November 2021, we entered into a collaboration with Bacthera to manufacture SER-109 to expand upon our existing capabilities for commercial product supply to meet anticipated demand in later years. Under the terms of

19

the agreement, Bacthera will construct a dedicated full-scale production suite for us at Bacthera’s Microbiome Center of Excellence in Visp, Switzerland, which is currently under construction, and provide manufacturing services for SER-109.

Cultivated product candidates

The production of live bacterial products is highly specialized. Owing to their hardiness and environmental persistence, production of aerobic and anaerobic vegetative bacteria, as well as spore-forming organisms, poses unique considerations for product, personnel, and facility design, operation, quality assurance and quality control. Manufacturing activities with spores are subject to specialized regulations. We expect that a typical commercial fermentation will yield on the order of hundreds or thousands of doses per liter depending on the product and its composition. Additionally, because a given total dose contains multiple strains, the per-strain requirements for production may be even lower. As a result, we believe the relatively high productivity of our manufacturing processes relative to the dose level will enable production scales for both clinical and commercial supply to be modest by traditional industry standards for biologics and vaccine manufacturing.

We have developed supply chains for producing and testing materials to ensure the availability of future clinical trial supplies. Our development processes are designed to ensure that the raw materials, process technologies and analytical tests we use are scalable and transferable to a cGMP manufacturing environment. These include the following core elements:

We currently have a 10,000 square foot cGMP manufacturing facility at our headquarters where we conduct cGMP manufacture of therapeutic candidates to support drug substance and drug product for early phase and small-scale clinical supplies and with the ability to perform both drug substance and drug product manufacturing for early and late-phase clinical development and at larger scales of operation. We may establish further manufacturing facilities that will serve late-phase clinical and commercial supply for our product candidates. We may do this by expanding our current facilities, or by purchasing or building additional facilities. We also use contract manufacturing and testing organizations to supplement our internal capacity.

20

Material Agreements

Collaboration and Manufacturing Agreements

Collaboration and License Agreement with Société des Produits Nestlé S.A. (Nestlé)

In January 2016, we entered into the Collaboration and License Agreement, or the 2016 License Agreement, with Nestec, Ltd., which was succeeded in interest by Société des Produits Nestlé S.A., or together with NHSc Pharma Partners, Nestlé, for the development and commercialization of certain product candidates in development for the treatment and management of CDI and IBD, including UC and Crohn’s disease. The 2016 License Agreement will support the development of our portfolio of products for CDI and IBD in markets outside of the United States and Canada, or the 2016 Licensed Territory.

License Agreement with NHSc Pharma Partners (Nestlé)

In July 2021, we entered into a license agreement, or the 2021 License Agreement, with NHSc Pharma Partners, or, together with Société des Produits Nestlé S.A., Nestlé. Under the terms of the 2021 License Agreement, we granted Nestlé a co-exclusive, sublicensable (under certain circumstances) license to develop, commercialize and conduct medical affairs activities for (i) therapeutic products based on our microbiome technology (including our SER-109 product candidate) that are developed by us or on our behalf for the treatment of CDI and recurrent CDI, as well as any other indications pursued for the products upon mutual agreement of the parties, or the 2021 Field in the United States and Canada, or the 2021 Licensed Territory, and (ii) our SER-109 product candidate and any improvements and modifications thereto developed pursuant to the terms of the 2021 License Agreement, or the 2021 Collaboration Products for any indications in the 2021 Licensed Territory. We are responsible for completing development of SER-109 in the 2021 Field in the United States until first regulatory approval for SER-109 is obtained.

Bacthera Long Term Manufacturing Agreement

In November 2021, we entered into a Long Term Manufacturing Agreement, or the Bacthera Agreement, with BacThera AG, or Bacthera, a joint venture between Chr. Hansen and a Lonza Group affiliate. The Bacthera Agreement governs the general terms under which Bacthera, or one of its affiliates, will (i) construct a dedicated full-scale production suite for us at Bacthera’s Microbiome Center of Excellence in Visp, Switzerland, which is currently under construction; and (ii) provide manufacturing services to us for our SER-109 product and, if agreed by the parties, SER-287 product.

AstraZeneca Research Collaboration and Option Agreement

In March 2019, we entered into a Research Collaboration and Option Agreement, or the Research Agreement, with MedImmune, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of AstraZeneca Inc., or AstraZeneca to conduct certain research and development activities with the goal of advancing the mechanistic understanding of the microbiome in augmenting the efficacy of cancer immunotherapy, including potential synergy with AstraZeneca compounds in accordance with a mutually agreed research plan. AstraZeneca bore all costs of conducting its activities under the Research Agreement and reimbursed us for certain of our costs incurred under the Research Agreement and paid us a total of $20.0 million in three equal installments, the first of which we received in April 2019, the second of which we received in December 2019 and third of which we received in January 2021.

Indebtedness

Loan and Security Agreement with Hercules

In October 2019, we entered into a loan and security agreement with Hercules, pursuant to which a term loan in an aggregate principal amount of up to $50.0 million, or the Original Credit Facility, was available to us in three tranches. We received the first tranche of $25.0 million upon signing the agreement on October 29, 2019. We did not meet the milestone requirements for the second tranche under the Original Credit Facility, and as such, the additional amount up to $12.5 million is not available for us to borrow. We elected not to borrow the third tranche of $12.5 million, which was available upon Hercules’ approval until June 30, 2021.

In April 2020, we entered into an amendment to the loan and security agreement with Hercules, or the First Amendment, permitting us to enter into a promissory note under the Paycheck Protection Program of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Stability Act.

In February 2022, we entered into a second amendment to the loan and security agreement with Hercules, or the Second Amendment, which amended the Original Credit Facility. Pursuant to the Second Amendment, term loans in an aggregate principal amount of up to $100.0 million, or the New Credit Facility, have become available to us in five tranches subject to certain terms and conditions: (i) the first tranche in an aggregate principal amount of $25.0 million that is outstanding as of the February 24, 2022 effective date, or the Effective Date, (ii) the second tranche in an aggregate principal amount of $12.5 million that has been advanced to the Company and is outstanding as of the Effective Date, (iii) the third tranche in an aggregate principal amount of $12.5 million that has been advanced to the Company and is outstanding as of the Effective Date, (iv) the fourth tranche in an aggregate principal amount of $25.0 million available upon satisfaction of certain conditions, including the approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration of a biologics license application in respect of SER-109 by no later than December 15, 2023, and (v) the fifth tranche in an aggregate principal amount of up to $25.0 million that is available through the amortization date upon satisfaction of certain conditions, including the lenders’ investment committee approval.

21

For a further description of our material agreements, see “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations – Liquidity and Capital Resources" in Part II, Item 7 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Intellectual Property

We strive to protect the proprietary technology that is important to our business, including seeking and, if granted, maintaining patents intended to cover our product candidates and compositions, their methods of use and processes for their manufacture and any other aspects of inventions that are commercially important to the development of our business. We also utilize regulatory exclusivity as well as trade secrets to protect aspects of our business.

We plan to continue to expand our intellectual property estate by filing patent applications directed to compositions, methods of treatment, methods of manufacture and methods for patient selection created or identified from our ongoing development of our product candidates. Our success will depend 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 any patents that we may obtain, preserve the confidentiality of our trade secrets and operate without infringing the valid and enforceable patents and proprietary rights of third parties. We also rely on know-how and continuing technological innovation to develop and maintain our proprietary position and, in the future, may rely on or leverage in-licensing opportunities. We seek to obtain domestic and international patent protection, and endeavor to promptly file patent applications for new commercially valuable inventions.

The patent positions of biopharmaceutical companies like us are generally uncertain and involve complex legal, scientific and factual questions. In addition, the coverage claimed in a patent may be challenged in courts after issuance. Moreover, many jurisdictions permit third parties to challenge issued patents in administrative proceedings, which may result in further narrowing or even cancellation of patent claims. We cannot predict whether the patent applications we are currently pursuing will issue as patents in any particular jurisdiction or at all, whether the claims of any patent applications, should they issue, will cover our product candidates, or whether the claims of any issued patents will provide sufficient protection from competitors or otherwise provide any competitive advantage.

Because patent applications in the United States and certain other jurisdictions are maintained in secrecy for 18 months or potentially even longer, and because publication of discoveries in the scientific or patent literature often lags behind actual discoveries and patent application filings, we cannot be certain of the priority of inventions covered by pending patent applications. Accordingly, we may not have been the first to invent the subject matter disclosed in some of our patent applications or the first to file patent applications covering such subject matter, and we may have to participate in interference proceedings or derivation proceedings declared by the United States Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, to determine priority of invention.

Our patent portfolio includes issued U.S. patents and patent applications in various stages of prosecution, including ex-U.S. international counterparts. We believe that issued claims will provide protection for our microbiome therapeutic candidates.

Patent Term

The base term of a U.S. patent is 20 years from the filing date of the earliest-filed non-provisional, patent application from which the patent claims priority. The term of a U.S. patent can be lengthened by patent term adjustment, which compensates the owner of the patent for administrative delays at the USPTO. In some cases, the term of a U.S. patent is shortened by terminal disclaimer that reduces its term to that of an earlier-expiring patent.

The term of a U.S. patent may be eligible for patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, referred to as the Hatch-Waxman Act, to account for at least some of the time the drug is under development and regulatory review after the patent is granted. With regard to a drug for which FDA approval is the first permitted marketing of the active ingredient, the Hatch-Waxman Act allows for extension of the term of one U.S. patent that includes at least one claim covering the composition of matter of such an FDA-approved drug, an FDA- approved method of treatment using the drug and/or a method of manufacturing the FDA-approved drug. The extended patent term cannot exceed the shorter of five years beyond the non-extended expiration of the patent or fourteen years from the date of the FDA approval of the drug, and a patent cannot be extended more than once or for more than a single product. During the period of extension, if granted, the scope of exclusivity is limited to the approved product for approved uses. Some foreign jurisdictions, including Europe and Japan, have analogous patent term extension provisions, which allow for extension of the term of a patent that covers a drug approved by the applicable foreign regulatory agency. In the future, if and when our product candidates receive FDA approval, we expect to apply, if appropriate, for patent term extension on patents covering those product candidates, their methods of use and/or methods of manufacture.

Trade Secrets

In addition to patents, we rely on trade secrets and know-how to develop and maintain our competitive position. We typically utilize trade secrets to protect aspects of our business. We protect trade secrets and know-how by establishing confidentiality agreements and invention assignment agreements with our employees, consultants, scientific advisors, contractors and collaborators. These agreements provide that all confidential information developed or made known during the course of an individual or entities’ relationship with us must be kept confidential during and after the relationship. These agreements also provide that all inventions

22

resulting from work performed for us or relating to our business and conceived or completed during the period of employment or assignment, as applicable, shall be our exclusive property. In addition, we take other appropriate precautions, such as physical and technological security measures, to guard against misappropriation of our proprietary information by third parties.

Competition

The development and commercialization of new drug and biologic products is highly competitive and is characterized by rapid and substantial technological development and product innovations. We face competition with respect to our current product candidates and will face competition with respect to any product candidates that we may seek to develop or commercialize in the future from major pharmaceutical companies, specialty pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology companies worldwide. We are aware of a number of large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, as well as smaller, early-stage companies, that are pursuing the development of products, including microbiome therapeutics, and disease indications we are targeting. Potential competitors also include academic institutions, government agencies and other public and private research organizations that conduct research, seek patent protection and establish collaborative arrangements for research, development, manufacturing and commercialization.

Many of the companies against which we are competing or against which we may compete in the future have significantly greater financial resources, established presence in the market and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals and marketing approved products than we do. Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors.

These third parties compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific, clinical, manufacturing sales and marketing and management personnel, establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs.

The key competitive factors affecting the success of the product candidates that we develop, if approved, are likely to be their efficacy, safety, convenience, price, the level of competition and the availability of reimbursement from government and other third-party payors.

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

Government Regulation

The FDA and other regulatory authorities at federal, state and local levels, as well as in foreign countries, extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, quality control, import, export, safety, effectiveness, labeling, packaging, storage, distribution, record keeping, approval, advertising, promotion, marketing, post-approval monitoring and post-approval reporting of drugs and biologics such as those we are developing. We, along with our contract manufacturers, will be required to navigate the various preclinical, clinical and commercial approval requirements of the governing regulatory authorities of the countries in which we wish to conduct studies or seek approval for our product candidates. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and ensuring subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations requires the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources.

In the United States, the FDA regulates drug and biologic products under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, its implementing regulations and other laws, including, in the case of biologics, the Public Health Service Act. Our product candidates are subject to regulation by the FDA as biologics. Biologics require the submission of a BLA and approval by the FDA before being marketed in the United States.

The process required by the FDA before our biologic product candidates may be marketed in the United States generally involves the following:

23

The testing and approval process requires substantial time, effort and financial resources, and we cannot be certain that any approvals for our product candidates will be granted on a timely basis, if at all.

Preclinical and Clinical Trials

Once a product candidate is identified for development, it enters the preclinical testing stage. Preclinical studies include laboratory evaluations of drug chemistry, formulation and stability, as well as studies to evaluate toxicity in animals, which must be conducted in accordance with GLP requirements. The results of the preclinical studies, together with manufacturing information and analytical data, are submitted to the FDA as part of an IND. An IND is a request for authorization from the FDA to administer an investigational new drug to humans. An IND must become effective before human clinical trials may begin. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA, within the 30-day time period, raises concerns or questions about the conduct of the clinical trial, including concerns that human research subjects will be exposed to unreasonable health risks. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. Submission of an IND may result in the FDA not allowing clinical trials to commence or not allowing clinical trials to commence on the terms originally specified in the IND. A separate submission to an existing IND must also be made for each successive clinical trial conducted during product development, and the FDA must grant permission, either explicitly or implicitly by not objecting, before each clinical trial can begin.

Clinical trials involve the administration of the product candidate to human subjects under the supervision of qualified investigators in accordance with GCPs, which include the requirement that all research subjects provide their informed consent for their participation in any clinical study. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the clinical trial and the parameters and criteria to be used in monitoring safety and evaluating effectiveness. Each protocol must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. While the IND is active, progress reports summarizing the results of the clinical trials and nonclinical studies performed since the last progress report, among other information, must be submitted at least annually to the FDA, and written IND safety reports must be submitted to the FDA and investigators for serious and unexpected suspected adverse events, findings from other studies suggesting a significant risk to humans exposed to the drug, findings from animal or in vitro testing suggesting a significant risk to humans exposed to the drug, and any clinically important increased rate of a serious suspected adverse reaction compared to that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure.

An independent institutional review board, or IRB, for each investigator site proposing to participate in a clinical trial must also review and approve the clinical trial before it can begin at that site, and the IRB must monitor the clinical trial until it is completed. Some studies also include oversight by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the clinical study sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board, which provides authorization for whether or not a study may move forward at designated check points based on access to certain data from the study and may halt the clinical trial if it determines that there is an unacceptable safety risk for subjects or other grounds, such as no demonstration of efficacy. The FDA, the IRB, or the sponsor may suspend or discontinue a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the subjects are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. There are also requirements governing the reporting of ongoing clinical studies and clinical study results to public registries.

For purposes of BLA approval, clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases, which may overlap or be combined.

24

In some cases, the FDA may condition approval of a BLA on the sponsor’s agreement to conduct additional clinical trials to further assess the biologic’s safety and effectiveness after BLA approval. Such post-approval clinical trials are typically referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials.

Concurrent with clinical trials, companies usually complete additional animal studies and must also develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the biologic and finalize a process for manufacturing the biologic in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the product candidate and manufacturers must develop, among other things, methods for testing the identity, strength, quality 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 product candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life.

BLA Submission and FDA Review

The results of preclinical studies and clinical trials, together with other detailed information, including extensive manufacturing information and information on the composition of the biologic, are submitted to the FDA in the form of a BLA requesting approval to market the biologic for one or more specified indications. The BLA must include all relevant data available from preclinical and clinical studies, including negative or ambiguous results as well as positive findings, together with detailed information relating to the product’s chemistry, manufacturing, controls, and proposed labeling, among other things. Data can come from company-sponsored clinical studies intended to test the safety and effectiveness of a use of the product, or from a number of alternative sources, including studies initiated by independent investigators. The submission of a BLA requires payment of a substantial user fee unless a waiver is granted or exemption applies.

Each BLA submitted to the FDA is reviewed for administrative completeness and reviewability within 60 days of the FDA’s receipt of the application. If the BLA is found to be complete, the FDA will file the BLA, triggering a full review of the application. The FDA may refuse to file any BLA that it deems incomplete or not properly reviewable at the time of submission. In this event, the BLA must be resubmitted with the additional information.

Once a BLA has been accepted for filing, the FDA’s goal is to review standard applications within ten months after the filing date, or, if the application qualifies for priority review, six months after the FDA accepts the application for filing, but the overall timeframe is often extended by FDA requests for additional information or clarification. The FDA reviews a BLA to determine, among other things, whether the biological product is safe, pure and potent and whether the facility or facilities in which it is manufactured meet standards designed to assure the product’s continued safety, purity and potency. The FDA may also refer the application to an Advisory Committee for review, evaluation, and recommendation as to whether the application should be approved. The FDA is not bound by the recommendation of an advisory committee, but it generally follows such recommendations.

Before approving a BLA, the FDA will inspect the facility or the facilities at which the biologic product is manufactured and will not approve the product unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. Additionally, before approving a BLA, the FDA may inspect one or more clinical sites to assure that such trials were conducted in compliance with GCP. If the FDA determines that the application, manufacturing process or manufacturing facilities are not acceptable, it will outline the deficiencies in the submission and often will request additional testing or information. Notwithstanding the submission of any requested additional information, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval.

After the FDA evaluates a BLA and conducts inspections of manufacturing facilities where the investigational product and/or its drug substance will be produced, the FDA may issue an approval letter or a Complete Response Letter, or CRL. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the product with specific prescribing information for specific indications. A CRL will describe all of the deficiencies that the FDA has identified in the BLA, except that where the FDA determines that the data supporting the application are inadequate to support approval, the FDA may issue the CRL without first conducting required inspections, testing submitted product lots, and/or reviewing proposed labeling. In issuing the CRL, the FDA may recommend actions that the applicant might take to place the BLA in condition for approval, including requests for additional information or clarification. The FDA may delay or refuse approval of a BLA if applicable regulatory criteria are not satisfied, require additional testing or information, and/or require post-marketing testing and surveillance to monitor safety or efficacy of a product.

If regulatory approval of a product is granted, such approval will be granted for particular indications and may entail limitations on the indicated uses for which such product may be marketed. For example, the FDA may approve the BLA with a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, to ensure the benefits of the product outweigh its risks. A REMS is a safety strategy implemented to manage a known or potential serious risk associated with a product and to enable patients to have continued access to such medicines by managing their safe use, and could include medication guides, physician communication plans, or elements to assure

25

safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. The FDA also may condition approval on, among other things, changes to proposed labeling or the development of adequate controls and specifications. Once approved, the FDA may withdraw the product approval if compliance with pre- and post-marketing requirements is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the marketplace. The FDA may require one or more Phase 4 post-market studies and surveillance to further assess and monitor the product’s safety and effectiveness after commercialization and may limit further marketing of the product based on the results of these post-marketing studies.

Expedited Development and Review Programs

The FDA maintains several programs intended to facilitate and expedite development and review of new biologics designed to address unmet medical needs in the treatment of serious or life- threatening diseases or conditions. These programs include Fast Track designation, Breakthrough Therapy designation, Priority Review designation and Accelerated Approval, and the purpose of these programs is to expedite the development and review of qualifying product candidates.

A new biologic is eligible for Fast Track designation if it is intended to treat a serious or life- threatening disease or condition and demonstrates the potential to address unmet medical needs for such disease or condition. Fast Track designation provides increased opportunities for sponsor meetings with the FDA during preclinical and clinical development, in addition to the potential for rolling review, meaning that the agency may review portions of the marketing application before the sponsor submits the complete application, if the sponsor provides a schedule for the submission of the sections of the BLA, the FDA agrees to accept sections of the BLA and determines that the schedule is acceptable, and the sponsor pays any required user fees upon submission of the first section of the BLA. Product candidates receiving Fast Track status may also be eligible for Priority Review, if the relevant criteria are met.

In addition, a biologic product candidate may be eligible for Breakthrough Therapy designation if it is intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product candidate may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. Breakthrough Therapy designation provides all the features of Fast Track designation in addition to intensive guidance on an efficient development program beginning as early as Phase 1, and FDA organizational commitment to expedited development, including involvement of senior managers and experienced review staff in a cross-disciplinary review, where appropriate.

Any product candidate submitted to the FDA for approval, including a product candidate with Fast Track or Breakthrough Therapy designation, may also be eligible for additional FDA programs intended to expedite the review process, including Priority Review designation and accelerated approval. A BLA is eligible for Priority Review if the product candidate has the potential to provide a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness in the treatment, diagnosis or prevention of a serious disease or condition. Additionally, product candidates are eligible for accelerated approval if they can be shown to have an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit, or an effect on a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality which 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. Accelerated approval is usually contingent on a sponsor’s agreement to conduct additional post-approval studies to verify and describe the product’s clinical benefit. Products receiving accelerated approval may be subject to expedited withdrawal procedures if the sponsor fails to conduct the required post-marketing studies or if such studies fail to verify the predicted clinical benefit. In addition, the FDA currently requires as a condition for accelerated approval pre-approval of promotional materials, which could adversely impact the timing of the commercial launch of the product.

Fast Track designation, Breakthrough Therapy designation, Priority Review designation and Accelerated Approval do not change the standards for approval but may expedite the development or review process.

Post-Approval Requirements

Approved biologics that are manufactured or distributed in the United States are subject to pervasive and continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, requirements relating to recordkeeping, periodic reporting, product distribution, advertising and promotion and reporting of adverse experiences with the product. There also are continuing, annual user fee requirements for products marketed pursuant to approved applications.

Any biologics manufactured or distributed pursuant to FDA approvals remain subject to continuing regulation by the FDA, including recordkeeping requirements and reporting of adverse experiences associated with the product. Manufacturers and their subcontractors 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 ongoing regulatory requirements, including cGMP, which impose certain procedural and documentation requirements upon manufacturers and contract manufacturers. Changes to the manufacturing process are strictly regulated, and, depending on the significance of the change, may require prior FDA approval before being implemented. FDA regulations also require investigation and correction of any deviations from cGMP and impose reporting requirements. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain compliance with cGMP and other aspects of regulatory compliance.

26

The FDA may withdraw approval if compliance with regulatory requirements and standards is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the market. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in revisions to the approved labeling to add new safety information, requirements for post-market studies or clinical trials to assess new safety risks, or imposition of distribution or other restrictions under a REMS programs. Other potential consequences include, among other things:

The FDA closely regulates the post-approval marketing and promotion of biologics, including standards and regulations for direct-to-consumer advertising, off-label promotion, industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities, and promotional activities involving the internet and social media. A company can make only those claims relating to safety and efficacy that are approved by the FDA. Physicians may prescribe legally available biologics for uses that are not described in the product’s labeling and that differ from those tested by us and approved by the FDA. The FDA does not regulate the behavior of physicians in their choice of treatments. The FDA does, however, impose stringent restrictions on manufacturers’ communications regarding off-label use. Failure to comply with these requirements can result in adverse publicity, warning letters, corrective advertising and potential civil and criminal penalties.

Biosimilars and Regulatory Exclusivity

The Affordable Care Act, signed into law in 2010, includes a subtitle called the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act, or BPCIA, which created an abbreviated approval pathway for biological products that are biosimilar to or interchangeable with an FDA-licensed reference biological product. Biosimilarity, which requires that there be no clinically meaningful differences between the biological product and the reference product in terms of safety, purity, and potency, can be shown through analytical studies, animal studies, and a clinical study or studies. Interchangeability requires that a product is biosimilar to the reference product and the product must demonstrate that it can be expected to produce the same clinical results as the reference product in any given patient and, for products that are administered multiple times to an individual, the biologic and the reference biologic may be alternated or switched after one has been previously administered without increasing safety risks or risks of diminished efficacy relative to exclusive use of the reference biologic.

Under the BPCIA, an application for a biosimilar product may not be submitted to the FDA until four years following the date that the reference product was first licensed by the FDA. In addition, the approval of a biosimilar product may not be made effective by the FDA until 12 years from the date on which the reference product was first licensed. During this 12-year period of exclusivity, another company may still market a competing version of the reference product if the FDA approves a full BLA for the competing product containing that applicant’s own preclinical data and data from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to demonstrate the safety, purity and potency of its product. The BPCIA also created certain exclusivity periods for biosimilars approved as interchangeable products. At this juncture, it is unclear whether products deemed “interchangeable” by the FDA will, in fact, be readily substituted by pharmacies, which are governed by state pharmacy law.

A biological product can also obtain pediatric 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 study in accordance with an FDA-issued “Written Request” for such a study.

Orphan Drug Designation

Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan designation to a drug or biologic intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is a disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or if it affects more than 200,000 individuals in the United States, there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making the product available in the United States for the disease or condition will be recovered from sales of the product. Orphan designation must be

27

requested before submitting a BLA. Orphan designation does not convey any advantage in or shorten the duration of the regulatory review and approval process, though companies developing orphan products are eligible for certain incentives, including tax credits for qualified clinical testing and waiver of application fees.

If a product that has orphan designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for the disease or condition for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to a seven-year period of marketing exclusivity during which the FDA may not approve any other applications to market the same therapeutic agent for the same indication, except in limited circumstances, such as a subsequent product’s showing of clinical superiority over the product with orphan exclusivity or where the original applicant cannot produce sufficient quantities of product. Competitors, however, may receive approval of different therapeutic agents for the indication for which the orphan product has exclusivity or obtain approval for the same therapeutic agent for a different indication than that for which the orphan product has exclusivity. Further, if a designated orphan product receives marketing approval for an indication broader than the rare disease or condition for which it received orphan designation, it may not be entitled to orphan exclusivity.

Government Regulation Outside of the United States

To market any product outside of the United States, we would need to comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of other countries regarding safety and efficacy and governing, among other things, clinical trials, marketing authorization, manufacturing, commercial sales and distribution of our products. Because biologically sourced raw materials are subject to unique contamination risks, their use may be restricted in some countries. Whether or not we obtain FDA approval of a product, we must obtain the requisite approvals from regulatory authorities in foreign countries prior to the commencement of clinical studies or marketing of the product in those countries. The requirements and process governing the conduct of clinical studies, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary from country to country. Failure to comply with applicable foreign regulatory requirements, may be subject to, among other things, fines, suspension or withdrawal of regulatory approvals, product recalls, seizure of products, operating restrictions and criminal prosecution.

Non-clinical studies and clinical trials

Similarly to the United States, the various phases of non-clinical and clinical research in the European Union, or EU, are subject to significant regulatory controls.

Non-clinical studies are performed to demonstrate the health or environmental safety of new biological substances. Non-clinical studies must be conducted in compliance with the principles of good laboratory practice, or GLP, as set forth in EU Directive 2004/10/EC. In particular, non-clinical studies, both in vitro and in vivo, must be planned, performed, monitored, recorded, reported and archived in accordance with the GLP principles, which define a set of rules and criteria for a quality system for the organizational process and the conditions for non-clinical studies. These GLP standards reflect the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development requirements.

Clinical trials of medicinal products in the EU must be conducted in accordance with EU and national regulations and the International Conference on Harmonization, or ICH, guidelines on Good Clinical Practices, or GCP, as well as the applicable regulatory requirements and the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki. Additional GCP guidelines from the European Commission, focusing in particular on traceability, apply to clinical trials of advanced therapy medicinal products, or ATMPs. If the sponsor of the clinical trial is not established within the EU, it must appoint an EU entity to act as its legal representative. 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.

The regulatory landscape related to clinical trials in the EU has been subject to recent changes. The EU Clinical Trials Regulation, or CTR, which was adopted in April 2014 and repeals the EU Clinical Trials Directive, became applicable on January 31, 2022. Unlike directives, the CTR is directly applicable in all EU member states without the need for member states to further implement it into national law. The CTR notably harmonizes the assessment and supervision processes for clinical trials throughout the EU via a Clinical Trials Information System, which contains a centralized EU portal and database.

While the Clinical Trials Directive required a separate clinical trial application, or CTA, to be submitted in each member state, to both the competent national health authority and an independent ethics committee, much like the FDA and IRB respectively, the CTR introduces a centralized process and only requires the submission of a single application to all member states concerned. The CTR allows sponsors to make a single submission to both the competent authority and an ethics committee in each member state, leading to a single decision per member state. The CTA must include, among other things, a copy of the trial protocol and an investigational medicinal product dossier containing information about the manufacture and quality of the medicinal product under investigation. The assessment procedure of the CTA has been harmonized as well, including a joint assessment by all member states concerned, and a separate assessment by each member state with respect to specific requirements related to its own territory, including ethics rules. Each member state’s decision is communicated to the sponsor via the centralized EU portal. Once the CTA is approved, clinical study development may proceed.

The CTR foresees a three-year transition period. The extent to which ongoing and new clinical trials will be governed by the CTR varies. For clinical trials whose CTA was made under the Clinical Trials Directive before January 31, 2022, the Clinical Trials Directive will continue to apply on a transitional basis for three years. Additionally, sponsors may still choose to submit a CTA under

28

either the Clinical Trials Directive or the CTR until January 31, 2023 and, if authorised, those will be governed by the Clinical Trials Directive until January 31, 2025. By that date, all ongoing trials will become subject to the provisions of the CTR.

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

Marketing Authorizations

In the EU, medicinal products can only be placed on the market after obtaining a marketing authorization, or MA. To obtain regulatory approval of an investigational biological product in the EU, we must submit a marketing authorization application, or MAA. The process for doing this depends, among other things, on the nature of the medicinal product.

Centralized procedure—Under the centralized procedure, following the opining of the EMA’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use, or, CHMP, the European Commission issues a single MA valid throughout the EU. The centralized procedure is compulsory for certain types of products, such as (i) medicinal products derived from biotechnology processes, such as genetic engineering, (ii) designated orphan medicinal products, (iii) ATMPs, such as gene therapy, somatic cell therapy and tissue engineered products, and (iv) medicinal products that contain a new active substance indicated for the treatment of certain diseases, such as HIV/AIDS, cancer, neurodegenerative diseases, diabetes, autoimmune diseases and other immune dysfunctions, and viral diseases. The centralized procedure is optional for any products containing a new active substance not yet authorized in the EU, or for products that constitute a significant therapeutic, scientific or technical innovation or for which the granting of a MA would be in the interest of public health in the EU.

Under the centralized procedure the maximum timeframe for the evaluation of an MAA by the EMA's CHMP is 210 days, excluding clock stops, when additional written or oral information is to be provided by the applicant in response to questions asked by the CHMP. At the end of the review period, the CHMP provides an opinion to the European Commission. If this opinion is favorable, the Commission may then adopt a decision to grant an MA. In exceptional cases, the CHMP might perform an accelerated review of a MAA in no more than 150 days (excluding clock stops), when a medicinal product targets an unmet medical need and is expected to be of a major public health interest, particularly from the point of view of therapeutic innovation. The timeframe for the evaluation of an MAA under the accelerated assessment procedure is 150 days, excluding clock stops.

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 PRIME scheme, which provides incentives similar to the breakthrough therapy designation in the U.S. In March 2016, the EMA launched an initiative, the Priority Medicines, or PRIME, scheme, a voluntary scheme aimed at enhancing the EMA’s support for the development of medicines that target unmet medical needs. It is based on increased interaction and early dialogue with companies developing promising medicines, to optimize their product development plans and speed up their evaluation to help them reach patients earlier. Product developers that benefit from PRIME designation can expect to be eligible for accelerated assessment but this is not guaranteed. Many benefits accrue to sponsors of product candidates with PRIME designation, including but not limited to, early and proactive regulatory dialogue with the EMA, frequent discussions on clinical trial designs and other development program elements, and accelerated MAA assessment once a dossier has been submitted. Importantly, a dedicated contact and rapporteur from the CHMP is appointed early in the PRIME scheme facilitating increased understanding of the product at EMA’s committee level. An initial meeting initiates these relationships and includes a team of multidisciplinary experts at the EMA to provide guidance on the overall development and regulatory strategies.

National authorization procedures—There are also two other possible routes to authorize medicinal products in several member states, which are available for products that fall outside the scope of the centralized procedure:

29

MAs have an initial duration of five years. After these five years, the authorization may be renewed on the basis of a reevaluation of the risk-benefit balance. Once renewed, the MA is valid for an unlimited period unless the European Commission or the national competent authority decides, on justified grounds relating to pharmacovigilance, to proceed with one additional five-year renewal.

Data and Marketing Exclusivity

In the EU, upon receiving a MA, reference medicinal products generally receive eight years of data exclusivity and an additional two years of market exclusivity. If granted, data exclusivity period prevents generic or biosimilar applicants from relying on the preclinical and clinical trial data contained in the dossier of the reference product when applying for a generic or biosimilar MA in the EU during a period of eight years from the date on which the reference product was first authorized in the EU. During the additional two-year period of the market exclusivity period a generic or biosimilar MA can be submitted, and the innovator’s data may be referenced but no generic or biosimilar can be marketed in the EU until ten years have elapsed from the initial authorization of the reference product in the EU. The overall ten-year market exclusivity period can be extended to a maximum of eleven 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 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 EU. 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.

Orphan Medicinal Products

The criteria for designating an “orphan medicinal product” in the EU are similar in principle to those in the United States. A medicinal product may be designated as orphan if (1) it is intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition; (2) either (a) such condition affects no more than five 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 investment; and (3) there exists no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment of such condition authorized for marketing in the EU, or if such a method exists, the product will be of significant benefit to those affected by the condition. The application for orphan drug designation must be submitted before the MAA. Orphan medicinal products are eligible for financial incentives such as reduction of fees or fee waivers and are, upon grant of a MA, entitled to ten years of market exclusivity for the approved therapeutic indication. During this ten-year orphan market exclusivity period, the competent authorities cannot accept another MAA, or grant a MA, or accept an application to extend a MA for a similar product for the same indication. The period of market exclusivity is extended by two years for orphan medicinal products that have also complied with an agreed pediatric investigation plan, or PIP. No extension to any supplementary protection certificate can be granted on the basis of pediatric studies for orphan indications. Orphan drug designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process.

The ten-year market exclusivity may be reduced to six years if, at the end of the fifth year, it is established that the product no longer meets the criteria for orphan designation, for example, if the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity. Additionally, a MA may be granted to a similar product for the same indication at any time if (i) the second applicant can establish that its product, although similar, is safer, more effective or otherwise clinically superior; (ii) the applicant consents to a second orphan medicinal product application; or (iii) the applicant cannot supply enough orphan medicinal product.

Pediatric Development

In the EU, MAAs for new medicinal products have to include the results of trials conducted in the pediatric population, in compliance with a PIP agreed with the EMA’s Pediatric Committee, or PDCO. The PIP sets out the timing and measures proposed to generate data to support a pediatric indication of the drug for which an MA is being sought. The PDCO can grant a deferral of the obligation to implement some or all of the measures of the PIP until there are sufficient data to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of the product in adults. 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 member states and study results are included in the product information, even when negative, the product is eligible for a six-months supplementary protection certificate extension (if any is in effect at the time of approval) or, in the case of orphan pharmaceutical products, a two year extension of the orphan market exclusivity is granted.

30

Post-Approval Requirements

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 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, or PSURs.

All new MAAs must include a risk management plan, or RMP, describing the risk management system that the company will put in place and documenting measures to prevent or minimize the risks associated with the product. The regulatory authorities may also impose specific obligations as a condition of the 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.

The advertising and promotion of medicinal products is also subject to laws concerning promotion of medicinal products, interactions with physicians, misleading and comparative advertising and unfair commercial practices. All advertising and promotional activities for the product must be consistent with the approved summary of product characteristics, and therefore all off-label promotion is prohibited. Direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription medicines is also prohibited in the EU. Although general requirements for advertising and promotion of medicinal products are established under EU directives, the details are governed by regulations in each member state and can differ from one country to another.

Failure to comply with EU and member state laws that apply to the conduct of clinical trials, manufacturing approval, MA of medicinal products and marketing of such products, both before and after grant of the MA, manufacturing of pharmaceutical products, statutory health insurance, bribery and anti-corruption 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 MA, product withdrawals and recalls, product seizures, suspension, withdrawal or variation of the MA, total or partial suspension of production, distribution, manufacturing or clinical trials, operating restrictions, injunctions, suspension of licenses, fines and criminal penalties.

The aforementioned EU rules are generally applicable in the European Economic Area, or EEA (comprised of the 27 EU member states plus Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway).

Brexit and the Regulatory Framework in the United Kingdom
 

The United Kingdom, or UK, left the EU on January 31, 2020, following which existing EU medicinal product legislation continued to apply in the UK during the transition period under the terms of the EU-UK Withdrawal Agreement. The transition period, which ended on December 31, 2020, maintained access to the EU single market and to the global trade deals negotiated by the EU on behalf of its members. The transition period provided time for the UK and EU to negotiate a framework for partnership for the future, which was then crystallized in the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, or TCA, and became effective on the January 1, 2021. The TCA includes specific provisions concerning pharmaceuticals, which include the mutual recognition of GMP inspections of manufacturing facilities for medicinal products and GMP documents issued, but does not foresee wholesale mutual recognition of UK and EU pharmaceutical regulations.

EU laws which have been transposed into UK law through secondary legislation continue to be applicable as “retained EU law”. However, new legislation such as the EU CTR or in relation to orphan medicines will not be applicable. The UK government has passed a new Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021, which introduces delegated powers in favour of the Secretary of State or an ‘appropriate authority’ to amend or supplement existing regulations in the area of medicinal products and medical devices. This allows new rules to be introduced in the future by way of secondary legislation, which aims to allow flexibility in addressing regulatory gaps and future changes in the fields of human medicines, clinical trials and medical devices.
 

As of January 1, 2021, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, or MHRA, is the UK’s standalone medicines and medical devices regulator. As a result of the Northern Ireland protocol, different rules will apply in Northern Ireland than in England, Wales, and Scotland, together, Great Britain, or GB; broadly, Northern Ireland will continue to follow the EU regulatory regime, but its national competent authority will remain the MHRA. The MHRA has published a guidance on how various aspects of the UK regulatory regime for medicines will operate in GB and in Northern Ireland following the expiry of the Brexit transition period on December 31, 2020. The guidance includes clinical trials, importing, exporting, and pharmacovigilance and is relevant to any business involved in the research, development, or commercialization of medicines in the UK. The new guidance was given effect via the Human Medicines Regulations (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, or the Exit Regulations.

31

The MHRA has introduced changes to national licensing procedures, including procedures to prioritize access to new medicines that will benefit patients, including a 150-day assessment and a rolling review procedure. All existing EU MAs for centrally authorized products were automatically converted or grandfathered into UK MAs, effective in GB (only), free of charge on January 1, 2021, unless the MA holder chooses to opt-out. After Brexit, companies established in the UK cannot use the centralized procedure and instead must follow one of the UK national authorization procedures or one of the remaining post-Brexit international cooperation procedures to obtain an MA to commercialize products in the UK. The MHRA may rely on a decision taken by the European Commission on the approval of a new (centralized procedure) MA when determining an application for a GB authorization; or use the MHRA’s decentralized or mutual recognition procedures which enable MAs approved in EU member states (or Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway) to be granted in GB.

Other Healthcare Laws

In addition to FDA restrictions on marketing of pharmaceutical and biological products, other healthcare regulatory laws restrict business practices in the biotechnology industry, which include, but are not limited to, anti-kickback, false claims, and transparency laws regarding drug pricing and payments and other transfers of value made to physicians and other healthcare providers. The federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits the offer, receipt, or payment of remuneration in exchange for or to induce the referral of patients or the use of products or services that would be paid for in whole or part by Medicare, Medicaid or other federal healthcare programs. Remuneration has been broadly interpreted to include anything of value, including cash, improper discounts and free or reduced-price items and services. Further, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it to have committed a violation. Many states have similar laws that apply to their state healthcare programs as well as private payors.

The False Claims Act, or FCA, imposes liability on persons who, among other things, knowingly present or cause to be presented, a false, fictitious or fraudulent claim for payment to, or approval by, the federal government, knowingly make, use, or cause to be made or used a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim to the federal government, or knowingly make a false statement to avoid, decrease or conceal an obligation to pay money to the U.S. federal government. The FCA has been used to prosecute persons submitting claims for payment that are inaccurate or fraudulent, that are for services not provided as claimed, or for services that are not medically necessary. In addition, the government may assert that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the False Claims Act. Actions under the FCA may be brought by the Attorney General or as a qui tam action by a private individual in the name of the government. The federal government is using the FCA, and the accompanying threat of significant liability, in its investigation and prosecution of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies throughout the country, and has obtained multi-million and multi–billion-dollar settlements under the FCA in addition to individual criminal convictions under applicable criminal statutes. In addition, companies have been forced to implement extensive corrective action plans and have often become subject to consent decrees or corporate integrity agreements, severely restricting the manner in which they conduct their business. Given the significant size of actual and potential settlements, it is expected that the government authorities will continue to devote substantial resources to investigating healthcare providers’ and manufacturers’ compliance with applicable fraud and abuse laws.

The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, created additional 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. Similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation.

In addition, there has been a recent trend of increased federal and state regulation of payments made to physicians and other healthcare providers. The ACA, among other things, imposed new reporting requirements through the Physician Payments Sunshine Act on certain manufacturers of drugs covered by a federal healthcare program for payments made by them to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors), certain non-physician practitioners (physician assistants, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, certified registered nurse anesthetists, anesthesiology assistants, and certified nurse midwives) and teaching hospitals, as well as ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members. Failure to submit required information may result in civil monetary penalties for all payments, transfers of value or ownership or investment interests that are not timely, accurately and completely reported in an annual submission. Manufacturers must submit reports by the 90th day of each calendar year. Certain states also mandate implementation of compliance programs, impose restrictions on drug manufacturer marketing practices and/or require the tracking and reporting of gifts, compensation and other remuneration to physicians, and pricing information and marketing expenditures.

32

To the extent that any of our product candidates, once approved, are sold in a foreign country, we may be subject to similar foreign laws and regulations, which may include, for instance, applicable post-marketing requirements, including safety surveillance, anti-fraud and abuse laws, and implementation of corporate compliance programs and reporting of payments or other transfers of value to healthcare professionals.

The shifting commercial compliance environment and the need to build and maintain robust systems to comply with different compliance and/or reporting requirements in multiple jurisdictions increase the possibility that a healthcare company may violate one or more of the requirements. Violations of any of such laws or any other governmental regulations that apply to drug manufacturers may result in significant penalties, including, without limitation, administrative, civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, the curtailment or restructuring of operations, exclusion from participation in federal and state healthcare programs, reporting obligations and integrity oversight, and imprisonment.

Coverage and Reimbursement

Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of any product candidates for which we obtain regulatory approval. In both domestic and foreign markets, sales and reimbursement of any approved products will depend, in part, on the extent to which third-party payors, such as government health programs, commercial insurance and managed healthcare organizations provide coverage, and establish adequate reimbursement levels for, such products. Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the prices charged for medical products and services and imposing controls to manage costs. Third-party payors may limit, or hinder, 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. Additionally, we may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of our products, as well as provide rebates and discounts which may impact the net selling price of our products. If third-party payors do not consider our products to be cost-effective compared to other therapies, the payors may not cover our products as a benefit under their plans or, if they do, the level of reimbursement may not be sufficient to allow us to sell our products on a profitable basis.

The containment of healthcare costs also has become a priority of federal and state governments and the prices of pharmaceutical and biological products have been a focus in this effort. Governments have shown significant interest in implementing cost-containment programs, including price controls, restrictions on reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products. Adoption of price controls and cost-containment measures, and adoption of more restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could further limit our net revenue and results.

Outside the United States, ensuring adequate coverage and payment for our products will face challenges. Pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals is subject to governmental control in many countries. Pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can extend well beyond the receipt of regulatory marketing approval for a product and may require us to conduct a clinical trial that compares the cost effectiveness of our product candidates or products to other available therapies. Conducting such a clinical trial could be expensive and result in delays in our commercialization efforts. Third-party payors are challenging the prices charged for medical products and services, and many third-party payors limit reimbursement for newly approved healthcare products. Recent budgetary pressures in many countries are also causing governments to consider or implement various cost-containment measures, such as price freezes, increased price cuts and rebates. If budget pressures continue, governments may implement additional cost-containment measures. Cost-control initiatives could decrease the price we might establish for products that we may develop or sell, which would result in lower product revenues or royalties payable to us. There can be no assurance that any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for pharmaceutical products will allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements for any of our products. The downward pressure on healthcare costs in general, particularly prescription products, has become very intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products. In addition, in some countries, cross border imports from low priced markets exert a commercial pressure on pricing within a country.

Healthcare Reform

In the United States, there have been a number of federal and state proposals during the last few years regarding the pricing of pharmaceutical and biological products, government control and other changes to the healthcare system. It is uncertain what legislative proposals will be adopted or what actions federal, state or private payors for medical goods and services may take in response to any healthcare reform proposals or legislation. We cannot predict the effect medical or healthcare reforms may have on our business, and no assurance can be given that any such reforms will not have a material adverse effect.

By way of example, in March 2010, the ACA was signed into law, which, among other things, includes changes to the coverage and payment for pharmaceutical and biological products under government health care programs. Among other things, the ACA:

33

Since its enactment, there have been judicial, executive and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA. On June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the most recent judicial challenge to the ACA brought by several states without specifically ruling on the constitutionality of the ACA. Thus, the ACA will remain in effect in its current form. Further, prior to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, President Biden issued an executive order to initiate a special enrollment period from February 15, 2021, through August 15, 2021, for purposes of obtaining health insurance coverage through the ACA marketplace. The executive order also instructed certain governmental agencies to review and reconsider their existing policies and rules that limit access to healthcare, including among others, reexamining Medicaid demonstration projects and waiver programs that include work requirements, and policies that create unnecessary barriers to obtaining access to health insurance coverage through Medicaid or the ACA. Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted. In For example, the Budget Control Act of 2011, enacted in August 2011, among other things, included reductions of Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect in April 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments, will remain in effect through 2030, with the exception of a temporary suspension from May 1, 2020 through March 31, 2022, unless additional Congressional action is taken. In January 2013, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was signed into law, which, among other things, further reduced Medicare payments to several types of providers, including hospitals, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. More recently, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which have resulted in several Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted 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 pharmaceutical and biological products. Individual states in the United States have also become increasingly active in passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. Adoption of other new legislation at the federal or state level could further limit reimbursement for pharmaceuticals, including our product candidates if approved.

Data Privacy and Security

We may also be subject to U.S. federal and state and foreign health information privacy, security and data breach notification laws governing the collection, use, disclosure and protection of health-related and other personal information. In the U.S., HIPAA imposes privacy, security and breach reporting obligations with respect to individually identifiable health information upon “covered entities” (health plans, health care clearinghouses and certain health care providers), and their respective business associates, individuals or entities that create, received, maintain or transmit protected health information in connection with providing a service for or on behalf of a covered entity. HIPAA mandates the reporting of certain breaches of health information to the Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, to affected individuals and if the breach is large enough, to the media. Entities that are found to be in violation of HIPAA as the result of a breach of unsecured protected health information, a complaint about privacy practices or an audit by HHS, may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative fines and penalties and/or additional reporting and oversight obligations if required to enter into a resolution agreement and corrective action plan with HHS to settle allegations of HIPAA non-compliance. Even when HIPAA does not apply, according to the Federal Trade Commission or the FTC, failing to take appropriate steps to keep consumers’ personal information secure may constitute unfair acts or practices in or affecting commerce in violation of Section 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act. The FTC expects a company’s data security measures to be reasonable and appropriate in light of the sensitivity and volume of consumer information it holds, the size and complexity of its business, and the cost of available tools to improve security and reduce vulnerabilities. Individually identifiable health information is considered sensitive data that merits stronger safeguards.

In addition, certain state laws govern the privacy and security of personal information, including health-related information in certain circumstances, some of which are more stringent than HIPAA and many of which differ from each other in significant ways and may not have the same effect, thus complicating compliance efforts. Failure to comply with these laws, where applicable, can result in the imposition of significant civil and/or criminal penalties and private litigation. For example, California enacted the California Consumer Privacy Act, or CCPA, which went into effect January 1, 2020. The CCPA, among other things, creates certain data privacy obligations for covered companies and provides individual privacy rights to California residents, including the right to opt out of certain disclosures of their information. The CCPA also creates a private right of action with statutory damages for certain data breaches, thereby potentially increasing costs associated with a data breach. Although the law includes limited exceptions, including for “protected health information” maintained by a covered entity or business associate, it may regulate or impact our

34

processing of personal information depending on the context. Further, the California Privacy Rights Act, or CPRA, recently passed in California. The CPRA will impose additional data protection obligations on covered businesses, including additional consumer rights processes, limitations on data uses, new audit requirements for higher risk data, and opt outs for certain uses of sensitive data. It will also create a new California data protection agency authorized to issue substantive regulations and could result in increased privacy and information security enforcement. The majority of the provisions will go into effect on January 1, 2023, and additional compliance investment and potential business process changes may be required.

In addition, certain foreign laws govern the privacy and security of personal data, including health-related data. For example, the EU General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR, imposes strict requirements for processing the personal data of individuals within the EEA. Companies that must comply with the GDPR face increased compliance obligations and risk, including more robust regulatory enforcement of data protection requirements and potential fines for noncompliance of up to €20 million or 4% of the annual global revenues of the noncompliant company, whichever is greater. Further, from January 1, 2021, companies have had to comply with the GDPR and also the UK GDPR, which, together with the amended UK Data Protection Act 2018, retains the GDPR in UK national law. The UK GDPR mirrors the fines under the GDPR, i.e., fines up to the greater of €20 million (£17.5 million) or 4% of global turnover. Privacy and security laws, regulations, and other obligations are constantly evolving, may conflict with each other to complicate compliance efforts, and can result in investigations, proceedings, or actions that lead to significant civil and/or criminal penalties and restrictions on data processing.

Human Capital

Employees

As of December 31, 2021, we had 333 full-time permanent employees. Forty-four employees work in administration and operations and 289 work in research and development. None of our employees in the U.S. are represented by a labor union or covered by collective bargaining agreements, and we believe our relationship with our employees is good. During 2021, we enhanced our capabilities by significantly expanding our employee base. The new employees were hired to support a variety of functions and key initiatives, including extending our research, clinical and pre-clinical pipeline development, as well as our medical affairs, manufacturing and commercialization capabilities, with hires in commercial, clinical development and operations, research, medical affairs, manufacturing, and general and administrative functions. We expect to continue to add additional employees in 2022, with a focus on further enhancing our capabilities and increasing our capacities in these areas as we continue our focus on gaining FDA approval for SER-109 for recurrent CDI.

Talent Acquisition and Development

We consider the intellectual capital, skills and experience of our employees to be an essential driver of our business and key to our future prospects. We face intense competition for qualified individuals from numerous pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, universities, governmental entities and other research institutions, and we believe that our future success will depend in large part on our continued ability to attract and retain highly skilled employees. To attract qualified applicants to our company and retain our employees, we offer a total rewards package consisting of base salary and cash target bonus targeting the 50th to 75th percentile of the market based on geography, a comprehensive benefit package and equity compensation for every employee. Annual cash bonus opportunity and equity compensation increase as a percentage of total compensation based on level of responsibility. Any actual bonus payout is based on a combination of individual performance and corporate performance

Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging

As a microbiome therapeutics company developing a novel class of live biotherapeutic drugs, we believe that our long-term success and ability to deliver innovative, safe and effective medicines to patients requires a diverse and inclusive workforce. We value diversity at all levels of the organization and continue to focus on extending our diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives across our entire workforce, from: working with managers to develop strategies for building diverse, high performing teams; to ensuring that we attract, develop and retain diverse talent from all backgrounds; to increasing awareness within our company of unconscious biases, and supporting affinity groups comprised of individuals who are underrepresented in our company, industry or society, such as women, members of the LGBTQ community and people of color. In addition, we pride ourselves on an open culture that respects co-workers, values employees’ health and well-being and fosters professional development. We support employee growth and development in a variety of ways including with group training, individual mentoring and coaching, conference attendance and tuition reimbursement. Our management conducts annual employee engagement surveys and reports to our board of directors on human capital management topics, including corporate culture, diversity, equity and inclusion, employee development and retention, and compensation and benefits. Similarly, our board of directors regularly provides input on important decisions relating to these matters, including with respect to employee compensation and benefits, talent retention and development.

COVID-19 Pandemic

We are operating at a unique time, as we face a serious public safety crisis because of the COVID-19 virus. We remain focused on continuing to serve clinical trial patients, as well as protecting the health and safety of our employees and the communities in which we live and work. At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, we activated a task force designed to assess, mitigate and manage

35

the risks related to COVID-19 to avoid or minimize business disruption, including safeguarding of our facilities, and to ensure the safety and sense of security for our staff. In early March 2020, we closed all sites to non-essential employees. We continue to keep all our sites closed to non-essential employees and encourage remote working arrangements for employees, and we have adopted and implemented additional precautions to accommodate employees returning to worksites safely. To date, our remote working arrangements have not significantly affected our ability to maintain critical business operations.

Our Corporate Information

We were incorporated in the State of Delaware in 2010 under the name Newco LS21, Inc. In October 2011, we changed our name to Seres Health, Inc., and in May 2015, we changed our name to Seres Therapeutics, Inc. Our principal executive offices are located at 200 Sidney Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139 and our telephone number is (617) 945-9626. Our website address is www.serestherapeutics.com. The information contained in, or accessible through, our website does not constitute a part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

We are subject to the informational requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, and, accordingly, file reports, proxy statements and other information with the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC. The SEC maintains a web site (http://www.sec.gov) that contains material regarding issuers that file electronically, such as ourselves, with the SEC.

We make available free of charge on our website our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act, as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the SEC.

Item 1A. Risk Factors

Our business faces significant risks and uncertainties. Accordingly, in evaluating our business, you should carefully consider the risk factors discussed below, as well as the other information included or incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including our consolidated financial statements and the related notes and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.” The occurrence of any of the events or developments described below or elsewhere in this report could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations or growth prospects.

Risks Related to Our Financial Position and Need for Additional Capital

We are a development-stage company and have incurred significant losses since our inception. We expect to incur losses for the foreseeable future and may never achieve or maintain profitability.

Since inception, we have incurred significant operating losses. Our net loss was $65.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2021, $89.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2020, and $70.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2019. As of December 31, 2021, we had an accumulated deficit of $614.4 million. To date, we have financed our operations through the public offerings of our common stock, private placements of our common stock and preferred stock, payments under our collaboration agreements, and loan facility. We have devoted substantially all of our financial resources and efforts to developing our microbiome therapeutics platform, identifying potential product candidates and conducting preclinical studies and clinical trials. We have not completed development of any of our product candidates, which we call microbiome therapeutic candidates, or other drugs or biologics. We expect to continue to incur significant expenses and operating losses for the foreseeable future. We anticipate that our expenses may increase substantially as we:

36

To become and remain profitable, we must succeed in developing and eventually commercializing products that generate significant revenue. This will require us to be successful in a range of challenging activities, including completing preclinical testing and clinical trials of our product candidates, discovering additional product candidates, obtaining regulatory approval for these product candidates and manufacturing, marketing and selling any products for which we may obtain regulatory approval. We are in the preliminary stages of many of these activities. We may never succeed in these activities and, even if we do, may never generate revenue that is significant enough to achieve profitability.

Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with pharmaceutical product and biological development, we are unable to accurately predict the timing or amount of increased expenses or when, or if, we will be able to achieve profitability.

Even if we do achieve profitability, we may not be able to sustain or increase profitability on a quarterly or annual basis. Our failure to become and remain profitable would depress our value and could impair our ability to raise capital, expand our business, maintain our research and development efforts, diversify our product offerings or even continue our operations.

We will need additional funding in order to complete development of our product candidates and commercialize our products, if approved. If we are unable to raise capital when needed, we could be forced to delay, reduce or eliminate our product development programs or commercialization efforts.

Our expenses may increase in connection with our ongoing activities, particularly as we continue the clinical development of SER-109 and prepare for its potential commercialization pending regulatory approval, re-evaluate the clinical development of SER-287, continue clinical studies of SER-301 and SER-155 and continue to research, develop and initiate clinical trials of our other product candidates. In addition, if we obtain regulatory approval for any of our product candidates, we expect to incur significant commercialization expenses related to product manufacturing, marketing, sales and distribution, including under the 2021 License Agreement. Furthermore, we have incurred and expect to continue to incur additional costs associated with operating as a public company, including as a result of no longer qualifying as an “emerging growth company” as defined in the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2012, or the JOBS Act, or as a "smaller reporting company." Accordingly, we will need to obtain substantial additional funding in connection with our continuing operations. If we are unable to raise capital when needed or on attractive terms, we could be forced to delay, reduce or eliminate our research and development programs or any future commercialization efforts.

We expect that our cash, cash equivalents and investments as of December 31, 2021, including proceeds, net of facility fees and expenses, received in February 2022 in connection with the Second Amendment, will be sufficient to fund our operating expenses, debt service obligations and capital expenditure requirements for at least the next 12 months from the issuance of our consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. In addition, the specifics of existing and future clinical trial activities could impact capital requirements and cash projections. We have based this estimate on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we could use our capital resources sooner than we currently expect. Our future capital requirements will depend on many factors, including:

37

Any additional fundraising efforts may divert our management from their day-to-day activities, which may adversely affect our ability to develop and commercialize our product candidates. In addition, we cannot guarantee that future financing will be available in sufficient amounts or on terms acceptable to us, if at all. Additionally, market volatility resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic or other factors could also adversely impact our ability to access capital as and when needed. Moreover, the terms of any financing may adversely affect the holdings or the rights of our stockholders and the issuance of additional securities, whether equity or debt, by us, or the possibility of such issuance, may cause the market price of our shares to decline. The sale of additional equity or convertible securities would dilute all of our stockholders and may decrease our stock price. The incurrence of indebtedness could result in increased fixed payment obligations and we may be required to agree to certain restrictive covenants, such as limitations on our ability to incur additional debt, limitations on our ability to acquire, sell, or license intellectual property rights and other operating restrictions that could adversely impact our ability to conduct our business. We could also be required to seek funds through arrangements with collaborators or others at an earlier stage than otherwise would be desirable and we may be required to relinquish rights to some of our technologies or product candidates or otherwise agree to terms unfavorable to us, any of which may have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results and prospects.

If we are unable to obtain funding on a timely basis, we may be required to significantly curtail, delay, or discontinue one or more of our research or development programs or the commercialization of any product candidates, or be unable to expand our operations or otherwise capitalize on our business opportunities, as desired, which could materially affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

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

Since our inception in October 2010, we have devoted substantially all of our resources to developing our clinical and preclinical program, building our intellectual property portfolio, developing our supply chain, planning our business, raising capital and providing general and administrative support for these operations. We have not yet demonstrated our ability to obtain regulatory approvals, manufacture a commercial-scale product, or arrange for a third party to do so on our behalf, or conduct sales and marketing activities necessary for successful product commercialization. Additionally, we expect our financial condition and operating results to continue to fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter and year to year due to a variety of factors, many of which are beyond our control. Consequently, any predictions made about our future success or viability may not be as accurate as they could be if we had a longer operating history.

Risks Related to the Discovery, Development and Regulatory Approval of Our Product Candidates

Other than SER-109 and SER-287, we are early in our development efforts and may not be successful in our efforts to use our microbiome therapeutics platform to build a pipeline of product candidates and develop marketable drugs.

We are using our microbiome therapeutics platform to develop microbiome therapeutic candidates. Other than SER-109 and SER-287, we are at an early stage of development and our platform has not yet, and may never, lead to approvable or marketable drugs. We are developing additional product candidates that we intend to be used to reduce infection and treat diseases where the microbiome is implicated. We may have problems applying our technologies to these areas, and our product candidates may not be effective in reducing infection and disease. Our product candidates may not be suitable for clinical development, including as a result of their harmful side effects, limited efficacy or other characteristics that indicate that they are unlikely to be products that will receive marketing approval and achieve market acceptance.

The success of our product candidates will depend on several factors, including the following:

38

If we or our collaborators do not successfully develop and commercialize product candidates we will not be able to obtain product revenue in future periods, which likely would result in significant harm to our financial position and adversely affect our stock price.

Our product candidates are based on microbiome therapeutics, which is an unproven approach to therapeutic intervention.

All of our product candidates are based on microbiome therapeutics, a novel potential class of live biotherapeutic drug candidates, which are consortia of microbes designed to treat or reduce disease by modulating the microbiome through key compositional and functional changes relevant to disease outcomes. We have not, nor to our knowledge has any other company, received regulatory approval for, or manufactured on a commercial scale, a therapeutic based on this approach. We cannot be certain that our approach will lead to the development of approvable or marketable products or that we will be able to manufacture at commercial scale, if approved. In addition, our microbiome therapeutic candidates may have different effectiveness rates in various indications and in different geographical areas. Finally, the FDA or other regulatory authorities may lack experience in evaluating the safety and efficacy of products based on microbiome therapeutics, which could result in a longer than expected regulatory review process, increase our expected development costs and delay or prevent commercialization of our product candidates.

Our microbiome therapeutics platform relies on third parties for biological materials, including human stool. Some biological materials have not always met our expectations or requirements, and any disruption in the supply of these biological materials could materially adversely affect our business. For example, if any supplied biological materials are contaminated with disease organisms, we would not be able to use such biological materials. Although we have control processes and screening procedures, biological materials are susceptible to damage and contamination and may contain active pathogens. Improper storage of these materials, by us or any third-party suppliers, may require us to destroy some of our materials or products, which could delay the development or commercialization of our product candidates.

Clinical drug development involves a risky, lengthy and expensive process, with an uncertain outcome. We may incur additional costs or experience delays in completing, or ultimately be unable to complete, the development and commercialization of our product candidates.

It is difficult to predict when or if any of our product candidates will prove effective and safe in humans or will receive regulatory approval, and the risk of failure through the development process is high. Before obtaining marketing approval from regulatory authorities for the sale of any product candidate, we must complete preclinical development and then conduct extensive clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of our product candidates in humans. 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, and our clinical trials may not be successful. The outcome of preclinical testing and early clinical trials may not be predictive of the success of later clinical trials, and interim or preliminary results of a clinical trial, that we may from time to time announce, do not necessarily predict final results. A number of companies in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have suffered significant setbacks in advanced clinical trials due to lack of efficacy or adverse safety profiles, notwithstanding promising results in earlier studies, and we cannot be certain that we will not face similar setbacks.

In addition, we cannot be certain as to what type and how many clinical trials the FDA, or other regulatory authorities, will require us to conduct before we may successfully gain approval to market any of our other product candidates. Prior to approving a new therapeutic product, the FDA (or other regulatory authorities) generally requires that safety and efficacy be demonstrated in two adequate and well-controlled clinical trials. In some situations, evidence from a Phase 2 trial and a Phase 3 trial or from a single Phase 3 trial can be sufficient for FDA approval, such as in cases where the trial or trials provide highly reliable and statistically strong evidence of an important clinical benefit.

39

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

If we are required to conduct additional clinical trials or other testing of our product candidates beyond those that we currently contemplate, if we are unable to successfully complete clinical trials of our product candidates or other testing, if the results of these trials or tests are not positive or are only modestly positive or if there are safety concerns, we may:

40

For example, in March 2020, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, we halted further enrollment of the completed ECOSPOR III trial with 182 patients enrolled. Following receipt of the Phase 3 top-line data from ECOSPOR III, the FDA reaffirmed its prior position that safety data from at least 300 patients at 24 weeks will be required for the safety database for SER-109. In September 2021, we achieved target enrollment of 300 subjects with the ECOSPOR IV open-label study. The target enrollment of a minimum of 300 subjects for the SER-109 safety database was reached in conjunction with a prior completed Phase 3 study, ECOSPOR III. We may also be required to treat more patients with SER-109 than we currently expect before we are able to generate a safety database sufficient to allow us to seek approval of SER-109. Additional clinical trials or changes in our development plans could cause us to incur significant development costs, delay or prevent the commercialization of SER-109 or otherwise adversely affect our business. In addition, prolonged disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic could severely impact our preclinical studies and clinical trials, including by causing further difficulties or delays in initiating, enrolling, conducting, or completing our planned and ongoing clinical trials. See “—Risks Related to Our Operations—The COVID-19 pandemic has adversely impacted and could continue to adversely impact, our business, including our preclinical studies and clinical trials, results of operations and financial condition.”

Our product development costs will increase if we continue to experience delays in clinical testing or marketing approvals. We do not know whether any of our preclinical studies or clinical trials will begin as planned, will need to be restructured or will be completed on schedule, or at all. Significant preclinical or clinical trial delays also could shorten any periods during which we may have the exclusive right to commercialize our product candidates or allow our competitors to bring products to market before we do, potentially impairing our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates and harming our business and results of operations.

In addition, the FDA’s and other regulatory authorities’ policies may change and additional government regulations may be enacted with respect to clinical trials. For instance, the regulatory landscape related to clinical trials in the European Union, or EU, recently evolved. The EU Clinical Trials Regulation, or CTR, which was adopted in April 2014 and repeals the EU Clinical Trials Directive, became applicable on January 31, 2022. While the Clinical Trials Directive required a separate clinical trial application, or CTA, to be submitted in each member state, to both the competent national health authority and an independent ethics committee, the CTR introduces a centralized process and only requires the submission of a single application to all member states concerned. The CTR allows sponsors to make a single submission to both the competent authority and an ethics committee in each member state, leading to a single decision per member state. The assessment procedure of the CTA has been harmonized as well, including a joint assessment by all member states concerned, and a separate assessment by each member state with respect to specific requirements related to its own territory, including ethics rules. Each member state’s decision is communicated to the sponsor via the centralized EU portal. Once the CTA is approved, clinical study development may proceed. The CTR foresees a three-year transition period. The extent to which ongoing and new clinical trials will be governed by the CTR varies. For clinical trials whose CTA was made under the Clinical Trials Directive before January 31, 2022, the Clinical Trials Directive will continue to apply on a transitional basis for three years. Additionally, sponsors may still choose to submit a CTA under either the Clinical Trials Directive or the CTR until January 31, 2023 and, if authorised, those will be governed by the Clinical Trials Directive until January 31, 2025. By that date, all ongoing trials will become subject to the provisions of the CTR. Compliance with the CTR requirements by us and our third-party service providers, such as clinical research organizations, or CROs, may impact our developments plans.

It is currently unclear to what extent the United Kingdom, or UK, will seek to align its regulations with the EU. The UK regulatory framework in relation to clinical trials is derived from existing EU legislation (as implemented into UK law, through secondary legislation). On January 17, 2022, the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, or MHR, launched an eight-week consultation on reframing the UK legislation for clinical trials. The consultation closes on March 14, 2022 and aims to streamline clinical trials approvals, enable innovation, enhance clinical trials transparency, enable greater risk proportionality, and promote patient and public involvement in clinical trials. The outcome of the consultation will be closely watched and will determine whether the UK chooses to align with the regulation or diverge from it to maintain regulatory flexibility. A decision by the UK not to closely align its regulations with the new approach that will be adopted in the EU may have an effect on the cost of conducting clinical trials in the UK as opposed to other countries and/or make it harder to seek a marketing authorization in the EU for our product candidates on the basis of clinical trials conducted in the UK.

If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies governing clinical trials, our business may be impacted.

Delays or difficulties in the enrollment of patients in clinical trials, could result in our receipt of necessary regulatory approvals being delayed or prevented.

Successful and timely completion of clinical trials will require that we enroll a sufficient number of patient candidates. These trials and other trials we conduct may be subject to delays for a variety of reasons, including as a result of patient enrollment taking longer than anticipated, patient withdrawal or adverse events. These types of developments could cause us to delay the trial or halt further development.

Our clinical trials will compete with other clinical trials that are in the same therapeutic areas as our product candidates, and this competition reduces the number and types of patients available to us, as some patients who might have opted to enroll in our trials may instead opt to enroll in a trial being conducted by one of our competitors. Because the number of qualified clinical investigators

41

and clinical trial sites is limited, we expect to conduct some of our clinical trials at the same clinical trial sites that some of our competitors use, which will reduce the number of patients who are available for our clinical trials at such clinical trial sites. In addition, there may be limited patient pools from which to draw for clinical studies. In addition to the rarity of some diseases, the eligibility criteria of our clinical studies will further limit the pool of available study participants as we will require that patients have specific characteristics that we can measure or to assure their disease is either severe enough or not too advanced to include them in a study.

Patient enrollment is also affected by other factors including:

Our inability to enroll a sufficient number of patients for our clinical trials or a delayed rate of enrollment would result in significant delays and could require us to abandon one or more clinical trials altogether.

Interim “top-line” and preliminary data from our clinical trials that we announce or publish from time to time may change as more patient data become available and are subject to audit and verification procedures that could result in material changes in the final data.

From time to time, we may publicly disclose interim, top-line or preliminary data from our clinical trials, which is based on a preliminary analysis of then-available data, and the results and related findings and conclusions are subject to change following a more comprehensive review of the data related to the particular study or trial. We also make assumptions, estimations, calculations and conclusions as part of our analyses of data, and we may not have received or had the opportunity to fully and carefully evaluate all data. As a result, the top-line or preliminary results that we report may differ from future results of the same studies, or different conclusions or considerations may qualify such results, once additional data have been received and fully evaluated. Top-line or preliminary data also remain subject to audit and verification procedures that may result in the final data being materially different from the top-line or preliminary data we previously published. As a result, top-line and preliminary data should be viewed with caution until the final data are available.

From time to time, we may also disclose interim data from our preclinical studies and clinical trials. Interim data from clinical trials that we may complete are subject to the risk that one or more of the clinical outcomes may materially change as patient enrollment continues and more patient data become available. Adverse differences between interim data and final data could significantly harm our business prospects. Further, disclosure of interim data by us or by our competitors could result in volatility in the price of our common stock.

Further, others, including regulatory authorities, may not accept or agree with our assumptions, estimates, calculations, conclusions or analyses or may interpret or weigh the importance of data differently, which could impact the value of the particular program, the approvability or commercialization of the particular product candidate or product and our company in general. In addition, the information we choose to publicly disclose regarding a particular study or clinical trial is based on what is typically extensive information, and you or others may not agree with what we determine is material or otherwise appropriate information to include in our disclosure.

If the interim, top-line or preliminary data that we report differ from actual results, or if others, including regulatory authorities, disagree with the conclusions reached, our ability to obtain approval for, and commercialize, our product candidates may be harmed, which could harm our business, operating results, prospects or financial condition.

If we are not able to obtain, or if there are delays in obtaining, required regulatory approvals, we or our collaborators will not be able to commercialize our product candidates or will not be able to do so as soon as anticipated, and our ability to generate revenue will be materially impaired.

42

Our product candidates and the activities associated with their development and commercialization, including their design, testing, manufacture, safety, efficacy, recordkeeping, labeling, storage, approval, advertising, promotion, sale and distribution, are subject to comprehensive regulation by the FDA and other regulatory agencies in the United States and similar regulatory authorities outside the United States. Failure to obtain marketing approval for a product candidate in any jurisdiction will prevent us and our collaborators from commercializing the product candidate in that jurisdiction and may affect our plans for commercialization in other jurisdictions as well. We have not received approval to market any of our product candidates from regulatory authorities in any jurisdiction. We have only limited experience in filing and supporting the applications necessary to gain marketing approvals and expect to rely on third parties 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. 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.

The process of obtaining marketing approvals, both in the United States and abroad, is expensive, risky and may take many years. The scope and amount of clinical data required to obtain marketing approvals can vary substantially from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and it may be difficult to predict whether a particular regulatory body will require additional or different studies than those conducted by a sponsor, especially for novel product candidates such as our microbiome therapeutic candidates. The FDA or foreign regulatory authorities may delay, limit, or deny approval to market our product candidates for many reasons, including: our inability to demonstrate that the clinical benefits of our product candidates outweigh any safety or other perceived risks; the regulatory authority’s disagreement with the interpretation of data from nonclinical or clinical studies; the regulatory authority’s requirement that we conduct additional preclinical studies and clinical trials; changes in marketing approval policies during the development period; changes in or the enactment of additional statutes or regulations, or changes in regulatory review process for each submitted product application; or the regulatory authority’s failure to approve the manufacturing processes or third-party manufacturers with which we contract. For instance, the EU pharmaceutical legislation is currently undergoing a complete review process, in the context of the Pharmaceutical Strategy for Europe initiative, launched by the European Commission in November 2020. A proposal for revision of several legislative instruments related to medicinal products (potentially revising the duration of regulatory exclusivity, eligibility for expedited pathways, etc.) is expected to be adopted by the European Commission by the end of 2022. The proposed revisions, once they are agreed and adopted by the European Parliament and European Council (not expected before the end of 2024) may have a significant impact on the biopharmaceutical industry in the long term.

There may also be interruptions or delays in the operations of the FDA or other foreign regulatory authorities due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which may impact approval timelines. Regulatory authorities have substantial discretion in the approval process and may refuse to accept a marketing application if deficient. In addition, varying interpretations of the data obtained from 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. Of the large number of drugs in development, only a small percentage successfully complete the FDA or other regulatory approval processes and are commercialized.

Furthermore, our product candidates may not receive marketing approval even if they achieve their specified endpoints in clinical trials. Clinical data is often susceptible to varying interpretations and many companies that have believed that their products performed satisfactorily in clinical trials have nonetheless failed to obtain regulatory authority approval for their products. The FDA or foreign regulatory authorities may disagree with our trial design and our interpretation of data from nonclinical and clinical studies, or they may require additional confirmatory or safety evidence beyond our existing clinical studies. Upon the FDA’s review of data from any pivotal trial, it may request that the sponsor conduct additional analyses of the data or gather more data and, if it believes the data are not satisfactory, could advise the sponsor to delay filing a marketing application.

Even if we eventually complete clinical testing and receive approval of a biologics license application, or BLA, or foreign marketing authorization for one of our product candidates, the FDA or the applicable foreign regulatory authority may grant approval contingent on the performance of costly additional clinical trials, which may be required after approval. The FDA or the applicable foreign regulatory authority may also approve our product candidates for a more limited indication and/or a narrower patient population than we originally request, and the FDA, or applicable foreign regulatory authority, may not approve the labeling that we believe is necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of our product candidates. Any delay in obtaining, or inability to obtain, applicable regulatory approval would delay or prevent commercialization of our product candidates and would materially adversely impact our business and prospects.

The development of therapeutic products targeting the underlying biology of the human microbiome is an emerging field, and it is possible that the FDA and other regulatory authorities could issue regulations or new policies in the future that could adversely affect our microbiome therapeutic candidates.

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 materially impaired.

43

A Fast Track designation by the FDA may not actually lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process.

We may seek Fast Track designation for some of our product candidates. If a drug or biologic is intended for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening condition and nonclinical or clinical data demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for this condition, the drug or biologic sponsor may apply for Fast Track designation. SER-287 received Fast Track designation from the FDA for the induction and maintenance of clinical remission in adults with mild-to-moderate UC. Fast Track designation provides increased opportunities for sponsor meetings with the FDA during preclinical and clinical development, in addition to the potential for rolling review of a BLA for such product candidate. The FDA has broad discretion whether or not to grant this designation, and even if we believe another particular product candidate is eligible for this designation, we cannot be certain that the FDA would decide to grant it. Even with Fast Track designation, we may not experience a faster development process, review or approval compared to conventional FDA procedures. Fast Track designation does not assure ultimate approval by the FDA. The FDA may withdraw Fast Track designation if it believes that the designation is no longer supported by data from our clinical development program.

A Breakthrough Therapy designation by the FDA for our product candidates may not lead to a faster development, regulatory review or approval process, and it does not increase the likelihood that our product candidates will receive marketing approval.

We have received Breakthrough Therapy designation for SER-109 for treatment of CDI, and we may seek a Breakthrough Therapy designation for our other product candidates. A Breakthrough Therapy is defined as a drug or biologic that is intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug or biologic may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed in early clinical development. For drugs or biologics that have been designated as breakthrough therapies, interaction and communication between the FDA and the sponsor can help to identify the most efficient path for clinical development. Drugs designated as breakthrough therapies by the FDA are also eligible for rolling review of the associated marketing application.

Designation as a Breakthrough Therapy is within the discretion of the FDA. Accordingly, even if we believe one of our product candidates meets the criteria for designation as a Breakthrough Therapy, the FDA may disagree and instead determine not to make such designation. The receipt of a Breakthrough Therapy designation for a product candidate may not result in a faster development process, review or approval compared to conventional FDA procedures and does not assure ultimate approval by the FDA. In addition, not all products designated as breakthrough therapies ultimately will be shown to have the substantial improvement over available therapies suggested by the preliminary clinical evidence at the time of designation. As a result, if the Breakthrough Therapy designation for SER-109 or any future designation we receive is no longer supported by subsequent data, the FDA may rescind the designation.

We may seek PRIME designation by EMA or other designations, schemes or tools in the EU for one or more of our product candidates, which we may not receive. Such designations may not lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process and do not increase the likelihood that our product candidates will receive marketing authorization.

We may seek EMA PRIME (Priority Medicines) designation or other designations, schemes or tools for one or more of our product candidates. In the EU, 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 PRIME scheme, which provides incentives similar to the Breakthrough Therapy designation in the United States. PRIME is a voluntary scheme aimed at enhancing the European Medicines Agency’s, or EMA, support for the development of medicines that target unmet medical needs. It is based on increased interaction and early dialogue with companies developing promising medicines, to optimize their product development plans and speed up their evaluation to help them reach patients earlier. The benefits of a PRIME designation include the appointment of a rapporteur before submission of a marketing authorization application, early dialogue and scientific advice at key development milestones, and the potential to qualify products for accelerated review earlier in the application process.

Even if we believe one of our product candidates is eligible for PRIME, the EMA may disagree and instead determine not to make such designation. The EMA PRIME scheme or other schemes, designations, or tools, even if obtained or used for any of our product candidates may not lead to a faster development, regulatory review or approval process compared to therapies considered for approval under conventional procedures and do not assure ultimate approval. In addition, even if one or more of our product candidates is eligible to the PRIME scheme, the EMA may later decide that such product candidates no longer meet the conditions for qualification or decide that the time period for review or approval will not be shortened.

44

Product developers that benefit from PRIME designation may be eligible for accelerated assessment (in 150 days instead of 210 days), which may be granted for medicinal products of major interest from a public health perspective or that target an unmet medical need, but this is not guaranteed.

The competent regulatory authorities in the EU have broad discretion whether to grant such an accelerated assessment, and, even if such assessment is granted, we may not experience a faster development process, review or authorization compared to conventional procedures. Moreover, the removal or threat of removal of such an accelerated assessment may create uncertainty or delay in the clinical development of our product candidates and threaten the commercialization prospects of our products and product candidates, if approved. Such an occurrence could materially impact our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We may seek orphan drug designation for some of our product candidates but may not be able to obtain it.

We have obtained orphan drug designation from the FDA for SER-109 for recurrent CDI and SER-287 for pediatric UC and may seek orphan drug designation and exclusivity for some of our future product candidates. Regulatory authorities in some jurisdictions, including the United States and Europe, may designate drugs and biologics for relatively small patient populations as orphan drugs. In the United States, the FDA may designate a drug or biologic as an orphan drug if it is intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is defined as a disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or a patient population greater than 200,000 in the United States where there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing the drug will be recovered from sales in the United States. Orphan drug designation must be requested before submitting a BLA. In the United States, orphan drug designation entitles a party to financial incentives such as opportunities for grant funding towards clinical trial costs, tax advantages and application fee waivers. After the FDA grants orphan drug designation, the generic identity of the drug and its potential orphan use are disclosed publicly by the FDA.

In addition, if a product with an orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first marketing approval for the indication for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to a period of marketing exclusivity, which precludes the FDA or other regulatory authorities from approving another marketing application for the same drug or biologic for that time period, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority over the product with orphan exclusivity or where the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient product quantity for the orphan patient population. The applicable period is seven years in the United States and ten years in Europe. The European exclusivity period can be reduced to six years if, at the end of the fifth year, it is established that a product no longer meets the criteria for orphan drug designation or if the product is sufficiently profitable so that market exclusivity is no longer justified. Orphan drug exclusivity may be lost if the FDA or other regulatory authorities determine that the request for designation was materially defective or if the manufacturer is unable to assure a sufficient quantity of the drug or biologic to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition. Exclusive marketing rights in the United States may also be unavailable if we or our collaborators seek approval for an indication broader than the orphan designated indication and may be lost if the FDA later determines that the request for designation was materially defective.

Even if we obtain orphan drug designation, we may not be the first to obtain marketing approval for any particular orphan indication due to the uncertainties associated with developing pharmaceutical products. Further, even if we obtain orphan drug exclusivity for a product candidate, that exclusivity for a product may not effectively protect the product from competition because different drugs and biologics can be approved for the same condition. Even after an orphan drug or biologic is approved, the FDA or other regulatory authorities can subsequently approve the same drug or biologic for the same condition if the FDA or other regulatory authorities conclude that the later drug is clinically superior in that it is shown to be safer, more effective or makes a major contribution to patient care. Orphan drug designation neither shortens the development time or regulatory review time nor gives the drug any advantage in the regulatory review or approval process.

Disruptions at the FDA and other government agencies caused by funding shortages or global health concerns could hinder their ability to hire, retain or deploy key leadership and other personnel, or otherwise prevent new or modified products from being developed, approved or commercialized in a timely manner or at all, which could negatively impact our business.

The ability of the FDA and other regulatory authorities to review and or approve new products can be affected by a variety of factors, including government budget and funding levels, statutory, regulatory, and policy changes, the FDA’s and other regulatory authorities' ability to hire and retain key personnel and accept the payment of user fees, and other events that may otherwise affect the FDA’s and other regulatory authorities' ability to perform routine functions. Average review times at the FDA have fluctuated in recent years as a result. In addition, government funding of other government agencies that fund research and development activities is subject to the political process, which is inherently fluid and unpredictable. Disruptions at the FDA and other regulatory authorities, such as the EMA, following its relocation to Amsterdam and resulting staff changes, may also slow the time necessary for new drugs and biologics to be reviewed and/or approved by necessary regulatory authorities, 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, have had to furlough critical FDA employees and stop critical activities.

45

Separately, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, in March 2020, the FDA announced its intention to postpone most inspections of foreign manufacturing facilities, and on March 18, 2020, the FDA temporarily postponed routine surveillance inspections of domestic manufacturing facilities. Subsequently, in July 2020, the FDA resumed certain on-site inspections of domestic manufacturing facilities subject to a risk-based prioritization system. The FDA utilized this risk-based assessment system to assist in determining when and where it was safest to conduct prioritized domestic inspections. Additionally, on April 15, 2021, the FDA issued a guidance document in which the FDA described its plans to conduct voluntary remote interactive evaluations of certain drug manufacturing facilities and clinical research sites, among other facilities. According to the guidance, the FDA may request such remote interactive evaluations where the FDA determines that remote evaluation would be appropriate based on mission needs and travel limitations. In May 2021, the FDA outlined a detailed plan to move toward a more consistent state of inspectional operations, and in July 2021, the FDA resumed standard inspectional operations of domestic facilities and was continuing to maintain this level of operation as of September 2021. More recently, the FDA has continued to monitor and implement changes to its inspectional activities to ensure the safety of its employees and those of the firms it regulates as it adapts to the evolving COVID-19 pandemic. Regulatory authorities outside the United States, including the EMA, have adopted similar restrictions or other policy measures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. If a prolonged government shutdown occurs, or if global health concerns continue to prevent the FDA or other regulatory authorities from conducting their regular inspections, reviews, or other regulatory activities, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA or other regulatory authorities to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Risks Related to our Dependence on Third Parties and Manufacturing

The collaboration and license agreements with Société des Produits Nestlé S.A. and NHSc Pharma Partners (collectively, and together with their affiliates and subsidiaries, Nestlé) are important to our business. If we or Nestlé fail to adequately perform under these agreements, or if we or Nestlé terminate the agreements, the development and commercialization of our CDI and IBD product candidates, including SER-109, SER-287 and SER-301, could be delayed or terminated and our business would be adversely affected.

In January 2016, we entered into a Collaboration and License Agreement with Nestlé, or the 2016 License Agreement. The 2016 License Agreement may be terminated:

Upon termination of the 2016 License Agreement, all licenses granted to Nestlé by us will terminate, and all rights in and to the 2016 Collaboration Products held by Nestlé will revert to us. If we commit a material breach of the 2016 License Agreement, Nestlé may elect not to terminate the 2016 License Agreement but instead apply specified adjustments to its payment obligations and other terms and conditions of the 2016 License Agreement. If Nestlé were to make such adjustments, the funding from and benefits of the 2016 License Agreement could be diminished, which could adversely affect our financial condition. Unless the 2016 License Agreement is terminated by us for Nestlé’s uncured material breach, upon termination of the 2016 License Agreement, Nestlé will be eligible to receive post-termination royalties from us until Nestlé has recouped certain development costs related to the 2016 Collaboration Products and specified percentages of any milestone payments paid to us under the 2016 License Agreement prior to termination, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

In July 2021, we entered into a License Agreement with Nestlé, or the 2021 License Agreement. The 2021 License Agreement may be terminated:

46

Upon termination of the 2021 License Agreement, all licenses granted to Nestlé by us will terminate. If we commit a material breach of the 2021 License Agreement, Nestlé may elect not to terminate the 2021 License Agreement but instead apply specified adjustments to the payment terms and other terms and conditions of the agreement. If Nestlé were to make such adjustments, the funding from and benefits of the 2021 License Agreement could be diminished, which could adversely affect our financial condition. In the event we materially breach the 2021 License Agreement or file for bankruptcy, the share of profits and milestones due to us will be reduced by a specified percentage until Nestlé has recouped twice the losses caused by our material breach or bankruptcy.

Termination of these agreements could cause significant delays in our product development and commercialization efforts that could prevent us from commercializing our CDI and IBD product candidates without first expanding our internal capabilities or entering into another agreement with a third party. Any alternative collaboration or license could also be on less favorable terms to us. In addition, under the agreements, Nestlé agreed to provide funding for certain clinical development activities. If either of the agreements were terminated, we may need to refund those payments and seek additional financing to support the research and development of any terminated products or discontinue any terminated products, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Under the collaboration and license agreements, we are dependent upon Nestlé to successfully commercialize any applicable collaboration products both outside and within the United States and Canada, as applicable. We cannot directly control Nestlé’s commercialization activities or the resources it allocates to our product candidates. Our interests and Nestlé’s interests may differ or conflict from time to time, or we may disagree with Nestlé’s level of effort or resource allocation. Nestlé may internally prioritize our product candidates differently than we do or it may not allocate sufficient resources to effectively or optimally commercialize them. If these events were to occur, our business would be adversely affected.

We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties to conduct our clinical trials, and those third parties may not perform satisfactorily, including failing to meet deadlines for the completion of such trials.

We expect to continue to rely on third parties, such as CROs, clinical data management organizations, medical institutions and clinical investigators, to conduct and manage our clinical trials.

Our reliance on these third parties for research and development activities will reduce our control over these activities but does not relieve us of our responsibilities. For example, we 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 good clinical practices, or GCPs, for conducting, recording and reporting the results of clinical trials to assure that data and reported results are credible and accurate and that the rights, safety and welfare of trial participants are protected. Regulatory authorities enforce these GCPs through periodic inspections of trial sponsors, principal investigators and trial sites. If we or any of these third parties or our CROs fail to comply with applicable GCPs, the clinical data generated in our clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to perform additional clinical trials before approving our marketing applications. We cannot assure you that upon inspection by a given regulatory authority, such regulatory authority will determine that any of our clinical trials comply with GCP regulations. In addition, our clinical trials must be conducted with product produced under cGMP regulations or similar regulatory requirements outside the United States. Our failure to comply with these regulations may require us to repeat clinical trials, which would delay the regulatory approval process. Moreover, our business may be adversely affected if any of these third parties violates federal or state fraud and abuse or false claims laws and regulations or healthcare privacy and security laws. Other countries’ regulatory authorities also have requirements for clinical trials with which we must comply. We also are required to register ongoing clinical trials and post the results of completed clinical trials on a government-sponsored database, ClinicalTrials.gov, within specified timeframes. Failure to do so can result in fines, adverse publicity and civil and criminal sanctions.

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, do not meet expected deadlines, experience work stoppages, terminate their agreements with us or need to be replaced, or do not conduct our clinical trials in accordance with regulatory requirements or our stated protocols, we may need to enter into new arrangements with alternative third parties, which could be difficult, costly or impossible, and our clinical trials may be extended, delayed, or terminated or may need to be repeated. If any of the foregoing occur, we may not be able to obtain, or may be delayed in obtaining, marketing approvals for our product candidates and may not be able to, or may be delayed in our efforts to, successfully commercialize our product candidates.

47

We also expect to rely on other third parties to store and distribute drug supplies for our clinical trials. Any performance failure on the part of our distributors could delay clinical development or marketing approval of our product candidates or commercialization of our products, producing additional losses and depriving us of potential product revenue.

We rely on third parties for certain aspects of the manufacture of our product candidates for preclinical and clinical testing and for potential commercial manufacture, and we expect to continue to do so for the foreseeable future. This reliance on third parties increases the risk that we will not have sufficient quantities of our product candidates or that such quantities may not be available at an acceptable cost, which could delay, prevent or impair our development or commercialization efforts.

We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties, including Recipharm and Bacthera, for certain aspects of materials supply for our product candidates in preclinical and clinical testing, as well as for commercial manufacture if any of our product candidates receive marketing approval. This reliance on third parties increases the risk that we will not have sufficient quantities of our product candidates on a timely basis or at all, or that such quantities will be available at an acceptable cost or quality, which could delay, prevent or impair our development or commercialization efforts. For example, certain of our product candidates rely on human stool from third-party donors. If we do not obtain an adequate supply of donor-derived material to meet clinical or commercial demand, our ability to manufacture our product candidates may be delayed or adversely impacted.

We rely on third-party manufacturers, which entails additional risks, including:

Third-party manufacturers may not be able to comply with current good manufacturing processes, or cGMP, regulations or similar regulatory requirements inside or outside the United States. Our failure, or the failure of our third-party manufacturers, to comply with applicable regulations could result in sanctions being imposed on us, including clinical holds, fines, injunctions, civil penalties, delays, suspension or withdrawal of approvals, license revocations, seizures or recalls of product candidates or products, operating restrictions and criminal prosecutions, any of which could significantly and adversely affect supplies of our products. Some of the contract manufacturers we rely on to produce our product candidates have never produced an FDA-approved therapeutic. One of the contract manufacturers on which we rely will be constructing a building in which to manufacture our product candidates, which may not be completed on time or at all or, upon completion, may not be approved by the FDA. If our manufacturers are unable to comply with cGMP regulation or similar regulatory requirements outside the United States or if the FDA or other regulatory authorities do not approve their facility upon a pre-approval inspection, our therapeutic candidates may not be approved or may be delayed in obtaining approval. In addition, there are a limited number of manufacturers that operate under cGMP regulations and similar regulatory requirements outside the United States that might be capable of manufacturing our products. Therefore, our product candidates and any future products that we may develop may compete with other products for access to manufacturing facilities. Any failure to gain access to these limited manufacturing facilities could severely impact the clinical development, marketing approval and commercialization of our product candidates.

Any performance failure on the part of our existing or future manufacturers could delay clinical development or marketing approval. We do not currently have a second source for certain required materials used for the manufacture of finished product. If our current manufacturers cannot perform as agreed, we may be required to replace such manufacturers and we may be unable to replace them on a timely basis or at all. Our current and anticipated future dependence upon others for the manufacture of our product candidates or products could delay, prevent or impair our development and commercialization efforts. Moreover, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, third-party manufacturers may be affected, which could disrupt their activities and as a result we could face difficulty sourcing key components necessary to produce supply of our product candidates, which may negatively affect our preclinical and clinical development activities.

We have no experience manufacturing our product candidates commercially, and we cannot assure you that we can manufacture our product candidates in compliance with regulations at a cost or in quantities necessary to make them commercially viable.

We have manufacturing facilities at our Cambridge, Massachusetts locations where we conduct process development, scale-up activities and a portion of the manufacture of microbiome therapeutics. The FDA and other comparable foreign regulatory authorities must, pursuant to inspections that are conducted after submitting a BLA or relevant foreign marketing submission, confirm that the manufacturing processes for the product meet cGMP or similar regulatory requirements outside the United States. We have not yet had any of our manufacturing facilities inspected.

48

We currently intend to rely in part on third-party manufacturers for the commercial manufacturing of SER-109 and may establish a manufacturing facility for SER-109 or any of our other product candidates for production at a commercial scale. We have no experience in manufacturing sufficient volume of our product candidates to meet potential market demands. We may not be able to develop commercial-scale manufacturing facilities that are adequate to produce materials for commercial use.

The equipment and facilities employed in the manufacture of pharmaceuticals are subject to stringent qualification requirements by regulatory agencies, including validation of facility, equipment, systems, processes and analytics. We may be subject to lengthy delays and expense in conducting validation studies, if we can meet the requirements at all.

In addition, some of our product candidates require donor material, of which we may not be able to collect sufficient quantities for commercial-scale or other manufacturing.

Risks Related to Commercialization of Our Product Candidates and

Other Legal Matters

Even if any of our product candidates receive marketing approval, it may fail to achieve the degree of market acceptance by physicians, patients, hospitals, third-party payors and others in the medical community necessary for commercial success.

If any of our product candidates receives marketing approval, it may nonetheless fail to gain sufficient market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors and others in the medical community. For example, current CDI treatment involves the use of antibiotics that are well established in the medical community or the use of FMT, and physicians may continue to rely on these treatments and our competitors and physicians may continue to seek to standardize and implement this procedure. If our product candidates receive approval but do not achieve an adequate level of acceptance, we or our collaborators may not generate significant product revenue and we may not become profitable. The degree of market acceptance of our approved product candidates, if any, will depend on a number of factors, including:

If we or our collaborators are unable to establish effective sales, marketing and distribution capabilities or enter into agreements with third parties with such capabilities, we or our collaborators may not be successful in commercializing our product candidates if and when they are approved.

We have employees with experience in sales and marketing, but we have limited sales or marketing infrastructure and, as a company, have no experience in the sale, marketing, or distribution of pharmaceutical products. To achieve commercial success for any product for which we obtain marketing approval, we will need to establish a sales and marketing organization or make arrangements with third parties to perform sales and marketing functions and we may not be successful in doing so.

In July 2021, we entered into the 2021 License Agreement with Nestlé, pursuant to which we granted Nestlé, under certain of our patent rights and know how, a co-exclusive, sublicensable (under certain conditions) license to develop, commercialize and conduct medical affairs activities for the 2021 Collaboration Products in the United States and Canada. Under the 2021 License Agreement, Nestlé has the sole right to commercialize the 2021 Collaboration Products in the 2021 Licensed Territory in accordance with a commercialization plan, subject to our right to elect to provide up to a specified percentage of all promotional details for a certain target audience. Each party will use commercially reasonable efforts to commercialize the 2021 Collaboration Products in the 2021 Licensed Territory in accordance with the commercialization plan. Both parties will perform medical affairs activities for 2021 Collaboration Products in the 2021 Licensed Territory in accordance with a medical affairs plan. We will be responsible for commercialization and medical affairs activities costs incurred by the parties until first commercial sale of the first 2021 Collaboration Product in the 2021 Licensed Territory and in accordance with a pre-launch plan, up to a specified cap.

49

In the future, we expect to build a focused sales and marketing infrastructure, or certain components of such infrastructure, to market or co-promote our product candidates in the United States and potentially elsewhere, if and when they are approved. There are risks involved with establishing our own sales, marketing and distribution capabilities. For example, recruiting and training a sales force 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 or our collaborators cannot retain or reposition sales and marketing personnel.

Factors that may inhibit efforts to commercialize our products include:

Outside the United States, we rely and may increasingly rely on third parties, including Nestlé, to sell, market and distribute our product candidates. We may not be successful in entering into arrangements with such third parties or may be unable to do so on terms that are favorable to us. In addition, our product revenue and our profitability, if any, may be lower if we rely on third parties for these functions than if we were to market, sell and distribute any products that we develop ourselves. 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 products effectively. If we do not establish sales, marketing and distribution capabilities successfully, either on our own or in collaboration with third parties, we will not be successful in commercializing our product candidates.

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

The development and commercialization of new drug and biologic products is highly competitive and is characterized by rapid and substantial technological development and product innovations. We and our collaborators face competition with respect to our current product candidates and will face competition with respect to any product candidates that we may seek to develop or commercialize in the future, from major pharmaceutical companies, specialty pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology companies worldwide. We are aware of a number of large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, as well as smaller, early-stage companies, that are pursuing the development of products, including microbiome therapeutics, for reducing CDI and other disease indications we are targeting. Some of these competitive products and therapies are based on scientific approaches that are the same as or similar to our approach, and others may be based on entirely different approaches. For example, FMT is a procedure that has resulted in reports of high cure rates for recurrent CDI and our competitors and physicians may continue to seek to standardize and implement this procedure. Potential competitors also include academic institutions, government agencies, not-for-profits, and other public and private research organizations that conduct research, seek patent protection and establish collaborative arrangements for research, development, manufacturing and commercialization.

Many of the companies against which we are competing or against which we may compete in the future have significantly greater financial resources, established presence in the market and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals and reimbursement and marketing approved products than we do. Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors.

These third parties compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific, sales and marketing and management personnel, establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs.

50

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

Even if we are able to commercialize any product candidates, the products may become subject to unfavorable pricing regulations or third-party coverage and reimbursement policies, any of which would harm our business.

Our ability to commercialize any product candidates successfully will depend, in part, on the extent to which coverage and reimbursement for these products and related treatments will be available from government health administration authorities, private health insurers and other organizations. Government authorities and third-party payors, such as private health insurers and health maintenance organizations, decide which medications they will pay for and impact reimbursement levels.

Obtaining and maintaining adequate reimbursement for our products may be difficult. We cannot be certain if and when we will obtain an adequate level of reimbursement for our products by third-party payors. Even if we do obtain adequate levels of reimbursement, third-party payors, such as government or private healthcare insurers, carefully review, and increasingly question the coverage of, and challenge the prices charged for, drugs. Reimbursement rates from private health insurance companies vary depending on the company, the insurance plan and other factors. A primary trend in the U.S. healthcare industry and elsewhere is cost containment. Government authorities and third-party payors have attempted to control costs by limiting coverage and the amount of reimbursement for particular medications. Increasingly, third-party payors are requiring that drug companies provide them with predetermined discounts from list prices and are challenging the prices charged for drugs. We may also be required to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies to justify coverage and reimbursement or the level of reimbursement relative to other therapies. If coverage and reimbursement are not available or reimbursement is available only to limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval, and the royalties resulting from the sales of those products may also be adversely impacted.

There may be significant delays in obtaining reimbursement for newly approved drugs, and coverage may be more limited than the purposes for which the drug is approved by the FDA or similar regulatory authorities outside the United States. Moreover, eligibility for reimbursement does not imply that a drug will be paid for in all cases or at a rate that covers our costs, including research, development, manufacture, sale and distribution. Interim reimbursement levels for new drugs, if applicable, may also not be sufficient to cover our costs and may not be made permanent. Reimbursement rates may vary according to the use of the drug and the clinical setting in which it is used, may be based on reimbursement levels already set for lower cost treatment approaches and may be incorporated into existing payments for other services. Net prices for drugs may be reduced by mandatory discounts or rebates required by government healthcare programs or private payors and by any future relaxation of laws that presently restrict imports of drugs from countries where they may be sold at lower prices than in the United States. Our inability to promptly obtain coverage and adequate reimbursement rates from both government-funded and private payors for any approved products that we develop could have a material adverse effect on our operating results, our ability to raise capital needed to commercialize products and our overall financial condition.

The regulations that govern marketing approvals, pricing, coverage and reimbursement for new drug products vary widely from country to country. Current and future legislation may significantly change the approval requirements in ways that could involve additional costs and cause delays in obtaining approvals. Some countries require approval of the sale price of a drug before it can be reimbursed. In many countries, the pricing review period begins after marketing or product licensing approval is granted. In some foreign markets, prescription pharmaceutical pricing remains subject to continuing governmental control, including possible price reductions, even after initial approval is granted. As a result, we might obtain marketing approval for a product in a particular country, but then be subject to price regulations that delay our commercial launch of the product, possibly for lengthy time periods, and negatively impact the revenues we are able to generate from the sale of the product in that country. Adverse pricing limitations may hinder our ability to recoup our investment in one or more product candidates, even if our product candidates obtain marketing approval. There can be no assurance that our product candidates, if they are approved for sale in the United States or in other countries, will be considered medically necessary for a specific indication or cost-effective, or that coverage or an adequate level of reimbursement will be available.

51

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

We face an inherent risk of product liability exposure related to the testing of our product candidates in 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:

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

We may face competition from biosimilars, which may have a material adverse impact on the future commercial prospects of our product candidates.

Even if we and our collaborators are successful in achieving regulatory approval to commercialize a product candidate faster than our competitors, we may face competition from biosimilars. In the United States, the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act, or BPCIA, enacted in 2010 as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, created an abbreviated approval pathway for biological products that are demonstrated to be “highly similar,” or biosimilar, to or “interchangeable” with an FDA-approved biological product. Under the BPCIA, an application for a biosimilar product may not be submitted to the FDA until four years following the date that the reference product was first licensed by the FDA. In addition, the approval of a biosimilar product may not be made effective by the FDA until 12 years from the date on which the reference product was first licensed. During this 12-year period of exclusivity, another company may still market a competing version of the reference product if the FDA approves a full BLA for the competing product containing the sponsor’s own preclinical data and data from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to demonstrate the safety, purity and potency of their product. This pathway could allow competitors to reference data from innovative biological products 12 years after the time of approval of the innovative biological product. This data exclusivity does not prevent another company from developing a product that is highly similar to the innovative product, generating its own data and seeking approval. Data exclusivity only assures that another company cannot rely upon the data within the innovator’s application to support the biosimilar product’s approval.

We believe that any of our product candidates approved as a biological product under a BLA should qualify for the 12-year period of exclusivity. However, there is a risk that this exclusivity could be shortened due to congressional action or otherwise, or that the FDA will not consider our product candidates to be reference products for competing products, potentially creating the opportunity for generic competition sooner than anticipated. It is possible that Congress or the FDA may take these or other measures to reduce or eliminate periods of exclusivity. The BPCIA is complex and continues to be interpreted and implemented by the FDA, and such FDA implementation could have a material adverse effect on the future commercial prospects for our product candidates.

In Europe, the European Commission has granted marketing authorizations for several biosimilars pursuant to a set of general and product class-specific guidelines for biosimilar approvals issued over the past few years. In Europe, a competitor may reference data supporting approval of an innovative biological product but will not be able to get on the market until 10 years after the time of approval of the innovative product. This 10-year marketing exclusivity period can be extended to 11 years if, during the first eight of those 10 years, the marketing authorization holder obtains an approval for one or more new therapeutic indications that bring significant clinical benefits compared with existing therapies. In addition, companies may be developing biosimilars in other countries that could compete with our products. If competitors are able to obtain marketing approval for biosimilars referencing our products, our products may become subject to competition from such biosimilars, with the attendant competitive pressure and consequences.

52

Failure to obtain marketing approval in international jurisdictions would prevent our product candidates from being marketed abroad.

In order to market and sell our products in the European Union and many other jurisdictions, we or our collaborators must obtain separate marketing approvals and comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements. The approval procedure varies among countries and can involve additional testing. The time required to obtain approval in foreign countries may differ substantially from that required to obtain FDA approval. Clinical trials conducted in one country may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other countries. The regulatory approval process outside the United States generally includes all of the risks associated with obtaining FDA approval. In addition, in many countries outside the United States, it is required that the product be approved for reimbursement before the product can be approved for sale in that country. We or our collaborators may not obtain approvals for our product candidates 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, a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one country may have a negative effect on the regulatory process in others. We may not be able to file for marketing approvals and may not receive necessary approvals to commercialize our products in any market.

Any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval will remain subject to significant post-marketing regulatory requirements and oversight.

Any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval, along with the manufacturing processes, post-approval clinical data, labeling, advertising and promotional activities for such product, will be subject to the continual requirements of and review by the FDA and other regulatory authorities. These requirements include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, registration and listing requirements, cGMP and similar foreign requirements relating to manufacturing, quality control, quality assurance and corresponding maintenance of records and documents, requirements regarding the distribution of samples to physicians and recordkeeping. We and our contract manufacturers will also be subject to continual review and periodic inspections to assess compliance with cGMP and similar foreign requirements. Accordingly, we, and our collaborators and others with whom we work, must continue to expend time, money and effort in all areas of regulatory compliance, including manufacturing, production and quality control.

Even if marketing approval of a product candidate is granted, the approval may be subject to limitations on the indicated uses for which the product may be marketed or to specific conditions of approval, including a requirement to implement a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy, which could include requirements for a medication guide, communication plan, or restricted distribution system. If any of our product candidates receives marketing approval, the accompanying label may limit the approved use of our drug, which could limit sales of the product.

The FDA or other regulatory authorities may also impose requirements for costly post-marketing studies or clinical trials and surveillance to monitor the safety or efficacy of our approved products. The FDA or other regulatory authorities closely regulates the post-approval marketing and promotion of drugs and biologics to ensure they are marketed only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved labeling. Violations of the FDA’s and other regulatory authorities’ restrictions relating to the promotion of prescription drugs by us or our collaborators may also lead to investigations alleging violations of federal and state health care fraud and abuse laws, as well as state consumer protection laws.

In addition, if a regulatory authority, we or our collaborators later discover previously unknown problems with our products, such as adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, problems with manufacturers or manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, the regulatory authority may impose restrictions on the products or us and our collaborators, including requiring withdrawal of the product from the market. Any failure by us or our collaborators to comply with applicable regulatory requirements may yield various results, including:

53

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

Any government investigation of alleged violations of law could require us to expend significant time and resources in response and could generate negative publicity.

In addition, the FDA’s and other regulatory authorities’ policies may change and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of our product candidates. We also 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. For example, the results of the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election may impact our business and industry. Namely, the Trump administration took several executive actions, including the issuance of a number of Executive Orders, that could impose significant burdens on, or otherwise materially delay, the FDA’s ability to engage in routine oversight activities such as implementing statutes through rulemaking, issuance of guidance, and review and approval of marketing applications. It is difficult to predict whether or how these orders will be implemented, or whether they will be rescinded and replaced under the Biden administration. The policies and priorities of the new administration are unknown and could materially impact the regulations governing our product candidates.

If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may be subject to enforcement action and we may not achieve or sustain profitability.

The FDA and other regulatory authorities actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses.

If any of our product candidates are approved and we or our collaborators are found to have improperly promoted off-label uses of those products, we may become subject to significant liability. The FDA and other regulatory authorities strictly regulate the promotional claims that may be made about prescription products, such as our product candidates, if approved. In particular, a product may not be promoted for uses that are not approved by the FDA or such other regulatory authorities as reflected in the product’s approved labeling. If we receive marketing approval for a product candidate, physicians may nevertheless prescribe it to their patients in a manner that is inconsistent with the approved label. If we or our collaborators are found to have promoted such off-label uses, we may become subject to significant liability. The U.S. federal government has levied large civil and criminal fines against companies for alleged improper promotion of off-label use and has enjoined several companies from engaging in off-label promotion. The FDA has also requested that companies enter into consent decrees or permanent injunctions under which specified promotional conduct is changed or curtailed. If we cannot successfully manage the promotion of our product candidates, if approved, we could become subject to significant liability, which would materially adversely affect our business and financial condition.

Our relationships and any collaborators' relationships with customers, physicians and third-party payors are and will be subject to applicable anti-kickback, fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations, which could expose us or our collaborators to criminal sanctions, civil penalties, exclusion from governmental healthcare programs, contractual damages, reputational harm and diminished profits and future earnings.

Healthcare providers, physicians and third-party payors will play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of any product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. Our and our collaborators' current and future arrangements with third-party payors, physicians and customers expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations that may restrict the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we market, sell and distribute any products for

54

which we obtain marketing approval. Restrictions under applicable federal and state healthcare laws and regulations include the following:

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

Efforts to ensure that our business arrangements with third parties will comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations will involve substantial costs. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices may not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of these laws or any other governmental laws and regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, imprisonment, exclusion from government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, reporting obligations and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or other agreement, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations.

Recently enacted and future legislation may increase the difficulty and cost for us to obtain marketing approval of and commercialize our product candidates and affect the prices we may obtain.

In the United States and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system that could prevent or delay marketing approval of our product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities and affect our ability to profitably sell any product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval.

In the United States, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act, or collectively the ACA, is a sweeping law intended to broaden access to health insurance, reduce or constrain the growth of healthcare spending, enhance remedies against fraud and abuse, add new transparency requirements for the healthcare and health insurance industries, impose new taxes and fees on the health industry and impose additional health policy reforms.

55

Among the provisions of the ACA of importance to our potential product candidates are the following:

Since its enactment, there have been judicial, executive and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA. On June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the most recent judicial challenge to the ACA brought by several states without specifically ruling on the constitutionality of the ACA. Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision, President Biden issued an executive order initiating a special enrollment period from February 15, 2021 through August 15, 2021 for purposes of obtaining health insurance coverage through the ACA marketplace. The executive order also instructed certain governmental agencies to review and reconsider their existing policies and rules that limit access to healthcare. It is unclear how healthcare reform measures enacted by Congress or implemented by the Biden administration or other challenges to the ACA, if any, will impact the ACA or our business. In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted. For example, the Budget Control Act of 2011, enacted in August 2011, included aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect on April 1, 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments, will remain in effect through 2030, with the exception of a temporary suspension from May 1, 2020 through March 31, 2022, unless additional Congressional action is taken. On January 2, 2013, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was signed into law, which, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to several providers, including hospitals, and an increase in the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years.

Further, in March 2021, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 was signed into law, which, among other things, eliminated the statutory cap on drug manufacturers’ Medicaid Drug Rebate Program rebate liability, effective January 1, 2024. Under current law enacted as part of the ACA, drug manufacturers’ Medicaid Drug Rebate Program rebate liability is capped at 100% of the average manufacturer price for a covered outpatient drug. We expect that other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding, more rigorous coverage criteria, new payment methodologies and in additional downward pressure on the price that we receive for any approved product. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability, or commercialize our product candidates, if approved.

Moreover, there has recently been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products. Individual states in the United States have become increasingly active in implementing regulations designed to contain pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures. Legally mandated price controls on payment amounts by third-party payors or other restrictions could harm our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects. In addition, regional healthcare authorities and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription drug and other healthcare programs. This could reduce the ultimate demand for our product candidates, if approved, or put pressure on our product pricing, which could negatively affect our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects.

Legislative and regulatory proposals have been made to expand post-approval requirements and restrict sales and promotional activities for pharmaceutical products. We cannot be sure whether additional legislative changes will be enacted, or whether the FDA or foreign regulations, guidance or interpretations will be changed, or what the impact of such changes on the marketing approvals of our product candidates, if any, may be. In addition, increased scrutiny by Congress of the FDA’s approval process may significantly delay or prevent marketing approval, as well as subject us to more stringent product labeling and post-marketing testing and other requirements.

56

Governments outside the United States tend to impose strict price controls, which may adversely affect our revenues, if any.

In some countries, particularly the EU member states, the pricing of certain pharmaceuticals is subject to governmental control. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after the receipt of marketing approval for a product. In addition, there can be considerable pressure by governments and other stakeholders on prices and reimbursement levels, including as part of cost containment measures. Political, economic and regulatory developments may further complicate pricing negotiations, and pricing negotiations may continue after coverage and reimbursement have been obtained. Reference pricing used by various EU member states and parallel distribution or arbitrage between low-priced and high-priced member states, can further reduce prices. To obtain 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. Other member states allow companies to fix their own prices for medicines but monitor and control company profits. Even if a pharmaceutical product obtains a marketing authorization in the EU, there can be no assurance that reimbursement for such product will be secured on a timely basis or at all. If coverage and reimbursement of our products are unavailable or limited in scope or amount, or if pricing is set at unsatisfactory levels, our business could be harmed, possibly materially.

Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property

If we are unable to adequately protect our proprietary technology or obtain and maintain issued patents that are sufficient to protect our product candidates, others could compete against us more directly, which would have a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects.

Our success depends in large part on our ability to obtain and maintain patent and other intellectual property protection in the United States and other countries with respect to our proprietary technology and products. We seek to protect our proprietary position by filing patent applications in the United States and abroad related to our novel technologies and product candidates. We also rely on trade secrets to protect aspects of our business that are not amenable to, or that we do not consider appropriate for, patent protection.

The patent prosecution process is expensive and time-consuming, and we may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost, in a timely manner, or in all jurisdictions. Prosecution of our patent portfolio is at a very early stage. For some patent applications in our portfolio, we have filed national stage applications based on our Patent Cooperation Treaty, or PCT, applications, thereby limiting the jurisdictions in which we can pursue patent protection for the various inventions claimed in those applications. 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. 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 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, which may have an adverse impact on our business, financial condition and operating results.

We have obtained licenses and options to obtain licenses from third parties and may obtain additional licenses and options in the future. In some circumstances, we may not have the right to control the preparation, filing and prosecution of patent applications, or to maintain the patents, covering technology that we license from third parties. We may also require the cooperation of our licensors to enforce any licensed patent rights, and such cooperation may not be provided. Therefore, these patents and applications may not be prosecuted and enforced in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business. Moreover, if we do obtain necessary licenses, we will likely have obligations under those licenses, and any failure to satisfy those obligations could give our licensor the right to terminate the license. Termination of a necessary license could have a material adverse impact on our business.

We have had in the past, and may have in the future, certain funding arrangements. Such funding arrangements impose various obligations on us, including reporting obligations, and may subject certain of our intellectual property, such as intellectual property made using the applicable funding, to the rights of the U.S. government under the Bayh-Dole Act. Any failure to comply with our obligations under a funding arrangement may have an adverse effect on our rights under the applicable agreement or our rights in the applicable intellectual property. Compliance with our obligations or the exercise by the government or other funder of its rights, may limit certain opportunities or otherwise have an adverse effect on our business.

57

Our patent portfolio currently includes 24 active patent application families (which includes an option to license certain IP from MD Anderson and exclusive licenses to certain IP from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center). Of these, 21 applications have been nationalized and three are pending at the PCT stage. While we have obtained 18 issued U.S. patents and one currently allowed and soon to issue, we cannot provide any assurances that any of our pending patent applications will mature into issued patents and, if they do, that such patents or our current patents will include claims with a scope sufficient to protect our product candidates or otherwise provide any competitive advantage. For example, we are pursuing claims to therapeutic, binary compositions of certain bacterial populations. Any claims that may issue may provide coverage for such binary compositions and/or their use. However, such claims would not prevent a third party from commercializing alternative compositions that do not include both of the bacterial populations claimed in pending applications, potential applications or patents that have or may issue. There can be no assurance that any such alternative composition will not be equally effective. Further, given that our SER-109 product candidate is a complex composition with some variation from lot-to-lot and that, likewise, third-party compositions may have similar complexity and variability, it is possible that a patent claim may provide coverage for some but not all lots of a product candidate or third-party product. These and other factors may provide opportunities for our competitors to design around our patents, should they issue.

Moreover, other parties have developed technologies that may be related or competitive to our approach and may have filed or may file patent applications and may have received or may receive patents that may overlap or conflict with our patent applications, either by claiming similar methods or by claiming subject matter that could dominate our patent position or cover one or more of our products. In addition, given the early stage of prosecution of our portfolio, it may be some time before we understand how patent offices react to our patent claims and whether they identify prior art of relevance that we have not already considered.

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 know with certainty whether we were the first to make the inventions claimed in any owned patents or pending patent applications, or that we were the first to file for patent protection of such inventions, nor can we know whether those from whom we may license patents were the first to make the inventions claimed or were the first to file. For these and other reasons, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our patent rights are subject to a level of uncertainty. Our pending and future patent applications may not result in patents being issued which protect our technology or products, in whole or in part, or which effectively prevent others from commercializing competitive technologies and products. Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of the patent laws in the United States and other countries may diminish the value of our patents or narrow the scope of our patent protection.

We may be subject to third-party preissuance submissions of prior art to the United States Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, or in a foreign jurisdiction in which our applications are filed, or become involved in opposition, derivation, reexamination, inter partes review, post-grant review or interference proceedings challenging our patent rights or the patent rights of others. For example, on April 25, 2017, we filed a notice of opposition in the European Patent Office challenging the validity of a patent issued to The University of Tokyo. See “—Third parties may initiate legal proceedings alleging that we are infringing their intellectual property rights, the outcome of which would be uncertain and could have a material adverse effect on the success of our business.” The oral proceedings were held at the European Patent Office on February 18, 2019 and the Opposition Division required The University of Tokyo to narrow the scope of the claims of the patent. The University of Tokyo has appealed certain aspects of the Opposition Division’s decision, as have we and other opponents. 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 products 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. In addition, if the breadth or strength of protection provided by our patents and patent applications is threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to license, develop or commercialize current or future product candidates. Furthermore, an adverse decision in an interference proceeding can result in a third party receiving the patent right sought by us, which in turn could affect our ability to develop, market or otherwise commercialize our product candidates. The issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our patents are subject to a level of uncertainty.

The patent position of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies generally is highly uncertain, involves complex legal and factual questions and has in recent years been the subject of much litigation. Due to legal standards relating to patentability, validity, enforceability and claim scope of patents covering biotechnological and pharmaceutical inventions, our ability to obtain, maintain and enforce patents is uncertain and involves complex legal and factual questions. Even if issued, a patent’s validity, inventorship, ownership or enforceability is not conclusive. Accordingly, rights under any existing patent or any patents we might obtain or license may not cover our product candidates, or may not provide us with sufficient protection for our product candidates to afford a commercial advantage against competitive products or processes, including those from branded and generic pharmaceutical companies.

The degree of future protection for our proprietary rights is uncertain, and we cannot ensure that:

58

Any litigation to enforce or defend our patent rights, even if we were to prevail, could be costly and time-consuming and would divert the attention of our management and key personnel from our business operations. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate and the damages or other remedies awarded if we were to prevail may not be commercially meaningful. Even if we are successful, domestic or foreign litigation, or USPTO or foreign patent office proceedings, may result in substantial costs and distraction to our management. We may not be able, alone or with our licensors or potential collaborators, to prevent misappropriation of our proprietary rights, particularly in countries where the laws may not protect such rights as fully as in the United States. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation or other proceedings, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation or other proceedings. In addition, during the course of this kind of litigation or proceedings, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments or public access to related documents. If investors perceive these results to be negative, the market price for our common stock could be significantly harmed.

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

In addition to seeking patents for some of our technology and product candidates, we also utilize our trade secrets, including unpatented know-how, technology and other proprietary information, to maintain our competitive position. We seek to protect these trade secrets, in part, by entering into non- disclosure and confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to them, such as our employees, corporate collaborators, outside scientific collaborators, contract manufacturers, consultants, advisors and other third parties. We also seek to enter into confidentiality and invention or patent assignment agreements with our employees, advisors and consultants. Despite these efforts, any of these parties may breach the agreements and disclose our proprietary information, including our trade secrets, and we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for such breaches. Our trade secrets may also be obtained by third parties by other means, such as breaches of our physical or computer security systems. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret is difficult, expensive and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, some courts inside and outside the United States are less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets. Moreover, 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.

59

Changes in U.S. patent law could diminish the value of patents in general, thereby impairing our ability to protect our products.

As is the case with other biotechnology companies, our success is heavily dependent on intellectual property, particularly patents. Obtaining and enforcing patents in the biotechnology industry involves both technological and legal complexity, and is therefore costly, time-consuming and inherently uncertain. In addition, patent reform legislation could further increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents. On September 16, 2011, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or the Leahy-Smith Act, was signed into law. The Leahy-Smith Act includes a number of significant changes to U.S. patent law. These include provisions that affect the way patent applications are prosecuted and may also affect patent litigation. The USPTO developed new regulations and procedures to govern administration of the Leahy-Smith Act, and many of the substantive changes to patent law associated with the Leahy-Smith Act, in particular the first to file provisions, only became effective on March 16, 2013. A third party that files a patent application in the USPTO after that date but before us could therefore be awarded a patent covering an invention of ours even if we had made the invention before it was made by the third party. This will require us to be cognizant going forward of the time from invention to filing of a patent application. Thus, for our U.S. patent applications containing a priority claim after March 16, 2013, there is a greater level of uncertainty in the patent law. Moreover, some of the patent applications in our portfolio will be subject to examination under the pre-Leahy- Smith Act law and regulations, while other patent applications in our portfolio will be subject to examination under the law and regulations, as amended by the Leahy-Smith Act. This introduces additional complexities into the prosecution and management of our portfolio.

In addition, the Leahy-Smith Act limits where a patentee may file a patent infringement suit and provides opportunities for third parties to challenge any issued patent in the USPTO. These provisions apply to all of our U.S. patents, even those issued before March 16, 2013. Because of a lower evidentiary standard in USPTO proceedings compared to the evidentiary standard in U.S. federal court necessary to invalidate a patent claim, a third party could potentially provide evidence in a USPTO proceeding sufficient for the USPTO to hold a claim invalid even though the same evidence would be insufficient to invalidate the claim if first presented in a federal court action. Accordingly, a third party may attempt to use the USPTO procedures to invalidate our patent claims because it may be easier for them to do so relative to challenging the patent in a federal court action. It is not clear what, if any, impact the Leahy-Smith Act will have on the operation of our business. However, the Leahy-Smith Act and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition.

In addition, Supreme Court rulings have narrowed the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances and weakened the rights of patent owners in certain situations. From time to time, the Supreme Court, other federal courts, Congress, or the USPTO, may change the standards of patentability and any such changes could have a negative impact on our business.

A number of cases decided by the Supreme Court have involved questions of when claims reciting abstract ideas, laws of nature, natural phenomena and/or natural products are eligible for a patent, regardless of whether the claimed subject matter is otherwise novel and inventive. These cases include Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 12-398 (2013); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 13-298 (2014); and Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 10-1150 (2012). In response to these cases, the USPTO has issued guidance to the examining corps.

The full impact of these decisions is not yet known. For example, in view of these and subsequent court decisions, the USPTO has issued various materials to patent examiners providing guidance for determining the patent eligibility of claims reciting laws of nature, natural phenomena or natural products. Our current product candidates include natural products, therefore, this decision and its interpretation by the courts and the USPTO may impact prosecution, defense and enforcement of our patent portfolio. On March 4, 2014, the USPTO issued a memorandum reflecting the USPTO’s interpretation of the cases related to patent eligibility of natural products. The March 4, 2014 memorandum was superseded by interim guidance published on December 15, 2014. Additional guidance was published in July 2015 (July 2015 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility) and May 2016 (May 2016 Subject Matter Eligibility Update). The USPTO’s interpretation of the case law and new guidelines for examination may influence, possibly adversely, prosecution and defense of certain types of claims in our portfolio.

In addition to increasing uncertainty with regard to our ability to obtain future patents, this combination of events has created uncertainty with respect to the value of patents, once obtained. Depending on these and other decisions by Congress, the federal courts and the USPTO, the laws and regulations governing patents could change or be interpreted in unpredictable ways that would weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce any patents that may issue to us in the future. In addition, these events may adversely affect our ability to defend any patents that may issue in procedures in the USPTO or in courts.

60

Third parties may initiate legal proceedings alleging that we are infringing their intellectual property rights, the outcome of which would be uncertain and could have a material adverse effect on the success of our business.

Our commercial success depends upon our ability, and the ability of our collaborators, to develop, manufacture, market and sell our product candidates and use our proprietary technologies without infringing the proprietary rights of third parties. There is considerable intellectual property litigation in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries. While no such litigation has been brought against us and we have not been held by any court to have infringed a third party’s intellectual property rights, we cannot guarantee that our technology, products or use of our products do not infringe third-party patents.

We are aware of numerous patents and pending applications owned by third parties in the fields in which we are developing product candidates, both in the United States and elsewhere. However, we may have failed to identify relevant third-party patents or applications. For example, applications filed before November 29, 2000 and certain applications filed after that date that will not be filed outside the United States remain confidential until patents issue. Moreover, it is difficult for industry participants, including us, to identify all third-party patent rights that may be relevant to our product candidates and technologies because patent searching is imperfect due to differences in terminology among patents, incomplete databases and the difficulty in assessing the meaning of patent claims. We may fail to identify relevant patents or patent applications or may identify pending patent applications of potential interest but incorrectly predict the likelihood that such patent applications may issue with claims of relevance to our technology. In addition, we may be unaware of one or more issued patents that would be infringed by the manufacture, sale or use of a current or future product candidate, or we may incorrectly conclude that a third-party patent is invalid, unenforceable or not infringed by our activities. Additionally, pending patent applications that have been published can, subject to certain limitations, be later amended in a manner that could cover our technologies, our products or the use of our products. We are aware of several pending patent applications containing one or more claims that could be construed to cover some of our product candidates or technology, should those claims issue in their original form or in the form presently being pursued. In addition, we are aware of third-party patent families that include issued and allowed patents, including in the United States, including claims that, if valid and enforceable, could be construed to cover some of our product candidates or their methods of use. On April 25, 2017, we filed a notice of opposition in the European Patent Office challenging the validity of a patent issued to The University of Tokyo and requesting that it be revoked in its entirety for the reasons set forth in our opposition. The oral proceedings were held at the European Patent Office on February 18, 2019 and the Opposition Division required The University of Tokyo to narrow the scope of the claims of the patent. The University of Tokyo has appealed certain aspects of the Oppositions Division’s decision, as have we and other opponents.

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by extensive litigation regarding patents and other intellectual property rights. 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. We may become party to, or threatened with, future adversarial proceedings or litigation regarding intellectual property rights with respect to our products and technology, including interference or derivation proceedings before the USPTO and similar bodies in other countries. Third parties may assert infringement claims against us based on existing intellectual property rights and intellectual property rights that may be granted in the future. If we were to challenge the validity of an issued U.S. patent in court, such as an issued U.S. patent of potential relevance to some of our product candidates or methods of use, we would need to overcome a statutory presumption of validity that attaches to every U.S. patent. This means that in order to prevail, we would have to present clear and convincing evidence as to the invalidity of the patent’s claims. There is no assurance that a court would find in our favor on questions of infringement or validity.

Patent and other types of intellectual property litigation can involve complex factual and legal questions, and their outcome is uncertain. If we are found or believe there is a risk we may be found, to infringe a third party’s intellectual property rights, we could be required or may choose to obtain a license from such third party to continue developing and marketing our products and technology. However, we may not be able to obtain any such 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. We could be forced, including by court order, to cease commercializing the infringing technology or product. In addition, we could be found liable for monetary damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees if we are found to have willfully infringed a patent. A finding of infringement could prevent us from commercializing our product candidates or force us to cease some of our business operations, which could materially harm our business. Claims that we have misappropriated the confidential information or trade secrets of third parties could have a similar negative impact on our business.

Even if we are successful in these proceedings, we may incur substantial costs and divert management time and attention in pursuing these proceedings, which could have a material adverse effect on us. If we are unable to avoid infringing the patent rights of others, we may be required to seek a license, defend an infringement action or challenge the validity of the patents in court, or redesign our products. Patent litigation is costly and time-consuming. We may not have sufficient resources to bring these actions to a successful conclusion. In addition, intellectual property litigation or claims could force us to do one or more of the following:

61

Any of these risks coming to fruition could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects.

Issued patents covering our product candidates could be found invalid or unenforceable or could be interpreted narrowly if challenged in court.

Competitors may infringe our intellectual property, including our patents or the patents of our licensors. As a result, we may be required to file infringement claims to stop third-party infringement or unauthorized use. This can be expensive, particularly for a company of our size, and time-consuming. If we initiated legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent, if and when issued, covering one of our product candidates, the defendant could counterclaim that the patent covering our product candidate is invalid and/or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity and/or unenforceability are commonplace. Grounds for a validity challenge include alleged failures to meet any of several statutory requirements, including lack of novelty, obviousness or non-enablement, or failure to claim patent eligible subject matter. Grounds for unenforceability assertions include allegations that someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld relevant information from the USPTO, or made a misleading statement, during prosecution. Third parties may also raise similar claims before administrative bodies in the United States or abroad, even outside the context of litigation. Such mechanisms include re-examination, post grant review and equivalent proceedings in foreign jurisdictions, such as opposition proceedings. Such proceedings could result in revocation or amendment of our patents in such a way that they no longer cover our product candidates or competitive products. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. With respect to validity, for example, we cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior art, of which we and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution. If a defendant were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity and/or unenforceability, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on our product candidates. Moreover, even if not found invalid or unenforceable, the claims of our patents could be construed narrowly or in a manner that does not cover the allegedly infringing technology in question. Such a loss of patent protection would have a material adverse impact on our business.

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

Periodic maintenance fees on any issued patent are due to be paid to the USPTO and foreign patent agencies in several stages over the lifetime of the patent and, in some jurisdictions, during the pendency of a patent application. 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. Noncompliance events that could result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application include, but are not limited to, failure to respond to official actions within prescribed time limits, non-payment of fees and failure to properly legalize and submit formal documents. In such an event, our competitors might be able to enter the market, which would have a material adverse effect on our business.

We may be subject to claims challenging the inventorship or ownership of our patents and other intellectual property.

It is our policy to enter into confidentiality and intellectual property assignment agreements with our employees, consultants, contractors and advisors. These agreements generally provide that inventions conceived by the party in the course of rendering services to us will be our exclusive property. However, these agreements may not be honored and may not effectively assign intellectual property rights to us. For example, even if we have a consulting agreement in place with an academic advisor pursuant to which such academic advisor is required to assign any inventions developed in connection with providing services to us, such academic advisor may not have the right to assign such inventions to us, as it may conflict with his or her obligations to assign all such intellectual property to his or her employing institution.

Litigation may be necessary to defend against these and other claims challenging inventorship or ownership. If we 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 are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management and other employees.

62

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

Many of our employees were previously employed at universities or other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. We may also engage advisors and consultants who are concurrently employed at universities or other organizations or who perform services for other entities. Although we try to ensure that our employees, advisors and consultants do not use the proprietary information or know-how of others in their work for us, we may be subject to claims that we or our employees, advisors or consultants have used or disclosed intellectual property, including trade secrets or other proprietary information, of any such party’s former or current employer or in violation of an agreement with another party. Although we have no knowledge of any such claims being alleged to date, if such claims were to arise, litigation may be necessary to defend against any such claims.

In addition, while it is our policy to require our employees, consultants, advisors and contractors who may be involved in the development of intellectual property to execute agreements assigning such intellectual property to us, we may be unsuccessful in executing such an agreement with each party who in fact develops intellectual property that we regard as our own. Our and their assignment agreements may not be self-executing or may be breached, and we may be forced to bring claims against third parties, or defend claims they may bring against us, to determine the ownership of what we regard as our intellectual property. Similarly, we may be subject to claims that an employee, advisor or consultant performed work for us that conflicts with that person’s obligations to a third party, such as an employer, and thus, that the third party has an ownership interest in the intellectual property arising out of work performed for us. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. Although we have no knowledge of any such claims being alleged to date, if such claims were to arise, litigation may be necessary to defend against any such claims.

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

If our trademarks and trade names are not adequately protected, then we may not be able to build name recognition in our markets of interest and our business may be adversely affected.

Our registered or unregistered trademarks or trade names may be challenged, infringed, circumvented or declared generic or determined to be infringing on other marks. We may not be able to protect our rights to these trademarks and trade names, which we need to build name recognition among potential collaborators or customers in our markets of interest. At times, competitors may adopt trade names or trademarks similar to ours, thereby impeding our ability to build brand identity and possibly leading to market confusion. In addition, there could be potential trade name or trademark infringement claims brought by owners of other registered trademarks or trademarks that incorporate variations of our registered or unregistered trademarks or trade names. Over the long term, if we are unable to establish name recognition based on our trademarks and trade names, then we may not be able to compete effectively and our business may be adversely affected. Our efforts to enforce or protect our proprietary rights related to trademarks, trade secrets, domain names, copyrights or other intellectual property may be ineffective and could result in substantial costs and diversion of resources and could adversely impact our financial condition or results of operations.

We will not seek to protect our intellectual property rights in all jurisdictions throughout the world and we may not be able to adequately enforce our intellectual property rights even in the jurisdictions where we seek protection.

Filing, prosecuting and defending patents on product candidates in all countries and jurisdictions throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and our intellectual property rights in some countries outside the United States could be less extensive than in the United States, assuming that rights are obtained in the United States and assuming that rights are pursued outside the United States. The statutory deadlines for pursuing patent protection in individual foreign jurisdictions are based on the priority date of each of our patent applications. For each of the patent families that we believe provide coverage for our product candidates, we decide whether and where to pursue protection 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. Consequently, even if we do elect to pursue patent rights outside the United States, we may not be able to obtain relevant claims and/or we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in all countries outside the United States, 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 do not pursue and obtain patent protection to develop their own products and further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we have patent protection, but enforcement is not as strong as that in the United States. These products may compete with our products and our patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing. Even if we pursue and obtain issued patents in particular jurisdictions, our patent claims or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent third parties from so competing.

63

The laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States. Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in certain foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of some countries, particularly developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents and other intellectual property protection, especially those relating to biotechnology. This could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents, if obtained, or the misappropriation of our other intellectual property rights. For example, many foreign countries have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner must grant licenses to third parties. In addition, many countries limit the enforceability of patents against third parties, including government agencies or government contractors. In these countries, patents may provide limited or no benefit. Patent protection must ultimately be sought on a country-by-country basis, which is an expensive and time-consuming process with uncertain outcomes. Accordingly, we may choose not to seek patent protection in certain countries, and we will not have the benefit of patent protection in such countries.

If our ability to obtain and, if obtained, enforce our patents to stop infringing activities is inadequate, third parties may compete with our products, and our patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing. Accordingly, our intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property we develop or license.

Risks Related to Our Operations

The COVID-19 pandemic has adversely impacted and could continue to adversely impact, our business, including our preclinical studies and clinical trials, results of operations and financial condition.

The COVID-19 pandemic and government measures taken in response have also had a significant impact, both direct and indirect, on businesses and commerce, as worker shortages have occurred, supply chains have been disrupted, and facilities and production have been suspended. In response to the spread of COVID-19 we have limited on-site staff to only those required on-site to execute their job responsibilities and limited the number of staff in any given research and development laboratory. We are continuing to monitor the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on our operations and ongoing clinical development activity. Our mitigation activities to minimize COVID-19-related operation disruptions are ongoing, however, given the severity and evolving nature of the situation, the timing of clinical readouts is uncertain. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, we or our collaborators may experience further disruptions that could severely impact our business, preclinical studies and clinical trials, including:

• delays in receiving approval from local regulatory authorities to initiate our planned clinical trials;

• delays or difficulties in enrolling patients in our clinical trials;

• delays or difficulties in clinical site initiation, including difficulties in recruiting clinical site investigators and clinical site staff;

• diversion of healthcare resources away from the conduct of clinical trials, including the diversion of hospitals serving as our clinical trial sites and hospital staff supporting the conduct of our clinical trials;

• risk that participants enrolled in our clinical trials will contract COVID-19 while the clinical trial is ongoing, which could impact the results of the clinical trial, including by increasing the number of observed adverse events;

• interruption of key clinical trial activities, such as clinical trial site data monitoring, due to limitations on travel imposed or recommended by federal or state governments, employers and others or interruption of clinical trial subject visits and study procedures (such as endoscopies that are deemed non-essential), which may impact the integrity of subject data and clinical study endpoints;

• interruption or delays in the operations of the FDA or other regulatory authorities, which may impact approval timelines;

• interruption of, or delays in receiving, supplies of our product candidates from our contract manufacturing organizations due to staffing shortages, production slowdowns, global shipping delays or stoppages and disruptions in delivery systems;

• limitations on employee resources that would otherwise be focused on the conduct of our preclinical studies and clinical trials, including because of sickness of employees or their families or the desire of employees to avoid contact with large groups of people.

• refusal of the FDA or other regulatory authorities to accept data from clinical trials in affected geographies;

• impacts from prolonged remote work arrangements, such as increased cybersecurity risks and strains on our business continuity plans; and

• delays or difficulties with equity offerings due to disruptions and uncertainties in the securities market.

64

In addition, the trading prices for our and other biopharmaceutical companies’ stock have been highly volatile as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result, we may face difficulties raising capital through sales of our common stock and any such sales may be on unfavorable terms. The COVID-19 pandemic continues to rapidly evolve. The extent to which the pandemic further impacts our business, including our preclinical studies and clinical trials, results of operations and financial condition will depend on future developments which are highly uncertain and cannot be predicted with confidence. Such factors include but are not limited to the duration and severity of the pandemic, the impact of variants, travel restrictions, quarantines, shelter-in-place orders and social distancing recommendations and regulations in the United States and other countries, business closures or business disruptions, the adoption and effectiveness of vaccines and vaccine distribution efforts, and the effectiveness of other actions taken in the United States and other countries to contain and treat the disease.

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

We are highly dependent on Eric Shaff, our President and Chief Executive Officer, as well as the other principal members of our management, scientific and clinical team. Although we have entered into employment agreements with our executive officers, each of them may terminate their employment with us at any time. We do not maintain “key person” insurance for any of our executives or other employees.

Recruiting and retaining qualified scientific, clinical, manufacturing and sales and marketing personnel will also be critical to our success. The loss of the services of our executive officers 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 executive officers 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 products. Competition to hire from this limited 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 be employed by employers other than us and 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.

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

We may experience significant growth in the number of our employees and the scope of our operations, particularly in the areas of lead discovery and product development, regulatory affairs, clinical affairs and manufacturing and, if any of our product candidates receives marketing approval, sales, marketing and distribution. To manage potential future growth, we must continue to implement and improve our managerial, operational and financial systems, expand our facilities and continue to recruit and train additional qualified personnel. Due to our limited financial resources and the limited experience of our management team in managing a company with such potential growth, we may not be able to effectively manage the expansion of our operations or recruit and train additional qualified personnel. The expansion of our operations may lead to significant costs and may divert our management and business development resources. Any inability to manage growth could delay the execution of our business plans or disrupt our operations.

A variety of risks associated with operating internationally could materially adversely affect our business.

We currently have limited international operations, but our business strategy incorporates potentially expanding internationally if any of our product candidates receive regulatory approval. We currently conduct clinical studies in Canada, Australia and New Zealand. We may conduct clinical studies in other countries as well. We currently plan to rely on collaborators, including Nestlé, to commercialize certain approved products outside of North America. Doing business internationally involves a number of risks, including but not limited to:

65

Any of these factors could significantly harm our future international expansion and operations and, consequently, our results of operations.

Security breaches, loss of data and other disruptions could compromise sensitive information related to our business or prevent us from accessing critical information and expose us to liability, which could adversely affect our business and our reputation.

In the ordinary course of our business, we collect and store sensitive data, including personally identifiable information, intellectual property and proprietary business information owned or controlled by ourselves or our employees, customers and other parties. We manage and maintain our applications and data utilizing a combination of on-site systems and cloud-based data centers. We utilize external security and infrastructure vendors to manage parts of our data centers. These applications and data encompass a wide variety of business-critical information, including research and development information, customer information, commercial information and business and financial information. We face a number of risks relative to protecting this critical information, including loss of access risk, inappropriate use or disclosure, unauthorized access, inappropriate modification and the risk of our being unable to adequately monitor and audit and modify our controls over our critical information. This risk extends to the third-party vendors and subcontractors we use to manage this sensitive data or otherwise process it on our behalf. The secure processing, storage, maintenance and transmission of this critical information are vital to our operations and business strategy, and we devote significant resources to protecting such information. Although we take reasonable measures to protect sensitive data from unauthorized access, use or disclosure, our information technology and infrastructure may still be vulnerable to, and we have in the past experienced, attacks by hackers or viruses or breaches due to employee error, malfeasance or other malicious or inadvertent disruptions. Further, attacks upon information technology systems are increasing in their frequency, levels of persistence, sophistication and intensity, and are being conducted by sophisticated and organized groups and individuals with a wide range of motives and expertise. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, we may also face increased cybersecurity risks due to our reliance on internet technology and the number of our employees who are working remotely, which may create additional opportunities for cybercriminals to exploit vulnerabilities. Furthermore, because the techniques used to obtain unauthorized access to, or to sabotage, systems change frequently and often are not recognized until launched against a target, we may be unable to anticipate these techniques or implement adequate preventative measures. We may also experience security breaches that may remain undetected for an extended period. Any such breach or interruption could compromise our networks and the information stored there could be accessed by unauthorized parties, publicly disclosed, lost or stolen. Any such access, breach, or other loss of information could result in legal claims or proceedings, and liability under federal or state laws that protect the privacy of personal information, and regulatory penalties. Notice of breaches may be required to affected individuals or other state, federal or foreign regulators, and for extensive breaches, notice may need to be made to the media or State Attorneys General. Such a notice could harm our reputation and our ability to compete. Although we have implemented security measures to prevent unauthorized access, such data is currently accessible through multiple channels, and there is no guarantee we can protect our data from breach. Unauthorized access, loss or dissemination could also disrupt our operations and damage our reputation, any of which could adversely affect our business.

Actual or perceived failures to comply with applicable data protection, privacy and security laws, regulations, standards and other requirements could adversely affect our business, results of operations, and financial condition.

The global data protection landscape is rapidly evolving, and we are or may become subject to numerous state, federal and foreign laws, requirements and regulations governing the collection, use, disclosure, retention, and security of personal information, such as information that we may collect in connection with clinical trials in the U.S. and abroad. Implementation standards and enforcement practices are likely to remain uncertain for the foreseeable future, and we cannot yet determine the impact future laws, regulations, standards, or perception of their requirements may have on our business. This evolution may create uncertainty in our business, affect our ability to operate in certain jurisdictions or to collect, store, transfer use and share personal information,

66

necessitate the acceptance of more onerous obligations in our contracts, result in liability or impose additional costs on us. The cost of compliance with these laws, regulations and standards is high and is likely to increase in the future. Any failure or perceived failure by us to comply with federal, state or foreign laws or regulation, our internal policies and procedures or our contracts governing our processing of personal information could result in negative publicity, government investigations and enforcement actions, claims by third parties and damage to our reputation, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our operations, financial performance and business.

In the U.S., HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, and their implementing regulations, or collectively HIPAA, imposes privacy, security and breach notification obligations on certain healthcare providers, health plans, and healthcare clearinghouses, known as covered entities, as well as their business associates that perform certain services that involve creating, receiving, maintaining or transmitting individually identifiable health information for or on behalf of such covered entities, and their covered subcontractors. Most healthcare providers, including research institutions from which we obtain clinical trial information, are subject to privacy and security regulations promulgated under HIPAA. We do not believe that we are currently acting as a covered entity or business associate under HIPAA and thus are not directly subject to its requirements or penalties. However, any person may be prosecuted under HIPAA’s criminal provisions either directly or under aiding-and-abetting or conspiracy principles. Consequently, depending on the facts and circumstances, we could face substantial criminal penalties if we knowingly receive individually identifiable health information from a HIPAA-covered healthcare provider or research institution that has not satisfied HIPAA’s requirements for disclosure of individually identifiable health information.

Certain states have also adopted comparable privacy and security laws and regulations, some of which may be more stringent than HIPAA. Such laws and regulations will be subject to interpretation by various courts and other governmental authorities, thus creating potentially complex compliance issues for us and our future customers and strategic partners. In addition, the CCPA went into effect on January 1, 2020. The CCPA creates individual privacy rights for California consumers and increases the privacy and security obligations of entities handling certain personal information. The CCPA provides for civil penalties for violations, as well as a private right of action for data breaches that is expected to increase data breach litigation. Further, the CPRA recently passed in California. The CPRA will impose additional data protection obligations on covered businesses, including additional consumer rights processes, limitations on data uses, new audit requirements for higher risk data, and opt outs for certain uses of sensitive data. It will also create a new California data protection agency authorized to issue substantive regulations and could result in increased privacy and information security enforcement. The majority of the provisions will go into effect on January 1, 2023, and additional compliance investment and potential business process changes may be required. Similar laws have passed in Virginia and Colorado, and have been proposed in other states and at the federal level, reflecting a trend toward more stringent privacy legislation in the United States. The enactment of such laws could have potentially conflicting requirements that would make compliance challenging. In the event that we are subject to or affected by HIPAA, the CCPA, the CPRA or other domestic privacy and data protection laws, any liability from failure to comply with the requirements of these laws could adversely affect our financial condition.

Our operations abroad may also be subject to increased scrutiny or attention from data protection authorities. For example, in Europe, the GDPR went into effect in May 2018 and imposes strict requirements for processing the personal data of individuals within the EEA. Companies that must comply with the GDPR face increased compliance obligations and risk, including more robust regulatory enforcement of data protection requirements and potential fines for noncompliance of up to €20 million or 4% of the annual global revenues of the noncompliant company, whichever is greater. Among other re