UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022

OR

Commission File Number: 001-39385

RELAY THERAPEUTICS, INC.

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its Charter)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (617) 370-8837

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The aggregate market value of 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 Market on June 30, 2022, the last business day of the Registrant’s most recently completed second quarter, was approximately $1.8 billion. In determining the market value of non-affiliate common stock, shares of the Registrant’s common stock beneficially owned by officers, directors and affiliates have been excluded. This determination of affiliate status is not necessarily a conclusive determination for other purposes.

The number of shares of Registrant’s Common Stock outstanding as of February 17, 2023 was 121,384,719.

Table of Contents

i

Summary of the Material Risks Associated with Our Business

1

2

SPECIAL NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains express or implied “forward-looking statements,” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, that are based on our management’s belief and assumptions and on information currently available to our management. Although we believe that the expectations reflected in these forward-looking statements are reasonable, these statements relate to future events or our future operational or financial performance, and involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause our actual results, performance or achievements to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by these forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K include, but are not limited to, statements about:

3

In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by terminology such as “may,” “can,” “should,” “expects,” “intends,” “plans,” “anticipates,” “believes,” “estimates,” “predicts,” “potential,” “projects,” “will,” “might,” “could,” “continue,” or the negative of these terms or other comparable terminology. These statements are only predictions. All statements other than statements of historical facts are statements that could be deemed forward-looking statements. You should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements because they involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties, and other factors, which are, in some cases, beyond our control and which could materially affect results. Factors that may cause actual results to differ materially from current expectations include, among other things, those listed above under “Summary of the Material Risks Associated with Our Business,” those listed below under the section titled “Risk Factors” and elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. If one or more of these risks or uncertainties occur, or if our underlying assumptions prove to be incorrect, actual events or results may vary significantly from those implied or projected by the forward-looking statements. No forward-looking statement is a guarantee of future performance. You should read this Annual Report on Form 10-K and the documents that we reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K and have filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, or the SEC, as exhibits hereto completely and with the understanding that our actual future results may be materially different from any future results expressed or implied by these forward-looking statements.

The forward-looking statements in this Annual Report on Form 10-K represent our views as of the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We anticipate that subsequent events and developments will cause our views to change. However, while we may elect to update these forward-looking statements at some point in the future, we have no current intention of doing so except to the extent required by applicable law. You should therefore not rely on these forward-looking statements as representing our views as of any date subsequent to the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

This Annual Report on Form 10-K also contains estimates, projections and other information concerning our industry, our business and the markets for our product candidates. Information that is based on estimates, forecasts, projections, market research or similar methodologies is inherently subject to uncertainties and actual events or circumstances may differ materially from events and circumstances that are assumed in this information. Unless otherwise expressly stated, we obtained this industry, business, market, and other data from our own internal estimates and research as well as from reports, research surveys, studies, and similar data prepared by market research firms and other third parties, industry, medical and general publications, government data and similar sources. While we are not aware of any misstatements regarding any third-party information presented in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, their estimates, in particular as they relate to projections, involve numerous assumptions, are subject to risks and uncertainties and are subject to change based on various factors, including those discussed under the section titled “Risk Factors” and elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

4

PART I

Except where the context otherwise requires or where otherwise indicated, the terms “Relay Therapeutics,” “we,” “us,” “our,” “our company,” the “Company,” and “our business” refer to Relay Therapeutics, Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries.

Item 1. Business.

Overview

We are a clinical-stage precision medicine company transforming the drug discovery process by combining leading-edge computational and experimental technologies with the goal of bringing life-changing therapies to patients. As we believe we are among the first of a new breed of biotech created at the intersection of complementary techniques and technologies, we aim to push the boundaries of what’s possible in drug discovery. Our Dynamo™ platform integrates an array of leading-edge computational and experimental approaches designed to drug protein targets that have previously been intractable or inadequately addressed. Our initial focus is on enhancing small molecule therapeutic discovery in targeted oncology and genetic disease indications.

We have deployed our technology platform to build a pipeline of product candidates to address targets in precision medicine where there is clear evidence linking target proteins to disease and where molecular diagnostics can unambiguously identify relevant patients for treatment. We believe this approach will increase the likelihood of successfully translating a specific pharmacological mechanism into clinical benefit.

We are advancing a pipeline of medicine candidates to address targets in precision oncology and genetic disease, including our lead product candidates, RLY-4008, RLY-2608 and GDC-1971 (formerly known as RLY-1971).

Note: Unless otherwise indicated, patient numbers refer to total annual number of patients in the United States with late-line cancers compared to comprehensive annual incidence that may be amenable to treatment with our programs.

5

While our initial focus is on precision oncology, we believe our Dynamo platform may also be broadly applied to other areas of precision medicine, such as genetic disease indications. In addition to the three lead product candidates described above, we announced three discovery stage programs in June 2022 as part of our HR+/HER2- breast cancer franchise, including a selective cyclin dependent kinase 2, or CDK2, inhibitor, a rationally designed estrogen receptor alpha, or ERα, degrader and a selective and chemically distinct pan-mutant PI3Kα inhibitor, RLY-5836. We also have five additional discovery stage programs across both precision oncology and genetic disease. We are focused on using the novel insights derived from our approach to transform the lives of patients suffering from debilitating and life-threatening diseases through the discovery, development and commercialization of our therapies.

Precision medicine emerged as an approach for disease treatment as the understanding of the link between genetic alterations, protein dysfunction and diseases evolved. Precision medicine aims to specifically and potently drug genetically validated target proteins (i.e., genetic variants potentially implicated in biology of disease). However, some target proteins thus far have been intractable or inadequately addressed using conventional drug discovery tools. While conventional approaches are well-suited to solving some drug discovery problems such as orthosteric site kinase inhibitors, their reliance on static images of protein fragments limit their ability to gain accurate insights into the dynamic behavior of proteins in their natural state, which in turn limits their ability to discover medicines with exquisite specificity. Our approach pivots the understanding of protein targets from

6

the industry-standard, static view, to a novel paradigm based on fundamental insights into protein motion. We then apply these novel insights into protein motion to drug discovery and design, which we term Motion-Based Drug Design®.

In 2016, the confluence of three forces —the proliferation of readily available genomic data, the evolution of experimental techniques, and advancements in computational power and speed— led to the establishment of our Dynamo platform. We believe we are uniquely situated in our ability to consolidate these advances and, when combined with our world-class team of both experimental and computational experts and experience to-date, to integrate these solutions into Motion-Based Drug Design to create medicines that will make a transformative difference for patients.

Our Strategy

Our mission is to leverage unique insights into protein motion to transform the lives of patients suffering from debilitating and life-threatening diseases through the discovery, development and commercialization of small molecule therapies. We believe that, by placing protein motion at the heart of Motion-Based Drug Design discovery, our unique Dynamo platform has the potential to address previously intractable or inadequately addressed precision medicine targets. To accomplish this, we intend to continue building a team that shares our commitment to patients, continue to enhance our platform and rapidly advance our precision medicine pipeline of product candidates. The key elements of our strategy are to:

Rapidly advance our lead precision oncology programs, RLY-4008 and RLY-2608, through clinical development and regulatory approval. We believe our lead precision oncology programs have the potential to treat a wide variety of cancers, either as monotherapy or in combination regimens. RLY-4008 is currently being evaluated in the RLY-4008 Refocus Trial in patients with advanced or metastatic FGFR2-altered solid tumors with a single arm, potentially registration-enabling cohort for FGFRi treatment-naïve, FGFR2-fusion CCA. In January 2022, the FDA granted orphan drug designation to RLY-4008 for the treatment of CCA. Additionally, in the first half of 2022, we conducted an end-of-Phase 1 meeting with the FDA to discuss next steps for the clinical development of RLY-4008. Based on discussions with the FDA, we have decided to move forward with a single-arm trial design for FGFRi treatment-naïve, FGFR2-fusion CCA at 70 mg QD to potentially support accelerated approval. In June 2022, we announced the anticipated registrational path for RLY-4008 in CCA. In September 2022, we announced additional interim clinical data for RLY-4008 with a data cut-off date of August 1, 2022 that we presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress 2022. In December 2021, we dosed the first patient in the RLY-2608 ReDiscover Trial, and in April 2022, we initiated the second arm of the dose escalation part of this trial, evaluating RLY-2608 in combination with fulvestrant for patients with HR+, HER2–, PI3Kα-mutated, locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer. RLY-2608 is the lead program in our emerging PI3Kα franchise, for which we continue to explore additional molecules to augment this foundation. We plan to continue to conduct our clinical studies in genetically-defined patient populations. To potentially mitigate development risks, we will continue to leverage learnings from recently approved precision oncology drugs to inform the clinical and regulatory pathways for our lead oncology programs. If we are successful in achieving clinically meaningful anti-tumor activity across solid tumor types, we plan to meet with regulatory authorities to discuss expedited regulatory approval strategies.

Continue to enhance our unique drug-discovery platform. Our Dynamo platform uniquely integrates a broad range of leading-edge experimental and computational technologies and tools, providing us with fundamental insights into the conformational dynamics of target proteins. We believe we have validated our Dynamo platform and approach with the encouraging interim clinical data for RLY-4008 that we have announced over the course of 2021 and 2022, with RLY-2608 also currently in clinical development, and three additional discovery stage programs announced in June 2022 in connection with our HR+/HER2- breast cancer franchise. We believe we have built significant advantage by accumulating extensive curated clean data sets across the continuum of drug discovery that span both computational and experimental domains. In April 2021, we acquired ZebiAI Therapeutics, Inc., or ZebiAI, to augment our platform with additional computational and machine learning capabilities as well as an extensive experimental DNA-encoded library, or DEL, data sets, consisting of billions of data points across a broad set of proteins, that have trained validated machine learning models deployed in hit finding and optimization of novel molecules. We are committed to continuously integrating new computational and experimental tools, technologies and capabilities to enhance the power of our Dynamo platform. We intend to do this through a combination of internal innovation, external collaboration and other strategic transactions.

Harness the insights and data generated from our platform against intractable or inadequately addressed precision medicine targets, with current focus on oncology and genetic disease indications. We are committed to deploying our Dynamo platform against genetically validated targets, taking on some of the toughest technical drug discovery challenges and creating novel medicines against those targets that can rapidly attain clinical proof-of-concept and address significant unmet medical needs. Our initial focus is on precision oncology where there are clear genetic driver alterations in the tumor genome, and genetic disease where the causal mutations are present at birth. However, we believe our platform also has potential to address targets in genetically-defined subpopulations of more common diseases in other therapeutic areas.

Selectively enter into strategic collaborations to maximize the value of our platform and pipeline. We intend to build a fully integrated biopharmaceutical company and independently pursue the development and commercialization of our key product

7

candidates. Given our potential to generate novel product candidates addressing a wide variety of therapeutic indications, we may enter into strategic partnerships around certain targets, product candidates, disease areas or geographies if we believe these collaborations could accelerate the development and commercialization of our product candidates and allow us to realize additional potential in our product candidates and our platform. For example, in December 2020, we entered into the Genentech Agreement, a global collaboration and license agreement with Genentech for the development and commercialization of GDC-1971. In August 2021, we entered into a discovery collaboration agreement with EQRx, Inc., or EQRx, to discover, develop and commercialize novel medicines against validated oncology targets, or the Discovery Collaboration Agreement, and we are currently collaborating on our ERα degrader program pursuant to this agreement. Outside of these two collaborations, we currently retain full development and commercialization rights to our current pipeline of precision medicine programs.

Our DynamoTM Platform

The continued and rapid development of new experimental techniques, such as cryo-electron microscopy, or Cryo-EM, and ambient-temperature crystallography, and computational techniques, such as molecular dynamics and machine learning, is now enabling the deep understanding of protein motion to discover new therapeutic agents. Dynamo was built to capitalize on these recent advances to develop medicines against protein targets with greater specificity and potency. Using our Dynamo platform, we pivot from industry standard approaches, which are based on static structures and often rely on incomplete protein fragments, to a novel drug-discovery paradigm based on fundamental insights into protein motion, which we term Motion-Based Drug Design®. We leverage insights from our platform to develop novel, motion-based hypotheses for how to drug target proteins. We can then more rapidly identify and optimize effective lead compounds by integrating powerful experimental and computational tools to sample a much broader range of chemical space than is possible using conventional approaches, which are labor intensive and require significant experimental effort.

The confluence of three forces —the proliferation of readily available genomic data, the evolution of experimental techniques, and advances in computational power and speed —led to the founding of Relay Therapeutics and the establishment of our Dynamo platform. We believe we are uniquely positioned to consolidate these advances and, when combined with our world-class team of experimental and computational experts and experience to-date, to integrate these solutions in Motion-Based Drug Design.

Our platform integrates a broad and tailored array of leading-edge experimental and computational approaches to gain fundamental insights into protein function (Figure 1).

Figure 1: The Dynamo drug-discovery platform is the integration of people, techniques, and tools at the intersection of experimentation and computation.

Key Drug Discovery Steps of our Dynamo Platform

We deploy the power of our Dynamo platform in three key phases of Motion-Based Drug Design discovery (Figure 2). We first understand how to drug the protein by developing a detailed mechanistic understanding of the dynamic behavior of the target protein and by identifying pockets where binding of a small molecule can impact protein function, which allows us to generate a modulation hypothesis. Our platform then aids in efficient hit identification, or the identification of chemical starting points through an integrated system of experimental and virtual screens. This enables rapid lead optimization until a development

8

candidate is selected by computationally prioritizing compounds for experimental evaluation. As each cycle generates new learnings for both our team and our underlying machine learning models, our successful iteration of this process continuously improves our understanding of protein motion which leads to a more effective and efficient drug discovery process.

Figure 2: Dynamo can be deployed across the various stages of drug discovery to provide novel insights with the goal of accelerating drug discovery.

Modulation Hypothesis

Our first step is to understand how to drug our protein target of interest. For each target, the initial goal is to better understand the structure and conformational dynamics of all domains of a protein to generate a target modulation hypothesis. First, we synthesize full length proteins through our protein engineering expertise. Next, we use a range of protein visualization methods such as Cryo-EM and ambient temperature X-ray crystallography to generate a rich experimental understanding of the dynamic conformations of the target protein of interest. We then deploy these experimental data sets in our computational platform to generate virtual simulations (molecular dynamics) of the full-length protein moving over long, biologically relevant timescales. We use these insights to develop unique motion-based hypotheses for how best to modulate a protein’s behavior, and to identify potential novel allosteric binding sites for new therapeutic agents.

Hit Identification

Once we have identified potential binding pockets and established a target modulation hypothesis, we then transition into hit finding and lead generation to identify a chemical starting point. The integration of our computational and experimental capabilities affords a deeper functional understanding of our targets and enables the design of physiologically relevant activity-based, ligand-centric and computational screens. The data from these screens provide input for the machine learning components of the Dynamo platform, which enable us to rapidly identify starting points for our drug discovery programs. As an example of tools we deploy to identify these starting points, we have a proprietary capability, our machine learning powered DNA encoded library platform, what we term “REL-DEL” (Relay DEL). Our approach, focused on this integration of computation and experimentation, yields a larger number of chemical series and potential therapies to proceed into lead optimization.

Lead Optimization

Once we have identified a chemical starting point and a lead compound, optimization is necessary to obtain a molecule that has the desired characteristics. Our Dynamo platform combines advanced machine learning models and molecular dynamics simulations in tight integration with our medicinal chemistry, structural biology, enzymology and biophysics capabilities to predict and design the compounds that will achieve the most desirable characteristics, including potency, selectivity, bioavailability and drug-like properties. We believe that this allows us to optimize molecules more rapidly and effectively. Due to the integration of computation and experimentation and, unlike traditional drug discovery approaches, our approach is not wholly dependent on the conventional highly iterative process in the experimental wet laboratory, which is both time consuming and expensive.

9

Our Product Pipeline and Programs

While our Dynamo platform could potentially be applied to a wide range of disease-associated protein targets, we focus on precision medicine targets, currently specifically in oncology and genetic disease indications, for which alterations in specific genes are known to cause disease. The genetic diseases we pursue include cancers with clear genetic driver alterations in the tumor genome, as well as monogenic diseases where the causal mutations are present at birth.

To date, we have entered into strategic partnerships with two of our programs, specifically our collaboration with Genentech for the development and commercialization of GDC-1971 and our collaboration with EQRx for the development of our ERα degrader. Other than these partnered programs, we retain full development and commercialization rights to the rest of our current pipeline of precision medicine programs.

See “—Overview” above for a table that summarizes our current portfolio of product candidates and programs.

Our Clinical Stage Programs

We have three product candidates that are in the early clinical development stage: RLY-4008, RLY-2608 and GDC-1971.

RLY-4008, a selective inhibitor of FGFR2

Overview

RLY-4008 is a potent, selective and oral small molecule inhibitor of FGFR2, a receptor tyrosine kinase that is frequently altered in certain cancers. FGFR2 is one of four members of the FGFR family, a set of closely related proteins with highly similar protein sequences and properties. RLY-4008 is currently being evaluated in the RLY-4008 ReFocus Trial in patients with advanced or metastatic FGFR2-altered solid tumors.

In October 2021, we announced initial clinical data from this trial, which suggested robust inhibition of FGFR2 in the first 49 subjects that was not observed to be limited by off-target toxicities, including hyperphosphatemia and diarrhea, as of the data cut-off date of September 9, 2021. In December 2021, we initiated expansion cohorts at a continuous 70 mg QD dose, and in January 2022, the FDA granted orphan drug designation to RLY-4008 for the treatment of CCA. In the first half of 2022, we conducted an end-of-Phase 1 meeting with the FDA to discuss next steps for the clinical development of RLY-4008. Based on discussions with the FDA, we have decided to move forward with a single-arm trial design for FGFRi treatment-naïve, FGFR2-fusion CCA at 70 mg QD to potentially support accelerated approval. In June 2022, we announced the anticipated registrational path for RLY-4008 in CCA and the interim clinical data with a data cut-off date of April 19, 2022 that was shared with the FDA to support that potential registrational path. In September 2022, we announced additional interim clinical data for RLY-4008 with a data cut-off date of August 1, 2022 that we presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress 2022. This interim clinical data, which showed an interim ORR of 88% from the FGFRi treatment-naïve FGFR-2-fusion CCA patients treated at the pivotal dose of 70 mg QD and an interim ORR of 63% across all dose levels and schedules, are discussed below in “– Interim clinical data.” In October 2022, the EMA adopted a positive opinion on the orphan drug designation application for RLY-4008 for the treatment of biliary tract cancer.

Consistent with the preclinical profile of RLY-4008, the early clinical data support our belief that RLY-4008 has broad therapeutic potential across FGFR2 alterations and tumor types.

We believe FGFR2-mediated cancers affect approximately 11,000 late-line patients annually in the United States. In the future, if RLY-4008 advances to earlier lines of treatment, we believe it could potentially address approximately 35,000 patients annually in the United States. These numbers reflect the inclusion of patients with additional FGFR2 gene fusions and rearrangements that result from truncation of the protein at exon 18 based on recently published research suggesting that patients with these truncations should be considered for FGFR-targeted therapies.

Role of FGFR in cellular proliferation and differentiation

Each of the FGFRs has an important role in normal physiology and the inhibition of FGFR2 is a well-validated pathway in disrupting cancer proliferation and growth. To our knowledge, to date, four non-selective FGFR inhibitors have been approved, with three on the market (erdafitinib, pemigatinib and futibatinib) and one removed from the market (infigratinib), and several are in clinical development. However, these inhibitors as a class cause several dose-limiting, FGFR2-unrelated toxicities in patients leading to dose reductions and altered dosing schedules. One of the most common dose-limiting toxicities of these agents is hyperphosphatemia (buildup of excess phosphate in the bloodstream), which causes soft tissue mineralization and requires active

10

management. Hyperphosphatemia has been shown to be driven by inhibition of another member of the FGFR family known as FGFR1.

We believe that the toxicity attributable to inhibition of other FGFR family members, and other closely related kinases, limits the ability of the non-selective FGFR inhibitors to achieve optimal and durable inhibition of FGFR2, limiting the efficacy of these agents in patients with FGFR2-altered tumors. In addition to the lack of selectivity, these inhibitors are unable to overcome on-target resistance, which has been observed in patients treated with non-selective FGFR inhibitors. Our belief is that a selective inhibitor of FGFR2 that retains activity against resistance mutations will enable improved clinical efficacy.

Limitations of current FGFR inhibitors

Non-selective FGFR inhibitors produced by other companies have demonstrated clinical proof-of-concept in patients with cholangiocarcinoma, or CCA, bearing FGFR2 gene fusions. These gene fusions result in a constitutively active FGFR2, which promotes oncogenic transformation. Genetic alterations in FGFR2, including gene fusions, amplifications, and point mutations, are also found in other solid tumor indications.

Patients with genetic alterations in FGFR2, primarily gene fusions in CCA, have been treated with FGFR inhibitors in investigational clinical trials. To date, these trials provide support for the critical role of FGFR2 for tumor survival with a response rate of up to 42% (Figure 3). A key limiting factor for existing FGFR therapies is that, as a class, they are associated with dose-limiting side effects such as hyperphosphatemia, which has been shown to be caused by FGFR1 inhibition, and diarrhea, which has been shown to be caused by FGFR4 inhibition. Additionally, we believe a selective inhibitor of FGFR2 with broad activity against acquired resistance mutations is necessary to address a significant unmet need in patients with FGFR2-altered tumors.

Figure 3: Hyperphosphatemia and diarrhea are dose-limiting adverse events associated with non-selective FGFR inhibitors.

Sources: Pemigatinib – Prescribing information; Futibatinib – Prescribing Information; Erdafitinib – Prescribing information; FOLFOX – ABC-06 Publication in Lancet Oncology 2021

11

Our solution, RLY-4008

RLY-4008 is an oral, irreversible, small molecule inhibitor of FGFR2 designed to inhibit FGFR2 with high potency while minimizing inhibition of other FGFR family members. In our initial assessment of the challenge of obtaining a highly selective inhibitor of FGFR2, we determined that there is a high degree of structural similarity between FGFR1 and FGFR2 when comparing static X-ray crystal structures. This similarity precluded the development of a structure-based selectivity hypothesis using conventional approaches.

We therefore set out to identify motion-based differences between FGFR2 and other FGFR family members by applying our expertise in computational modeling and experimental structural analyses. We discovered that there were segments of FGFR2 which displayed differential dynamics compared to the corresponding segments of FGFR1 (Figure 4). We predicted these dynamic differences could be exploited to achieve selective inhibition of FGFR2.

Figure 4: Using MD simulations, we predicted that a segment in FGFR1 was more dynamic than FGFR2, as represented by the schematic below where the segment opens “Up” more frequently in FGFR1 compared to FGFR2.

We embarked on a process using computational methods such as long timescale molecular dynamics simulations, virtual docking and specialized experimental techniques to design, select, synthesize, and evaluate inhibitors. Our discovery process culminated with the selection of RLY-4008 as a product candidate based on its ability to meet our predetermined criteria for potency, selectivity and activity in animal models.

Our preclinical studies have shown that RLY-4008 displayed selectivity not only within the FGFR family, but across the kinome generally, in contrast to the pan-FGFR inhibitors that are all equipotent against FGFR 1, 2 and 3, as well as many other off-target kinases, which narrow their therapeutic window (Figure 5).

12

Figure 5: RLY-4008 is a highly selective and irreversible inhibitor.

These kinome scans are based on a single experiment that tested each compound run at 500nM against 468 targets in the absence of adenosine triphosphate (ATP) and without preincubation.

Source: KINOMEscan™ by Eurofins DiscoverX.

Another unique feature of RLY-4008 is that it was designed to exhibit broad coverage against the spectrum of FGFR2 resistance mutations, including the gatekeeper position at V565 and the molecular brake position at N550, some of which can also be de novo mutations. With respect to resistance mutations, these new mutations in FGFR2 arise during treatment, reducing the potency of non-selective FGFR inhibitors and making tumors resistant to treatment. In preclinical experiments, we have shown that RLY-4008 retains activity against a broad panel of mutations known to be associated with resistance to non-selective FGFR inhibitors (Figure 6).

Figure 6: RLY-4008 retains potency against common FGFR2 resistance mutations.

This heatmap shows fold change in potency (IC50) on FGFR2 mutations compared to FGFR2 WT. FGFR2 WT or mutants were expressed in HEK-293 cells and potency on FGFR2 was determined using a pFGFR2 HTRF assay. Colors indicate the fold loss in potency for the mutant form vs wildtype. Gatekeeper mutations block access to the binding site of non-selective inhibitors. Molecular brake mutations disrupt an autoinhibitory conformation of FGFR2, resulting in kinase activation. Other mutations listed have various reported mechanisms of kinase activation. Numbering of mutant residues refers to the FGFR2 IIIb isoform. Fold‑change of 1 indicates equivalent potency on FGFR2 WT and the indicated FGFR2 mutant.

13

Our clinical development plan

The RLY-4008 clinical development plan seeks to leverage the unique potential for enhanced tolerability and broad FGFR2 mutational coverage to rapidly generate proof-of-concept in molecularly defined patient subsets.

RLY-4008 is currently being evaluated in a first-in-human clinical trial in patients with advanced or metastatic FGFR2-altered solid tumors with a single arm, potentially registration-enabling cohort for FGFRi treatment-naïve, FGFR2-fusion CCA. The RLY-4008 ReFocus Trial is designed to evaluate the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and anti-tumor efficacy of RLY-4008 and consists of three parts: a dose escalation (part 1), a dose expansion (part 2), and an extension (part 3). The dose escalation part of the trial has been completed, with a 70 mg QD selected as the registrational dose, and the expansion cohorts were initiated in December 2021.

In January 2022, the FDA granted orphan drug designation to RLY-4008 for the treatment of CCA. Additionally, in the first half of 2022, we conducted an end-of-Phase 1 meeting with the FDA to discuss next steps for the clinical development of RLY-4008. Based on discussions with the FDA, we decided to move forward with a single arm trial design for FGFRi- treatment-naïve, FGFR2-fusion CCA at 70 mg QD to potentially support accelerated approval. We also added additional supportive CCA cohorts, including frontline, FGFRi-experienced and FGFR2 mutation and amplification patients that could potentially facilitate a line and alteration agnostic label if the submission is approved.

The RLY-4008 ReFocus Trial now has seven different cohorts based on FGFR2 alteration and tumor type. (Figure 7).

Figure 7: RLY-4008 ReFocus Trial Design

Development of RLY-4008 requires identification of appropriate patients for treatment with FGFR2 alterations using molecular diagnostic tests. In early phase clinical trials, patients have been identified using local testing performed at clinical trial sites, with retrospective centralized testing to confirm the tumor genetic status. In later phase trials, we have collaborated with diagnostic partners to identify patients for clinical trial enrollment using an analytically validated investigational molecular diagnostic. The tumor genetic contexts that we are considering for development of RLY-4008 (FGFR2 fusions, amplifications and mutations) can currently be detected using FDA-approved next generation sequencing based panel diagnostics. In September 2022, we engaged Foundation Medicine, Inc. to develop its FoundationOne®CDx as a companion diagnostic for RLY-4008, which we are using to identify patients with FGFR2 fusions, amplifications and mutations and select rearrangements in CCA who may be appropriate for treatment with RLY-4008.

Interim clinical data

In September 2022, we announced interim clinical data for the RLY-4008 ReFocus Trial that was presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology, or ESMO, Congress 2022.

The interim clinical data were based on an August 1, 2022 data cut-off date from both the dose escalation and dose expansion phases of the RLY-4008 ReFocus Trial. The interim clinical data included a safety database of 195 patients, with 89 patients

14

treated at the pivotal dose of 70 mg QD, of which 17 were FGFRi treatment-naïve, FGFR2-fusion CCA patients eligible for efficacy evaluation (patients with measurable disease who had opportunity for two or more tumor assessments to confirm response or discontinued treatment with less than two tumor assessments).

Key interim clinical data include:

The interim safety analysis as of the August 1, 2022 data cut-off date was generally consistent with our analysis of the interim clinical data for RLY-4008 as of April 19, 2022 that was shared with the FDA as well as our initial clinical data for RLY-4008 as of September 9, 2021 that was announced in October 2021. In particular:

RLY-2608 and our mutant-PI3Kα inhibitor program

Overview

RLY-2608 is the lead program of multiple efforts to discover and develop mutant selective inhibitors of PI3Kα. PI3Kα is the most frequently mutated kinase in all cancers, with oncogenic mutations detected in about 13% of patients with solid tumors. Traditionally, the development of PI3Kα inhibitors has focused on the active, or orthosteric, site. The therapeutic index of orthosteric inhibitors is limited by the lack of clinically meaningful selectivity for mutant versus wild-type PI3Kα and off-isoform activity. Toxicity related to inhibition of wild-type PI3Kα and other PI3K isoforms results in sub-optimal inhibition of mutant PI3Kα with reductions in dose intensity and frequent discontinuation. The Dynamo platform enabled the discovery of RLY-2608, what we believe to be the first known allosteric, pan-mutant (H1047X, E542X and E545X), and isoform-selective PI3Kα inhibitor designed to overcome these limitations. By solving the full-length Cryo-EM structure of PI3Kα and performing computational long time-scale molecular dynamic simulations to elucidate conformational differences between wild-type and mutant PI3Kα, we were able to leverage these insights to support the design of RLY-2608.

In the fourth quarter of 2021, we announced preclinical data for RLY-2608. The preclinical data show that in preclinical models, RLY-2608 preferentially binds to mutant PI3Kα at a novel allosteric site discovered by our Dynamo platform, which is discussed in further detail below in “—Our solution, RLY-2608”. We dosed the first patient in the RLY-2608 ReDiscover Trial in December 2021 and, in April 2022, initiated the second arm of the dose escalation part of this trial, evaluating RLY-2608 in combination with fulvestrant for patients with HR+, HER2–, PI3Kα-mutated, locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer.

RLY-2608 has the potential to address approximately 50,000 to 156,000 patients per year in the United States, one of the largest patient populations for a precision oncology medicine (Figure 8). Selectivity for all three mutation hot spots (H1047X, E542X and E545X) has the potential to effectively double the addressable patient population compared to selectivity for only H1047X.

15

Figure 8: PI3Kα addressable patient populations.

Sources: Internal analysis based on third-party industry data.

Role of PI3Kα in cellular proliferation and differentiation

Mutations at amino acid H1047 of PI3Kα are among the most common kinase mutations in cancer and are believed to be a primary driver of carcinogenesis. There are no approved therapies that selectively target mutant versions of PI3Kα. Inhibitors that are not mutant-selective are associated with dose-limiting toxicities resulting in frequent discontinuations that restrict their therapeutic potential. Additionally, these inhibitors can also inhibit other isoforms of PI3K, including PI3Kδ, which can result in further toxicity, such as gastrointestinal toxicity. Our belief is that selectively targeting mutant PI3Kα only could result in improved target inhibition and increased clinical efficacy.

Leveraging our structural biology capabilities, we solved what we believe to be the first full-length structure of PI3Kα using Cryo-EM and utilized a range of experimental techniques to understand both H1047R mutant and wild-type conformations. We used this rich experimental data set to power molecular dynamics simulations of H1047R mutant PI3Kα to identify a series of dynamic structural changes caused by the mutation, which were not elucidated by prior structural studies of either H1047R mutant or wild-type PI3Kα. RLY-2608 was designed to exploit these dynamic differences and bind to a novel allosteric site to achieve heightened mutant selectivity.

Limitations of current PI3Kα inhibitors

Approximately 60%-70% of the mutations in PI3Kα cluster at three amino acids (H1047, E542, and E545). Traditionally, the development of PI3Kα inhibitors has focused on the active, or orthosteric site. This site and its location make selectivity for PI3Kα over other PI3K isoforms and for mutant PI3Kα over wild-type PI3Kα difficult, and they do not enable pan-mutant coverage. Though these existing inhibitors have shown clinical activity in breast cancer as both monotherapy and in combination with hormonal therapy, as well as anecdotal monotherapy responses in patients with PI3Kα mutations in other tumor types, the therapeutic index of such orthosteric inhibitors is limited by the lack of clinically meaningful selectivity for mutant versus wild-type PI3Kα and off-isoform activity. Toxicity related to inhibition of wild-type PI3Kα and other PI3K isoforms results in sub-optimal inhibition of mutant PI3Kα with reductions in dose intensity and frequent discontinuation (Figure 9). These agents are generally limited by high rates of severe hyperglycemia, which is an on-target toxicity, and by gastrointestinal toxicity, which may be related to inhibition of other PI3K family members, including PI3Kδ.

RLY-2608, what we believe to be the first known allosteric, pan-mutant (H1047X, E542X and E545X), and isoform-selective PI3Kα inhibitor, was designed to overcome these limitations.

16

Figure 9: Existing inhibitors establish proof-of-concept but could be limited in efficacy by their safety profiles.

Note: fulv = fulvestrant; BC= breast cancer; all referenced studies are for their patient populations which are analogous to ongoing patient populations within RLY-2608 clinical trials; Alpelisib and fulvestrant are FDA-approved, Inavolisib is in Phase 3 clinical trials.

Sources: Alpelisib – 1. SOLAR-1: Andre 2019 N Engl J Med 380:1929, 2. Ph 1b: SABCS 2013 P2-16-14, 3. Ph 1b: SABCS 2014 PD5-5, 4. Ph 2 ByLIEVE: Rugo 2021 Lancet Oncol 22:489, SABCS 2021 #P1-18-03, 5. Ph 1b mono: Annals of Oncol 25 2014 (suppl 4), 6. Ph 2 mono: Savas Cancer Discov 2022 Sep 12:2058, 7. Ph 1a mono: Juric 2018 J Clin Oncol 36:1291; Inavolisib – 8. ASCO 2022 #1052, 9. SABCS 2020 #PS11-11, 10. AACR 2020 CT109, 11. SABCS 2019 OT1-08-04; 12. SABCS 2019 P1-19-46, 13. SABCS 2021 #P5-17-05.

Our solution, RLY-2608

Given the existence of mutations in PI3Kα with different biological mechanisms underlying aberrant activity, we believe there are multiple opportunities to develop inhibitors of PI3Kα, both “pan-mutant” inhibitors as well as distinct mutant selective inhibitors, which could lead to the opportunity for “double-drugging” certain PI3Kα mutations such as H1047R. Addressing the challenge of mutant selectivity required us to express and then solve the structure of the full-length PI3Kα protein. This structure, which to our knowledge had previously not been solved, represented a technical challenge because PI3Kα is a membrane-bound protein. This type of protein is typically difficult both to purify in large quantities and to crystallize. Nonetheless, we were able to obtain the structure of full-length PI3Kα using Cryo-EM. The three-dimensional structure of PI3Kα was determined by collecting data from two-dimensional electron microscopic projections of thin layers of protein. The resulting three-dimensional protein structure provided us with fundamental insights into the mechanism of activation of PI3Kα and the impact of mutations on its function. Through the integration of these structural insights with a combination of experimental and computational techniques, our aim is to develop a franchise of mutant selective PI3Kα inhibitors. RLY-2608 is the first lead molecule derived from these efforts and is the first known allosteric, pan-mutant (H1047X, E542X and E545X) and isoform-selective PI3Kα inhibitor in clinical development.

In October 2021, we shared preclinical data at the virtual AACR-NCI-EORTC Molecular Targets Conference and in December 2021, we shared additional preclinical data at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium and dosed the first patient in the RLY-2608 ReDiscover Trial. In April 2022, we initiated the second arm of the dose escalation part of this trial, evaluating RLY-2608 in combination with fulvestrant for patients with HR+, HER2–, PI3Kα-mutated, locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer.

The preclinical data shared in 2021 show that in preclinical models, RLY-2608 preferentially binds to mutant PI3Kα at a novel allosteric site discovered by the Dynamo platform. The data also show that in biochemical and cellular assays, RLY-2608 inhibited the three major classes of PI3Kα oncogenic mutations (H1047X, E542X and E545X) while sparing wild-type PI3Kα, and in biochemical assays, RLY-2608 shows potency comparable to alpelisib on the three most commonly seen PI3Kα mutants, but unlike alpelisib and inavolisib, two other PI3Kα inhibitors, RLY-2608 is significantly less potent against wild-type PI3Kα.

17

The data indicate RLY-2608 is also highly specific for PI3Kα, without residual activity on other PI3K family members which could contribute to the toxicity of non-selective PI3K inhibitors (Figure 10).

Figure 10: RLY-2608 has shown mutant and isoform biochemical selectivity.

Biochemical inhibition of PI3K isoforms including hotspot mutants of PI3Kα by RLY-2608 and orthosteric inhibitors was assessed using the ADP-Glo assay (Promega). The readout measures the adenosine diphosphate generated upon phosphorylation of a soluble PIP2 surrogate substrate by PI3K in the presence of adenosine triphosphate with a 120-minute preincubation period.

The data further suggest that RLY-2608 is also highly selective against other PI3K family members and exquisitely selective across the kinome (Figure 11).

Figure 11: RLY-2608 is selective across the kinome.

RLY-2608 was evaluated against a panel of 321 human kinases and disease-relevant mutant variants in the Thermo Fisher Scientific SelectScreen Profiling Service fluorescence resonance energy transfer assays. The legend represents various degrees of inhibition at the test concentration of 10 μM.

18

The data suggest that projected clinically relevant doses of RLY-2608 achieved tumor regression in PIK3CA mutant in vivo xenograft mouse models representing H1047R and E545K mutations with significantly reduced impact on glucose metabolism compared to non-mutant selective active site inhibitors. In higher species, dosing of RLY-2608 resulted in exposures exceeding 90% inhibition of mutant PI3Kα in cells without resulting in elevated glucose levels or histopathological changes associated with dysregulation of glucose metabolism that are seen with non-mutant selective inhibitors (Figure 12).

Figure 12: In vivo regressions across both mutation hotspots.

Activity of RLY-2608 and orthosteric inhibitors in xenograft models harboring PIK3CA hotspot mutations. RLY-2608 was administered orally once a day (QD) or twice a day (BID) for the duration of the study as indicated on the x-axis (n=8). At end of study, serum samples were collected at two timepoints and evaluated by ELISA for insulin levels. All models were grown in Balb/c nude female mice.

The data show RLY-2608 is active as monotherapy in patient-derived xenograft breast cancer models, including both H1047R and E542K-mutant tumors. The data further indicate RLY-2608 also synergizes with fulvestrant (an estrogen receptor inhibitor) and abemaciclib (a CDK4/6 inhibitor), which are standard of care therapies in breast cancer, in cell viability assays in PIK3CAmut/ER+/HER2- cell lines. Oral administration of RLY-2608 in combination with fulvestrant or abemaciclib led to improved activity compared to either agent alone in ER+/HER2- xenograft models representing the most commonly observed PIK3CA mutations in breast cancer (H1047R, E542K, E545K). The triple combination of all three agents resulted in deep regressions across all models. Additionally, the combination models had similar tolerability to monotherapy models. (Figure 13)

19

Figure 13: RLY-2608 combined with standard of care therapies facilitated regressions in ER+/HER2- breast cancer models.

Combination efficacy of RLY-2608 and fulvestrant and abemaciclib in ER+/HER2- patient derived xenograft models mutant for PIK3CA. RLY-2608 was administered orally twice daily (BID) at 25 mg/kg, a quarter of the full efficacious dose either alone or in combination with fulvestrant (subcutaneous injection of 5mg/mouse, weekly) and/or abemaciclib (daily oral administration of 25 mg/kg). Each bar in the waterfall plot represents an individual tumor response (percent change relative to initial tumor volume) at end of study. All mice were supplemented with estradiol to enable tumor growth.

These results support advancement of RLY-2608 into clinical development as a differentiated mechanism of mutant PI3Kα inhibition.

RLY-2608 has the potential to address approximately 50,000 to 156,000 patients per year in the United States, one of the largest patient populations for a precision oncology medicine. Selectivity for all three mutation hot spots (H1047X, E542X and E545X) has the potential to effectively double the addressable patient population compared to selectivity for only H1047X.

Our clinical development plan

The RLY-2608 ReDiscover Trial is designed to evaluate the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and preliminary antitumor activity of RLY-2608, and consists of two separate arms (Figure 14). The first arm assesses RLY-2608 as a single agent for patients with unresectable or metastatic solid tumors with PI3Kα mutation, while the second arm evaluates RLY-2608 in combination with fulvestrant for patients with PI3Kα-mutant, HR+, HER2– locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer. Each arm has two parts, a dose escalation (part 1) to determine the maximum tolerated dose and/or recommended Phase 2 dose, followed by a dose expansion (part 2) to evaluate RLY-2608 in genomically defined populations.

In the dose expansion part of the trial for RLY-2608 as a single agent, patients with the following unresectable or metastatic solid tumors with a PI3Kα mutation per local assessment continue to be enrolled in the following groups: (1) clear cell ovarian cancer; (2) head and neck squamous cell carcinoma; (3) cervical cancer; (4) other solid tumors; and (5) unresectable or metastatic solid tumors with PIK3CA double mutations defined as major (E542X, E545X, or H1047X), plus ≥1 additional PI3Kα mutations. In the dose expansion part of the trial for RLY-2608 in combination with fulvestrant, men or postmenopausal women with HR+, HER2– advanced or metastatic breast cancer with PI3Kα mutations continue to be enrolled in the following groups: (1) patients who have not received prior treatment with a PI3Kα inhibitor; and (2) patients who are intolerant to PI3Kα inhibitors. The RLY-2608 ReDiscover Trial is designed to enroll approximately 190 patients between both arms.

20

Figure 14: RLY-2608 ReDiscover Trial Design.

RLY-5836, a second and chemically distinct pan-mutant PI3Kα inhibitor

As a demonstration of our commitment to PI3Kα as a target, we have also developed a second preclinical molecule, RLY-5836. Developed leveraging our existing structural understanding of PI3Kα, this molecule is similar to RLY-2608 in that it is also an allosteric, pan-mutant (H1047X, E542X and E545X) and isoform-selective PI3Kα inhibitor. However, it is chemically distinct to RLY-2608 and serves as another molecule within our PI3Kα franchise.

Preclinical data suggest that projected clinically relevant doses of RLY-5836 were associated with tumor regression in PIK3CA mutant xenograft mouse models representing H1047R and E545K mutations, the same models evaluated with RLY-2608 (Figure 15).

21

Figure 15: RLY-5836: In vivo regressions across both mutation hotspots.

Activity of RLY-5836 and orthosteric inhibitors in xenograft models harboring PIK3CA hotspot mutations. RLY-5836 was administered orally twice a day (BID) for the duration of the study as indicated on the x-axis (n=8). At end of study, serum samples were collected at two timepoints and evaluated by ELISA for insulin levels. All models were grown in Balb/c nude female mice.

GDC-1971 (formerly known as RLY-1971), an inhibitor of SHP2

Overview

GDC-1971 is an oral, small molecule inhibitor of the protein tyrosine phosphatase SHP2 that binds and stabilizes SHP2 in its inactive conformation. SHP2 promotes cancer cell survival and growth through the RAS pathway by transducing signals downstream from RTKs. Additionally, activating SHP2 mutations results in enhanced signaling in the absence of ligand stimulation and has been identified as oncogenic drivers in a range of tumors. As a critical signaling node and regulator, SHP2 drives cancer cell proliferation and plays a key role in the way cancer cells develop resistance to targeted therapies. We believe that inhibition of SHP2 could block a common path that cancer cells exploit to avoid killing by other antitumor agents, thus overcoming or delaying the onset of resistance to those therapies. In the first quarter of 2020, we initiated a Phase 1a clinical trial for GDC-1971 as a monotherapy in patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumors. We completed enrollment of this trial in 2022. In December 2020, we entered into the Genentech Agreement, a global collaboration and license agreement with Genentech for the clinical development and commercialization of GDC-1971. Genentech initiated the cohort of GDC-1971 in combination with GDC-6036, its KRAS G12C inhibitor, in a Phase 1b trial in July 2021, and a Phase 1b trial of GDC-1971 in combination with atezolizumab, its PD-L1 antibody, in August 2022. Given the range of cancers that are related to SHP2 dependence, we believe GDC-1971 has the potential to serve as a combination backbone therapy.

We estimate there are approximately 37,000 patients annually in the United States with advanced lung cancer or colorectal cancer who might benefit from a combination of GDC-1971 with another targeted inhibitor. In the future, if GDC-1971 advances to earlier lines of combination treatment for lung cancer or colorectal cancer, we believe it could be applied in the treatment of approximately 69,000 patients annually in the United States. The subset of patients with KRAS G12C mutations in lung cancer and colorectal cancer who could potentially benefit from the combination of GDC-1971 with GDC-6036 is approximately 17,000 to 32,000 annually in the United States.

SHP2: A central regulator of cell signaling

SHP2 is a protein tyrosine phosphatase that plays a critical role in the transduction of intracellular signals downstream from RTKs, promoting cell survival and growth through the RAS pathway. SHP2 was the first phosphatase identified as a recurrently mutated oncogene, providing genetic support for the importance of SHP2 activation in promoting cancer. In addition to the central role of SHP2 in RTK signaling, some alterations in the RAS signaling pathway amplify signals transmitted by SHP2 and

22

can therefore be suppressed by SHP2 inhibition. These include specific mutant forms of RAS (KRAS G12C and KRAS G12A), genomic amplification of wild-type KRAS, loss-of-function mutations in NF1, and class 3 mutations in BRAF.

A key feature of SHP2 as an oncology target is its ability to regulate cell signaling that arises from multiple RTKs (Figure 16). Therapies targeted to these RTKs, and therapies targeting downstream nodes such as PI3K, KRAS and MEK, are often unable to durably inhibit tumor growth because these tumors are able to bypass the targeted RTK and shift growth factor signaling to an alternate RTK, rendering them less sensitive to the targeted therapy. This is generally referred to as bypass resistance. Because SHP2 regulates the activity of multiple RTKs, inhibition of SHP2 is an effective way to overcome bypass resistance as confirmed by cellular and animal model experiments. Indeed, the added benefit of SHP2 inhibition has been demonstrated pre-clinically in combination with multiple agents, such as those targeting MEK, KRAS G12C, EGFR, and ALK. We believe our SHP2 inhibitor has the potential to become a commonly used combination partner with multiple targeted therapies including those in our own pipeline.

Figure 16: SHP2 regulates the activity of multiple receptor tyrosine kinases (RTKs).

Our solution, GDC-1971

GDC-1971 is a small molecule inhibitor of SHP2 that binds and stabilizes SHP2 in its inactive conformation.

Our preclinical data for GDC-1971 showed minimal inhibition of targets other than SHP2. GDC-1971 has bioavailability suitable for oral dosing, was metabolically stable, and demonstrated favorable pharmacokinetic properties in preclinical in vivo models. We do not predict that GDC-1971 will have significant drug-drug interactions based on weak inhibition of drug metabolizing enzymes. It is readily synthesized in bulk, can be formulated for oral delivery, and was well-tolerated in animal models.

We believe the key differentiating features of GDC-1971 from other SHP2 inhibitors in clinical development are:

Combination benefit for SHP2 inhibition has been demonstrated with KRAS G12C inhibitors in cancer xenograft models harboring KRAS G12C mutations. The efficacy of direct KRAS G12C inhibition may be limited by adaptive feedback reactivation of the RAS-MAPK pathway through upregulation of multiple RTKs. Activation of these RTKs leads to compensatory activation of wild-type RAS isoforms, which cannot be inhibited by KRAS G12C-specific inhibitors, thus leading to resistance. SHP2 is unique in that it transmits signals from multiple RTKs and is therefore critical in mediating feedback reactivation of the RAS pathway during KRAS G12C inhibition.

23

Given the role of SHP2 in mediating bypass resistance, we believe that SHP2 inhibitors have significant therapeutic potential when given in combination with other targeted therapies. Due to the increased potency and broader mutational coverage of next-generation targeted therapies, lower rates of on-target resistance have been observed in the clinic, with a greater number of patients progressing due to bypass resistance. An example of this is seen with EGFR inhibitors, where first-generation inhibitors (erlotinib and gefinitib) have greater on-target resistance compared to a third-generation inhibitor (osimertinib). As SHP2 is involved in signaling for numerous oncogenes, including EGFR, KRAS G12C and ALK, combination therapy with GDC-1971 represents a potential significant therapeutic opportunity.

In addition to the therapeutic opportunity associated with combining with other targeted therapies, we believe GDC-1971 has the potential to be a combination partner with the product candidates in our own precision oncology portfolio, RLY-4008, RLY-2608 and RLY-5836.

Our clinical development plan

We initiated a Phase 1a clinical trial for GDC-1971 as a monotherapy in patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumors in the first quarter of 2020 with the primary objectives being to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD)/recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D), and to define the overall safety profile of GDC-1971. The secondary objectives were to assess the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of GDC-1971, and to explore preliminary anti-tumor activity of GDC-1971. Patients received GDC-1971 administered orally, once daily. Once daily oral dosing was selected based on projected human pharmacokinetics and exposures calculated from multi-species pharmacokinetics and allometric scaling. We completed enrollment of this trial in 2022. In December 2020, we entered into the Genentech Agreement with Genentech for the development and commercialization of GDC-1971. Pursuant to the Genentech Agreement, development for GDC-1971 is governed by a joint development team between us and Genentech. In July 2021, Genentech initiated the cohort of GDC-1971 in combination with GDC-6036, its KRAS G12C inhibitor, in a Phase 1b trial, and in August 2022, Genentech initiated a Phase 1b trial of GDC-1971 in combination with atezolizumab, its PD-L1 antibody.

Our Discovery Programs

We are deploying our Dynamo platform to advance discovery-stage programs across both precision oncology and genetic disease indications. As with our lead programs, our precision oncology programs leverage insights into protein conformational dynamics to address high-value, genetically validated oncogenes that previously have been intractable to, or inadequately addressed by, conventional drug-discovery approaches. With respect to our genetic disease programs, we are also leveraging the power of our Dynamo platform to address genetically validated targets in monogenic diseases where genetic alterations lead to disease-causing defects in protein conformational dynamics. We announced three of these discovery stage programs in June 2022 as part of our HR+/HER2- breast cancer franchise, including RLY-5836, a selective CDK2 inhibitor, and a rationally designed ERα degrader. See “Our Clinical Stage Programs—RLY-5836, a second and chemically distinct pan-mutant PI3Kα inhibitor” above for more information about RLY-5836.

We also have five additional discovery stage programs across both precision oncology and genetic disease indications.

Competition

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by rapid innovation of new technologies, fierce competition and strong defense of intellectual property. While we believe that our platform and our knowledge, experience and scientific resources provide us with competitive advantages, we face competition from major pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, academic institutions, governmental agencies and public and private research institutions, among others.

We compete in the segments of the pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and other related markets that address experimentally and computationally driven structure-based drug design in cancer and genetic diseases. There are other companies focusing on structure-based drug design to develop therapies in the fields of cancer and other diseases. These companies include divisions of large pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology companies of various sizes. Any product candidates that we successfully develop and commercialize will compete with currently approved therapies and new therapies that may become available in the

24

future from segments of the pharmaceutical, biotechnology and other related markets that pursue precision medicines. Key product features that would affect our ability to effectively compete with other therapeutics include the efficacy, safety and convenience of our products.

We believe principal competitive factors to our business include, among other things, the rich protein structural data sets we are able to generate, the power and accuracy of our computations and predictions, ability to integrate experimental and computational capabilities, ability to successfully transition research programs into clinical development, ability to raise capital, and the scalability of the platform, pipeline, and business.

While there are many pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies that use some of the same tools that we use in our platform, we believe we compete favorably on the basis of these factors. The effort and investment required to develop a highly integrated experimental and computational platform similar to ours will hinder new entrants that are unable to invest the necessary capital and time and lack the breadth and depth of technical expertise required to develop competing capabilities. Our ability to remain competitive will largely depend on our ability to continue to augment our integrated experimental and computational platform and demonstrate success in our drug discovery efforts.

Our competitors may obtain regulatory approval of their products more rapidly than we may or may obtain patent protection or other intellectual property rights that limit our ability to develop or commercialize our product candidates. Our competitors may also develop drugs that are more effective, more convenient, more widely used and less costly or have a better safety profile than our products and these competitors may also be more successful than us in manufacturing and marketing their products.

In addition, we will need to develop our product candidates in collaboration with diagnostic companies, and we will face competition from other companies in establishing these collaborations. Our competitors will also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific, management and commercial personnel, establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs.

Furthermore, we also face competition more broadly across the market for cost-effective and reimbursable cancer treatments. The most common methods of treating patients with cancer are surgery, radiation and drug therapy, including chemotherapy, hormone therapy and targeted drug therapy or a combination of such methods. There are a variety of available drug therapies marketed for cancer. In many cases, these drugs are administered in combination to enhance efficacy. While our product candidates, if any are approved, may compete with these existing drug and other therapies, to the extent they are ultimately used in combination with or as an adjunct to these therapies, our product candidates may not be competitive with them. Some of these drugs are branded and subject to patent protection, and others are available on a generic basis. Insurers and other third-party payors may also encourage the use of generic products or specific branded products. We expect that if any of our product candidates are approved, they will be priced at a significant premium over competitive generic, including branded generic, products. As a result, obtaining market acceptance of, and gaining significant share of the market for, any of our product candidates that we successfully introduce to the market will pose challenges. In addition, many companies are developing new therapeutics, and we cannot predict what the standard of care will be as our product candidates progress through clinical development.

RLY-4008

While there are currently no approved products that selectively target FGFR2, we are aware of other companies developing therapeutics that selectively target FGFR2, including, but not limited to, Five Prime Therapeutics and Russian Pharmaceutical Technologies. Specifically, we expect RLY-4008 to compete with approved development stage non-selective inhibitors of the FGFR receptor family that are being tested in patients with FGFR2 alterations, including but not limited to, Incyte Corporation (pemigatinib), Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (erdafitinib), Otsuka Holdings Co., Ltd. through its subsidiary Taiho Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (futibatinib), Debiopharm Group (zoligratinib), Eisai Co., Ltd. (tasurgratinib), InnoCare Pharma Limited (gunagratinib), Kinnate BioPharma (KIN-3248), and Tyra Biosciences, Inc. (TYRA-200).

The development of RLY-4008 focuses on solid tumor patients with FGFR2 alterations, including CCA patients harboring FGFR2 gene fusions. While there are no approved systemic therapies for CCA, the current standard of care for unresectable or metastatic patients is first-line gemcitabine/cisplatin chemotherapy. In addition, there are other companies developing potentially competitive drug candidates in CCA including, but not limited to, Merck & Co, AstraZeneca plc, Merck KGaA, and NuCana plc.

RLY-2608 and Mutant-PI3Kα Inhibitor Program

We expect that RLY-2608, RLY-5836 and our mutant-selective PI3Kα inhibitor program generally, will compete against an approved drug, Piqray (alpelisib), a non-selective PI3Kα inhibitor marketed by Novartis for the treatment of PI3Kα mutated breast cancer. We are aware of other companies developing therapeutics that target both wild-type and mutant PI3Kα, including, but not limited to, Roche Holding AG through its subsidiary Genentech, Menarini Group, Luoxin Pharma, Shanghai HaiHe

25

Pharma Co. and Celcuity Inc. Loxo Oncology, a subsidiary of Eli Lilly and Company, as well as Scorpion Therapeutics, also have a preclinical development program for mutant-selective PI3Kα inhibitors.

GDC-1971

While there are currently no approved products targeting SHP2, we are aware of other companies in clinical trials developing therapeutics that target SHP2, including, but not limited to, Revolution Medicines, Inc. in partnership with Sanofi S.A., Novartis International AG, Navire Pharma, Inc., Erasca, Inc., Jacobio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in partnership with AbbVie Inc., Erasca Inc., Pfizer Inc., and InnoCare Pharma Limited.

CDK2 Inhibitor

While there are currently no approved products targeting CDK2, we are aware of other companies in clinical trials developing therapeutics that target CDK2, including, but not limited to, Pfizer Inc, Blueprint Medicines Corporation, and Incyte Corporation, as well as companies with preclinical programs including FogPharma (via Cyclin 1E inhibition), Cedilla Therapeutics, Inc., Monte Rosa Therapeutics, Inc., Aucentra Therapeutics, Plexium, Inc., and Incyclix Bio, Inc.

ERα Degrader

While there are currently no approved products targeting degraders of ERα, we are aware of other companies in clinical trials developing therapeutics that degrade ERα, including, but not limited to, Arvinas, Inc., as well as other companies with preclinical programs such as Accutar Biotechnology, Inc., and AstraZeneca plc.

Our Collaborations

Key License Agreements and Strategic Collaborations

Collaboration and License Agreement with D. E. Shaw Research, LLC

Our key computational collaboration is with D. E. Shaw Research, LLC, or D. E. Shaw Research, a computational biochemistry research firm operating under the scientific leadership of Dr. David E. Shaw, which has developed proprietary software and hardware to perform long timescale molecular dynamics simulations. Through an affiliate, D. E. Shaw Research is also one of our investors. We collaborate with D. E. Shaw Research scientists to research certain protein targets on an exclusive basis, with a focus on the dynamic behavior of proteins, through the use of D. E. Shaw Research’s computational modeling capabilities, such as the Anton 2 supercomputer and proprietary algorithms and software developed specifically by D. E. Shaw Research for processing long timescale molecular dynamics simulations. Our scientists work closely with D. E. Shaw Research scientists on each of our programs, especially in the discovery stage as we develop motion-based hypotheses and identify lead compounds.

We originally entered into a Collaboration and License Agreement with D. E. Shaw Research on August 17, 2016, which has since been amended to extend the term and otherwise modify certain of the provisions thereof. We refer to this agreement, as amended and restated from time to time, as the DESRES Agreement. Under the DESRES Agreement, we agreed to collaborate with D. E. Shaw Research to research certain biological targets through the use of D. E. Shaw Research computational modeling capabilities focused on analysis of protein motion, with an aim to develop and commercialize compounds and products directed to such targets. After completing the computational modeling with D. E. Shaw Research and naming a compound development candidate, we develop and commercialize such compounds and products. D. E. Shaw Research has no involvement with the clinical development or potential commercialization of these compounds and products, regardless of any co-ownership rights pursuant to the terms of the DESRES Agreement, and instead receives solely milestone and royalty payments as described below.

Under the DESRES Agreement, there are three categories of targets: Category 1 Targets, Category 2 Targets and Category 3 Targets. We and D. E. Shaw Research agreed on a list of Category 1 Targets and Category 2 Targets as part of the DESRES Agreement. Category 1 Targets are targets that, among other things, we collaborate on with D. E. Shaw Research, D. E. Shaw Research has exclusivity obligations with respect to, and we may owe royalties on; Category 2 Targets are targets in connection with the potential re-categorization of which into a Category 1 Target, we may, among other things, perform certain non-clinical research and development; and Category 3 Targets are all targets other than Category 1 Targets and Category 2 Targets. There are mechanisms for re-categorizing targets, and we and D. E. Shaw Research have re-categorized a number of targets since we entered into the collaboration. Our rights and obligations, and D. E. Shaw Research’s rights and obligations, with respect to targets vary by the category of each target. However, the parties only conduct collaborative activities together for Category 1 Targets, and we are limited to a certain number of Category 1 Targets in any collaboration year. The sum of the number of Category 1 Targets and the number of Category 2 Targets is capped at twenty. The targets associated with all of our current programs in clinical development are Category 1 Targets under the DESRES Agreement.

26

Work product that we jointly develop with D. E. Shaw Research is initially co-owned with them. Specifically, intellectual property rights covering the composition of matter for GDC-1971 (formerly known as RLY-1971) are currently co-owned by D. E. Shaw Research and us under this arrangement. We have the right to have patents claiming certain product candidates (including one claiming GDC-1971) assigned to us upon issuance of those patents. For each Category 1 Target, there is a limit to the number of core compounds and total compounds, including derivatives of core compounds, that can be designated as solely owned by us, subject to certain adjustments. Each of we and D. E. Shaw Research grants to the other a perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive license for jointly held intellectual property, subject to certain exclusions.

During the initial research term, which is expected to last until August 2025, unless extended by mutual agreement, D. E. Shaw Research will not, and will cause its subsidiaries not to, research any Category 1 Target (or grant certain rights with respect to such target) with the aim of pursuing any compound designed to interact with or bind to such Category 1 Target, subject to some exceptions. Following the end of the initial research term, D. E. Shaw Research will be similarly restricted with respect to any target that was a Category 1 Target at the end of the initial research term, subject to some exceptions. However, D. E. Shaw Research will not be bound by such exclusivity provisions with respect to a particular Category 1 Target if we, and parties acting on our behalf, stop using commercially reasonable efforts to research, develop or commercialize any products against such Category 1 Target. Further, D. E. Shaw Research will be released from such exclusivity obligations with respect to a particular Category 1 Target if, at least 24 months after the end of the initial research term, D. E. Shaw Research informs us that D. E. Shaw Research will forgo all future payments with respect to such Category 1 Target.

During the initial research term, neither D. E. Shaw Research nor we will, and we will each cause our subsidiaries not to, research a Category 2 Target (or grant certain rights with respect to such target) with the aim of pursuing any compound designed to interact with or bind to such Category 2 Target, subject to some exceptions. These exclusivity restrictions do not extend past the initial research term.

There is no exclusivity with respect to Category 3 Targets.

Through December 31, 2022, we have made cash payments to D. E. Shaw Research totaling $34.3 million in the aggregate. On a product-by-product basis, we have also agreed to pay D. E. Shaw Research milestone payments upon the achievement of certain development and regulatory milestone events for products we develop under the DESRES Agreement that are directed to a Category 1 Target or any target that was a Category 1 Target. Our SHP2, FGFR2 and PI3K programs are each directed to Category 1 Targets. Such payments for achievement of development and regulatory milestones total up to $7.3 million in the aggregate for each of the first three products we develop, and up to $6.3 million in the aggregate for each product we develop after the first three.

Additionally, we have agreed to pay D. E. Shaw Research, on a product-by-product basis, with respect to products directed to Category 1 Targets or any target that was a Category 1 Target, royalties in the low single digits on worldwide net sales of products that we commercialize directed to the targets selected for development under the DESRES Agreement, subject to certain reductions. Royalties are payable on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis until the later of twelve years after first commercial sale in such country or the expiration of all applicable regulatory exclusivities in such country. On a product-by-product basis, we also agreed to pay D. E. Shaw Research sales milestone payments up to $36.0 million in the aggregate based on sales of each product directed to a Category 1 Target or any target that was a Category 1 Target. Further, if we enter into transactions granting third parties rights to a Category 1 Target or a compound or product directed to a Category 1 Target or any target that was a Category 1 Target such as our collaboration with Genentech for GDC-1971 discussed below, but subject to certain exclusions, we will share with D. E. Shaw Research a percentage of the proceeds of such transactions ranging from the low- to high-single digits, depending on the stage of development of compounds or products directed to such target at the time we enter into such transaction. We also initially agreed to pay D. E. Shaw Research an annual collaboration fee of $7.9 million in August of each year during the initial research term, and such fee was increased by mutual agreement of the parties to $9.9 million in May of 2021. Such increased fee is payable each year between 2021 and 2025.

Unless earlier terminated, the DESRES Agreement will continue at least until the end of the initial research term and thereafter on a target-by-target basis until all payment obligations have expired. D. E. Shaw Research has the right to terminate the DESRES Agreement due to non-payment. We and D. E. Shaw Research each have the right to terminate the DESRES Agreement due to an uncured material breach by the other party, or in the event the other party becomes insolvent or enters into bankruptcy or dissolution proceedings. Our payment obligations to D. E. Shaw Research survive termination of the DESRES Agreement. If D. E. Shaw Research terminates the DESRES Agreement, the exclusivity obligations will terminate. If we terminate the DESRES Agreement, D. E. Shaw Research remains bound by its exclusivity obligations with respect to certain targets until, on a target-by-target basis, there are no further payment obligations due to D. E. Shaw Research in respect of such targets.

27

Collaboration and License Agreement with Genentech

On December 11, 2020, we entered into a Collaboration and License Agreement with Genentech, Inc. and F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, collectively referred to as Genentech, which was amended on February 2, 2022, to modify certain terms thereof. We refer to this agreement, as amended from time to time, as the Genentech Agreement. Pursuant to the Genentech Agreement, we and Genentech will collaborate on the development and commercialization of GDC-1971 (formerly known as RLY-1971).

Genentech will be responsible for conducting any additional clinical development of GDC-1971, including in any combination trials with Genentech’s compound, GDC-6036, that directly binds to and inhibits KRAS G12C, or other compounds. Genentech initiated the cohort of GDC-1971 in combination with GDC-6036 in a Phase 1b trial in July 2021, and a Phase 1b trial of GDC-1971 in combination with atezolizumab, its PD-L1 antibody, in August 2022.

We retain the right to develop GDC-1971 or certain other small molecule inhibitors of SHP2 developed under the Genentech Agreement, or a Licensed Candidate, or pharmaceutical product containing a Licensed Candidate, or a Licensed Product, in combination with any of our compounds targeting FGFR2, including RLY-4008, or PI3Kα, including RLY-2608 and RLY-5836, which we refer to as a Relay Combination Product. If we opt into the Profit/Cost Share described below, Genentech may share the development costs of any clinical trial for a Relay Combination Product.

Genentech has the sole right and responsibility to commercialize Licensed Products, in any and all combinations, except that we have the right to co-promote a Licensed Product solely as part of our commercialization of Relay Combination Products. Genentech will be solely responsible for all regulatory matters for all Licensed Candidates and Licensed Products other than with respect to Relay Combination Products.

Under the terms of the Genentech Agreement, we received $75.0 million in an upfront payment in 2021, as well as $30.0 million in milestone payments as of December 31, 2022. We are eligible to receive $5.0 million in additional near-term payments.

We have the option, exercisable one time in our sole discretion, to fund half of the development costs of GDC-1971 in the United States and share half of the net profits or net loss of commercializing GDC-1971 in the United States, which we refer to as the Profit/Cost Share. If we opt into the Profit/Cost Share, we will also be eligible to receive up to an aggregate of an additional $410.0 million upon the achievement of specified commercialization and sales-based milestones for GDC-1971 outside of the United States and tiered royalties ranging from low-to-mid teens on annual net sales of GDC-1971 outside of the United States, on a country-by-country basis, subject to reduction in certain circumstances. At any time prior to the third anniversary of the first commercial sale of GDC-1971 in the United States, we may elect to opt-out of further participation in the Profit/Cost Share. If we elect to opt-out, then Genentech’s milestone and royalty payment obligations will revert to the financial terms that would be applicable if we had not opted into the Profit/Cost Share as described below as of the effective opt-out date, with certain adjustments.

If we do not opt into the Profit/Cost Share, Genentech will be responsible for all development costs of GDC-1971, and we will be eligible to receive up to an aggregate of an additional $685.0 million upon the achievement of specified development, commercialization and sales-based milestones for GDC-1971 worldwide. We will also be eligible to receive tiered royalties ranging from low-to-mid teens on annual worldwide net sales of GDC-1971, on a country-by-country basis, subject to reduction in certain circumstances.

In the event of regulatory approval of both GDC-1971 and GDC-6036 in combination, we are eligible to receive additional royalties.

Under the Genentech Agreement, we granted an exclusive, worldwide, royalty-bearing license to Genentech, with the right to sublicense, to develop and commercialize GDC-1971. Between the parties, Genentech has the first right, but not the obligation, to file, prosecute and maintain any patents licensed to it pursuant to the Genentech Agreement, as well as to enforce infringement of or defend claims against such patents that relate to Licensed Candidates and Licensed Products. The parties will share any liabilities or damages arising from the enforcement of such patents or any third-party patent claims.

Other than with respect to Relay Combination Products and other activities in accordance with the Genentech Agreement, we may not, directly or indirectly, conduct any activities related to the research, development, manufacture or commercialization of any SHP2 inhibitor. During the first three years of the term of the Genentech Agreement, Genentech will cause its research and early development organization not to sponsor or conduct a registrational trial for a SHP2 inhibitor other than a Licensed Product.

Unless earlier terminated, the Genentech Agreement will remain in effect until the later of the date on which Genentech is no longer developing or commercializing GDC-1971 in the United States if we have opted into the Profit/Cost Share and have not subsequently opted-out, or the expiration of all Genentech’s royalty payment obligations to us. The parties may terminate the

28

Genentech Agreement for the other party’s material breach or insolvency or, on a country-by-country basis, the failure to obtain merger control under applicable antitrust laws. Additionally, Genentech may terminate the Genentech Agreement for convenience, and we may terminate the Genentech Agreement for certain patent challenges by Genentech or if Genentech has not conducted any research, development, manufacturing or commercialization activities with respect to any Licensed Candidate or Licensed Product for a specified period.

Other Collaborations

While we have invested extensively in our in-house capabilities and know-how, we selectively work with key collaborators and field experts on certain emerging experimental and computational tools and techniques we use in our drug discovery process. Most of our experimental collaborations are focused on the technologies we use to visualize protein structure at the atomic level.

In September 2022, we engaged Foundation Medicine, Inc. to develop its FoundationOne®CDx as a companion diagnostic for RLY-4008, which we are using to identify patients with FGFR2 fusions, amplifications and mutations and select rearrangements in CCA who may be appropriate for treatment with RLY-4008.

Intellectual Property

We seek to protect the intellectual property and proprietary technology that we consider important to our business, including by pursuing patent applications that cover our product candidates and methods of using the same, as well as any other relevant inventions and improvements that we believe to be commercially important to the development of our business. We also rely on trade secrets, know-how and continuing technological innovation to develop and maintain our proprietary and intellectual property position. Our commercial success depends, in part, on our ability to obtain, maintain, enforce and protect our intellectual property and other proprietary rights for the technology, inventions and improvements we consider important to our business, and to defend any patents we may own or in-license in the future, prevent others from infringing any patents we may own or in-license in the future, preserve the confidentiality of our trade secrets, and operate without infringing, misappropriating or otherwise violating the valid and enforceable patents and proprietary rights of third parties.

As with other biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, our ability to maintain and solidify our proprietary and intellectual property position for our product candidates and technologies will depend on our success in obtaining effective patent claims and enforcing those claims if granted. However, our pending provisional and PCT patent applications, and any patent applications that we may in the future file or license from third parties, may not result in the issuance of patents and any issued patents we may obtain do not guarantee us the right to practice our technology or commercialize our product candidates. We also cannot predict the breadth of claims that may be allowed or enforced in any patents we may own or in-license in the future. Any issued patents that we currently own or may own or in-license in the future may be challenged, invalidated, circumvented or have the scope of their claims narrowed. In addition, because of the extensive time required for clinical development and regulatory review of a product candidate we may develop, it is possible that, before any of our product candidates can be commercialized, any related patent may expire or remain in force for only a short period following commercialization, thereby limiting the protection such patent would afford the respective product and any competitive advantage such patent may provide.

The term of individual patents depends upon the date of filing of the patent application, the date of patent issuance and the legal term of patents in the countries in which they are obtained. In most countries, including the United States, the patent term is 20 years from the earliest filing date of a non-provisional patent application. In the United States, a patent’s term may be lengthened by patent term adjustment, which compensates a patentee for administrative delays by the United States Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, in examining and granting a patent, or may be shortened if a patent is terminally disclaimed over an earlier expiring patent. The term of a patent claiming a new drug product may also be eligible for a limited patent term extension when FDA approval is granted, provided statutory and regulatory requirements are met. The restoration period granted on a patent covering a product is typically one-half the time between the effective date of a clinical investigation involving human beings is begun and the submission date of an application, plus the time between the submission date of an application and the ultimate approval date. The restoration period cannot be longer than five years, and the restoration period may not extend the patent term beyond 14 years from the date of FDA approval. Only one patent applicable to an approved product is eligible for the extension, and only those claims covering the approved product, a method for using it, or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. Additionally, the application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent in question. A patent that covers multiple products for which approval is sought can only be extended in connection with one of the approvals. The USPTO reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension or restoration in consultation with the FDA. In the future, if our product candidates receive approval by the FDA, we expect to apply for patent term extensions on one issued patent covering each of those products, depending upon the length of the clinical studies for each product and other factors. There can be no assurance that patents will issue from our current or future pending patent applications, or that we will benefit from any patent term extension or favorable adjustments to the terms of any patents we may own or in-license in the future. In addition, the actual protection afforded by a patent varies on a product-by-product basis, from country-to-country, and depends upon many factors, including the type of patent, the scope of its coverage, the availability of regulatory-related extensions, the availability of legal

29

remedies in a particular country and the validity and enforceability of the patent. The patent term may be inadequate to protect our competitive position on our products for an adequate amount of time.

RLY-4008

As of December 31, 2022, we co-owned with D. E. Shaw Research pending U.S. and foreign patent applications, which relate to our FGFR2 inhibitors. Any U.S. or foreign patents that may issue from this patent family, if granted and all appropriate maintenance fees paid, would be scheduled to expire in 2040, excluding any additional term for patent term adjustment or patent term extension, if applicable.

As of December 31, 2022, we wholly owned a pending U.S. patent application, a pending PCT patent application, and a pending foreign patent application, relating to RLY-4008 salts composition of matter, methods of treatment, solid forms and methods of manufacture. Any U.S. or foreign patents that may issue from this patent family, if granted and all appropriate maintenance fees paid, would be scheduled to expire in 2041, excluding any additional term for patent term adjustment or patent term extension, if applicable.

RLY-2608

As of December 31, 2022, we co-owned with D.E. Shaw Research pending U.S. and foreign patent applications, covering our PI3K program, which are directed to the composition of matter for the drug candidates of the program, analogs thereof, as well as methods of making and using these compounds. Any U.S. or foreign patents that may issue from this patent family, if granted and all appropriate maintenance fees paid, would be scheduled to expire in 2041, excluding any additional term for patent term adjustment or patent term extension, if applicable.

As of December 31, 2022, we wholly owned pending PCT and foreign patent applications relating to RLY-2608 salts composition of matter, methods of treatment, solid forms and methods of manufacture. Any U.S. or foreign patents that may issue from this patent family, if granted and all appropriate maintenance fees paid, would be scheduled to expire in 2042, excluding any additional term for patent term adjustment or patent term extension, if applicable.

RLY-5836

As of December 31, 2022, we wholly owned pending PCT and foreign patent applications covering our PI3K program, which are directed to the composition of matter for the drug candidates of the program, analogs thereof, as well as methods of making and using these compounds. Any U.S. or foreign patents that may issue from this patent family, if granted and all appropriate maintenance fees paid, would be scheduled to expire in 2042, excluding any additional term for patent term adjustment or patent term extension, if applicable.

GDC-1971

As of December 31, 2022, we wholly own a U.S. patent which relates to GDC-1971 composition of matter, that, if all appropriate maintenance fees are paid, is scheduled to expire in 2039, excluding any additional term for patent term adjustment or patent term extension, if applicable. As of December 31, 2022, we co-owned with D.E. Shaw Research pending U.S. and foreign patent applications covering our SHP2 program, which are directed to the composition of matter for drug candidates of the program, analogs thereof, as well as methods of making and using these compounds. Any U.S. or foreign patents that may issue from this patent family, if granted and all appropriate maintenance fees paid, would be scheduled to expire in 2039, excluding any additional term for patent term adjustment or patent term extension, if applicable. As of December 31, 2022, we wholly owned pending non-provisional patent applications which relate to GDC-1971, solid forms and methods of manufacture. Any U.S. or foreign patent that may issue from these patent applications would be scheduled to expire in 2040, excluding any additional term for patent term adjustment or patent term extension, if applicable.

Pursuant to the Genentech Agreement, we have granted an exclusive, worldwide, royalty-bearing license to Genentech, with the right to sublicense, develop and commercialize GDC-1971 and any other SHP2 inhibitors developed under the Genentech Agreement. Genentech has the first right, but not the obligation, to file, prosecute and maintain any patents licensed to it, as well as to enforce infringement of or defend claims against such patents that relate to GDC-1971 or other SHP2 inhibitors. See “—Our Collaborations—Key License Agreements and Strategic Collaborations—Collaboration and License Agreement with Genentech” for more information on the Genentech Agreement.

30

CDK2 Inhibitor
 

As of December 31, 2022, we wholly owned pending U.S. provisional, PCT, and foreign patent applications covering our CDK2 program, which are directed to the composition of matter for the drug candidates of the program, analogs thereof, as well as methods of making and using these compounds.

ERα Degrader
 

As of December 31, 2022, we wholly owned pending U.S. provisional patent applications covering our ERα program, which are directed to the composition of matter for the drug candidates of the program, analogs thereof, as well as methods of making and using these compounds. Under the terms of the Discovery Collaboration Agreement, EQRx has the first right to direct filing and prosecution of these patent applications.

Patent prosecution is a lengthy process, during which the scope of the claims initially submitted for examination by the USPTO or other foreign jurisdiction are often significantly narrowed by the time they issue, if they issue at all. Any U.S. or foreign patent issuing from these provisional, PCT, or foreign patent applications (assuming they are timely converted into non-provisional applications, and such non-provisional applications are granted as issued patents) would be scheduled to expire twenty years from their earliest non-provisional priority filing date, excluding any additional term for patent term adjustment or patent term extension, and assuming national phase entries are timely made based upon the pending PCT application, and payment of all applicable maintenance or annuity fees. Any of our pending PCT patent applications are not eligible to become issued patents until, among other things, we file national stage patent applications within 30 months in the countries in which we seek patent protection. If we do not timely file any national stage patent applications, we may lose our priority date with respect to our PCT patent applications and any patent protection on the inventions disclosed in such PCT patent applications. Our provisional patent applications may never result in issued patents and are not eligible to become issued patents until, among other things, we file a non-provisional patent application and/or PCT patent application within 12 months of filing the related provisional patent application. If we do not timely file non-provisional patent applications, we may lose our priority date with respect to our provisional patent applications and any patent protection on the inventions disclosed in our provisional patent applications. While we intend to timely file non-provisional and national stage patent applications relating to our provisional and PCT patent applications, we cannot predict whether any of our current or future patent applications for any of our product candidates or technology, will issue as patents. If we do not successfully obtain patent protection, or, even if we do obtain patent protection, if the scope of the patent protection we, Genentech, or our potential licensors, obtain with respect to any of our product candidates or technology is not sufficiently broad, we will be unable to prevent others from using our technology or from developing or commercializing technology and products similar or identical to ours or other competing products and technologies.

In addition to patent applications, we rely on unpatented trade secrets, know-how and continuing technological innovation to develop and maintain our competitive position. However, trade secrets and confidential know-how are difficult to protect. In particular, we anticipate that with respect to the building of our compound library, our trade secrets and know-how will over time be disseminated within the industry through independent development and public presentations describing the methodology. We seek to protect our proprietary information, in part, by executing confidentiality agreements with our collaborators and scientific advisors and non-competition, non-solicitation, confidentiality and invention assignment agreements with our employees and consultants. We have also executed agreements requiring assignment of inventions with selected consultants, scientific advisors and collaborators. The confidentiality agreements we enter into are designed to protect our proprietary information and the agreements or clauses requiring assignment of inventions to us are designed to grant us ownership of technologies that are developed through our relationship with the respective counterparty. We cannot guarantee that we will have executed such agreements with all applicable employees and contractors, or that these agreements will afford us adequate protection of our intellectual property and proprietary information rights. In addition, our trade secrets and/or confidential know-how may become known or be independently developed by a third party or misused by any collaborator to whom we disclose such information. These agreements may also be breached, and we may not have an adequate remedy for any such breach. Despite any measures taken to protect our intellectual property, unauthorized parties may attempt to copy aspects of our products or to obtain or use information that we regard as proprietary. Although we take steps to protect our proprietary information, third parties may independently develop the same or similar proprietary information or may otherwise gain access to our proprietary information. As a result, we may be unable to meaningfully protect our trade secrets and proprietary information. For more information regarding the risks related to our intellectual property, please see “Risk Factors—Risks Related to our Intellectual Property.”

Commercialization

Subject to receiving marketing approvals, we expect to commence commercialization activities by building a focused sales and marketing organization in the United States to sell our products. We believe that such an organization will be able to address the community of oncologists who are the key specialists in treating the patient populations for which our product candidates are

31

being developed. Outside the United States, we expect to enter into distribution and other marketing arrangements with third parties for any of our product candidates that obtain marketing approval.

We also plan to build a marketing and sales management organization to create and implement marketing strategies for any products that we market through our own sales organization and to oversee and support our sales force. The responsibilities of the marketing organization would include developing educational initiatives with respect to approved products and establishing relationships with researchers and practitioners in relevant fields of medicine.

Manufacturing

We do not have any manufacturing facilities or personnel. We currently rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties for the manufacture of our product candidates undergoing preclinical testing, as well as for clinical testing and commercial manufacture if our product candidates receive marketing approval.

All of our drug candidates are small molecules and are manufactured in synthetic processes from available starting materials. The chemistry appears amenable to scale-up and we rely on the specialized equipment of third parties to manufacture our product candidates. We expect to continue to develop product candidates that can be produced cost-effectively at contract manufacturing facilities.

We generally expect to rely on third parties for the manufacture of companion diagnostics for our products, which are assays or tests to identify an appropriate patient population. Depending on the technology solutions we choose, we may rely on multiple third parties to manufacture and sell a single test.

Governmental 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, recordkeeping, approval, advertising, promotion, marketing, post-approval monitoring and post-approval reporting of drugs. We, along with our vendors, contract research organizations, or CROs, and contract manufacturers, are and will be required to navigate the various preclinical, clinical, manufacturing and commercial approval requirements of the governing regulatory agencies of the countries in which we wish to conduct studies or seek approval of our product candidates. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals of drugs 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, where we are initially focusing our drug development, the FDA regulates drug products under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or FD&C Act, as amended, its implementing regulations and other laws. If we fail to comply with applicable FDA or other requirements at any time with respect to product development, clinical testing, approval or any other legal requirements relating to product manufacture, processing, handling, storage, quality control, safety, marketing, advertising, promotion, packaging, labeling, export, import, distribution, or sale, we may become subject to administrative or judicial sanctions or other legal consequences. These sanctions or consequences could include, among other things, the FDA’s refusal to approve pending applications, issuance of clinical holds for ongoing studies, suspension or revocation of approved applications, warning or untitled letters, product withdrawals or recalls, product seizures, relabeling or repackaging, total or partial suspensions of manufacturing or distribution, injunctions, fines, civil penalties or criminal prosecution.

The process required by the FDA before our product candidates are approved as drugs for therapeutic indications and may be marketed in the United States generally involves the following:

32

Preclinical studies and clinical trials for drugs

Before testing any drug in humans, the product candidate must undergo rigorous preclinical testing. Preclinical studies include laboratory evaluations of drug chemistry, formulation and stability, as well as in vitro and animal studies to assess safety and in some cases to establish the rationale for therapeutic use. The conduct of preclinical studies is subject to federal and state regulation, including GLP requirements for safety/toxicology studies. The results of the preclinical studies, together with manufacturing information and analytical data, must be submitted to the FDA as part of an IND. An IND is a request for authorization from the FDA to administer an investigational product to humans and must become effective before clinical trials may begin. Some long-term preclinical testing may continue after the IND is submitted. 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, and imposes a full or partial clinical hold. The FDA must notify the trial sponsor of the grounds for the hold and any identified deficiencies must be resolved 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 clinical hold can also be imposed once a trial has already begun, thereby halting the trial until the deficiencies articulated by the FDA are corrected.

The clinical stage of development involves the administration of the product candidate to healthy volunteers or patients under the supervision of qualified investigators, who generally are physicians not employed by or under the trial sponsor’s control, in accordance with GCP requirements, which include the requirements that all research subjects provide their informed consent for their participation in any clinical trial. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the clinical trial, dosing procedures, subject selection and exclusion criteria and the parameters and criteria to be used in monitoring safety and evaluating effectiveness. Each protocol, and any subsequent amendments to the protocol, must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. Furthermore, each clinical trial must be reviewed and approved by an IRB for each institution at which the clinical trial will be conducted to ensure that the risks to individuals participating in the clinical trials are minimized and are reasonable compared to the anticipated benefits. The IRB also approves the informed consent form that must be provided to each clinical trial subject or his or her legal representative and must monitor the clinical trial until completed. The FDA, the IRB, or the trial 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 also are requirements governing the reporting of ongoing clinical trials and completed clinical trials to public registries. Information about clinical trials, including results for clinical trials other than Phase 1 investigations, must be submitted within specific timeframes for publication on www.ClinicalTrials.gov, a clinical trials database maintained by the National Institutes of Health.

A sponsor who wishes to conduct a clinical trial outside of the United States may, but need not, obtain FDA authorization to conduct the clinical trial under an IND. If a foreign clinical trial is not conducted under an IND, the FDA will nevertheless accept the results of the study in support of an NDA if the study was conducted in accordance with GCP requirements, and the FDA is able to validate the data through an onsite inspection if deemed necessary.

33

Clinical trials to evaluate therapeutic indications to support NDAs for marketing approval are typically conducted in three sequential phases, which may overlap.

In March 2022, the FDA released a final guidance entitled “Expansion Cohorts: Use in First-In-Human Clinical Trials to Expedite Development of Oncology Drugs and Biologics,” which outlines how drug developers can utilize an adaptive trial design commonly referred to as a seamless trial design in early stages of oncology drug development (i.e., the first-in-human clinical trial) to compress the traditional three phases of trials into one continuous trial called an expansion cohort trial. Information to support the design of individual expansion cohorts are included in IND applications and assessed by the FDA. Expansion cohort trials can potentially bring efficiency to drug development and reduce development costs and time.

Post-approval trials, sometimes referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials or post-marketing studies, may be conducted after initial marketing approval. These trials are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication and are commonly intended to generate additional safety data regarding use of the product in a clinical setting. In certain instances, the FDA may mandate the performance of Phase 4 clinical trials as a condition of NDA approval.

Progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials, among other information, must be submitted at least annually to the FDA. Written IND safety reports must be submitted to the FDA and the investigators fifteen days after the trial sponsor determines the information qualifies for reporting for serious and unexpected suspected adverse events, findings from other studies or animal or in vitro testing that suggest a significant risk for human volunteers and any clinically important increase in the rate of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure. The sponsor must also notify the FDA of any unexpected fatal or life-threatening suspected adverse reaction as soon as possible but in no case later than seven calendar days after the sponsor’s initial receipt of the information.

Concurrent with clinical trials, companies usually complete additional animal studies and must also develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the product candidate and finalize a process for manufacturing the drug product 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 drug 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.

U.S. marketing approval for drugs

Assuming successful completion of the required clinical testing, the results of the preclinical studies and clinical trials, together with detailed information relating to the product’s chemistry, manufacture, controls and proposed labeling, among other things, are submitted to the FDA as part of an NDA package requesting approval to market the product for one or more indications. An NDA is a request for approval to market a new drug for one or more specified indications and must contain proof of the drug’s safety and efficacy for the requested indications. The marketing application is required to include both negative and ambiguous results of preclinical studies and clinical trials, as well as positive findings. Data may come from company-sponsored clinical trials intended to test the safety and efficacy of a product’s use or from a number of alternative sources, including studies initiated by investigators. To support marketing approval, the data submitted must be sufficient in quality and quantity to establish the safety and efficacy of the investigational product to the satisfaction of the FDA. The FDA must approve an NDA before a drug may be marketed in the United States.

34

The FDA reviews all submitted NDAs before it accepts them for filing and may request additional information rather than accepting the NDA for filing. The FDA must make a decision on accepting an NDA for filing within 60 days of receipt, and such decision could include a refusal to file by the FDA. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth substantive review of the NDA. The FDA reviews an NDA to determine, among other things, whether the drug is safe and effective for the indications sought and whether the facility in which it is manufactured, processed, packaged or held meets standards designed to assure the product’s continued safety, quality and purity. Under the goals and polices agreed to by the FDA under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA, the FDA targets ten months, from the filing date, in which to complete its initial review of a new molecular entity NDA and respond to the applicant, and six months from the filing date of a new molecular entity NDA for priority review. The FDA does not always meet its PDUFA goal dates for standard or priority NDAs, and the review process is often extended by FDA requests for additional information or clarification.

Further, under PDUFA, as amended, each NDA must be accompanied by a substantial user fee. The FDA adjusts the PDUFA user fees on an annual basis. Fee waivers or reductions are available in certain circumstances, including a waiver of the application fee for the first application filed by a small business. Additionally, no user fees are assessed on NDAs for products designated as orphan drugs, unless the product also includes a non-orphan indication.

The FDA also may require submission of a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, if it believes that a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy is necessary to ensure that the benefits of the drug outweigh its risks. A REMS can include use of risk evaluation and mitigation strategies like medication guides, physician communication plans, assessment plans, and/or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries, or other risk-minimization tools.

The FDA may refer an application for a novel drug to an advisory committee. An advisory committee is a panel of independent experts, including clinicians and other scientific experts, which reviews, evaluates and provides a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions.

Before approving an NDA, the FDA typically will inspect the facility or facilities where the product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve an application unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and are adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. Additionally, before approving an NDA, the FDA may inspect one or more clinical trial sites to assure compliance with GCP and other requirements and the integrity of the clinical data submitted to the FDA.

After evaluating the NDA and all related information, including the advisory committee recommendation, if any, and inspection reports regarding the manufacturing facilities and clinical trial sites, the FDA may issue an approval letter, or, in some cases, a complete response letter. A complete response letter generally contains a statement of specific conditions that must be met in order to secure final approval of the NDA and may require additional clinical or preclinical testing in order for the FDA to reconsider the application. Even with submission of this additional information, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval. If and when those conditions have been met to the FDA’s satisfaction, the FDA will typically issue an approval letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the drug with specific prescribing information for specific indications.

Even if the FDA approves a product, depending on the specific risk(s) to be addressed, it may limit the approved indications for use of the product, require that contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling, require that post-approval studies, including Phase 4 clinical trials, be conducted to further assess a drug’s safety after approval, require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the product after commercialization, or impose other conditions, including distribution and use restrictions or other risk management mechanisms under a REMS, which can materially affect the potential market and profitability of the product. The FDA may prevent or limit further marketing of a product based on the results of post-marketing studies or surveillance programs. After approval, some types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications, manufacturing changes, and additional labeling claims, are subject to further testing requirements and FDA review and approval.

Orphan drug designation and exclusivity

Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan drug designation to a drug 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 200,000 or more 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 drug designation must be requested before submitting an NDA. Orphan drug 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.

35

If a product that has orphan drug 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 drug 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. Orphan product exclusivity could block the approval of one of our products for seven years if a competitor obtains approval for the same therapeutic agent for the same indication before we do, unless we are able to demonstrate that our product is clinically superior. If an orphan designated product receives marketing approval for an indication broader than what is designated, it may not be entitled to orphan drug exclusivity. Further, orphan drug exclusive marketing rights in the United States may be lost if the FDA later determines that the request for designation was materially defective or the manufacturer of the approved product is unable to assure sufficient quantities of the product to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition.

Expedited development and review programs for drugs

The FDA maintains several programs intended to facilitate and expedite development and review of new drugs 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 and Accelerated Approval, and the purpose of these programs is to either expedite the development or review of important new drugs to get them to patients more quickly than standard FDA review timelines typically permit.

A new drug 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 interactions with the FDA during preclinical and clinical development, in addition to the potential for rolling review once a marketing application is filed. Rolling review means that the agency may review portions of the marketing application before the sponsor submits the complete application. In addition, a new drug 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 drug may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. Breakthrough Therapy designation provides all the features of Fast Track designation in addition to intensive guidance on an efficient drug 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 submitted to the FDA for approval, including a product with Fast Track or Breakthrough Therapy designation, may also be eligible for additional FDA programs intended to expedite the review and approval process, including Priority Review designation and Accelerated Approval. A product is eligible for Priority Review, once an NDA or Biologics License Application is submitted, if the drug that is the subject of the marketing application has the potential to provide a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness in the treatment, diagnosis or prevention of a serious disease or condition. Under Priority Review, the FDA’s goal date to take action on the marketing application is six months compared to ten months for a standard review. Products 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. As a condition of approval, the FDA may require that a sponsor of a drug receiving Accelerated Approval perform adequate and well-controlled post-marketing clinical trials with due diligence and, under the Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act of 2022, or FDORA, the FDA is now permitted to require, as appropriate, that such trials be underway prior to approval or within a specific time period after the date of approval for a product granted Accelerated Approval. Under FDORA, the FDA has increased authority for expedited procedures to withdraw approval of a drug or an indication approved if, for example, the confirmatory trial fails to verify the predicted clinical benefit of the product. In addition, for products being considered for Accelerated Approval, the FDA generally requires, unless otherwise informed by the agency, pre-approval of promotional materials, which could adversely impact the timing of the commercial launch of the product.

Even if a product qualifies for one or more of these programs, the FDA may later decide that the product no longer meets the conditions for qualification or the time period for FDA review or approval may not be shortened. Furthermore, Fast Track designation, Breakthrough Therapy designation, Priority Review and Accelerated Approval do not change the scientific or medical standards for approval or the quality of evidence necessary to support approval, though they may expedite the development or review process.

36

Pediatric information and pediatric exclusivity

Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act, or PREA, as amended, certain NDAs and NDA supplements must contain data that can be used to assess the safety and efficacy of the drug for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective. The FDA may grant deferrals for submission of pediatric data or full or partial waivers. The FD&C Act requires that a sponsor who is planning to submit a marketing application for a drug that includes a new active ingredient, new indication, new dosage form, new dosing regimen or new route of administration submit an initial Pediatric Study Plan, or PSP, within 60 days of an end-of-Phase 2 meeting or, if there is no such meeting, as early as practicable before the initiation of the Phase 3 or Phase 2/3 study. The initial PSP must include an outline of the pediatric study or studies that the sponsor plans to conduct, including study objectives and design, age groups, relevant endpoints and statistical approach, or a justification for not including such detailed information, and any request for a deferral of pediatric assessments or a full or partial waiver of the requirement to provide data from pediatric studies along with supporting information. The FDA and the sponsor must reach an agreement on the PSP. A sponsor can submit amendments to an agreed-upon initial PSP at any time if changes to the pediatric plan need to be considered based on data collected from preclinical studies, early phase clinical trials and/or other clinical development programs.

A drug 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.

U.S. post-approval requirements for drugs

Drugs manufactured or distributed pursuant to FDA approvals are subject to continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, requirements relating to recordkeeping, periodic reporting, product sampling and distribution, reporting of adverse experiences with the product, complying with promotion and advertising requirements, which include restrictions on promoting products for unapproved uses or patient populations (known as “off-label use”) and limitations on industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities. Although physicians may prescribe legally available products for off-label uses, manufacturers may not market or promote such uses. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant liability, including investigation by federal and state authorities. Prescription drug promotional materials must be submitted to the FDA in conjunction with their first use or first publication. Further, if there are any modifications to the drug, including changes in indications, labeling or manufacturing processes or facilities, the applicant may be required to submit and obtain FDA approval of a new NDA or NDA supplement, which may require the development of additional data or preclinical studies and clinical trials.

The FDA may impose a number of post-approval requirements as a condition of approval of an NDA. For example, the FDA may require post-market testing, including Phase 4 clinical trials, and surveillance to further assess and monitor the product’s safety and effectiveness after commercialization. In addition, drug manufacturers and their subcontractors involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved drugs 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 cGMPs, which impose certain procedural and documentation requirements. Manufacturers and other parties involved in the drug supply chain for prescription drug products and those supplying products, ingredients, and components of them, must also comply with product tracking and tracing requirements and are responsible for notifying the FDA of counterfeit, diverted, stolen and intentionally adulterated products or products that are otherwise unfit for distribution in the United States. Failure to comply with statutory and regulatory requirements may subject a manufacturer to legal or regulatory action, such as warning letters, suspension of manufacturing, product seizures, injunctions, civil penalties or criminal prosecution. There is also a continuing, annual prescription drug product program user fee.

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. Other potential consequences include, among other things:

37

Regulation of companion diagnostics

Companion diagnostics identify patients who are most likely to benefit from a particular therapeutic product; identify patients likely to be at increased risk for serious side effects as a result of treatment with a particular therapeutic product; or monitor response to treatment with a particular therapeutic product for the purpose of adjusting treatment to achieve improved safety or effectiveness. Companion diagnostics are regulated as medical devices by the FDA. In the United States, the FD&C Act, and its implementing regulations, and other federal and state statutes and regulations govern, among other things, medical device design and development, preclinical and clinical testing, premarket clearance or approval, registration and listing, manufacturing, labeling, storage, advertising and promotion, sales and distribution, export and import, and post-market surveillance. Unless an exemption or FDA exercise of enforcement discretion applies, diagnostic tests generally require marketing clearance or approval from the FDA prior to commercialization. The two primary types of FDA marketing authorization applicable to a medical device are clearance of a premarket notification, or 510(k), and approval of a premarket approval application, or PMA.

To obtain 510(k) clearance for a medical device, or for certain modifications to devices that have received 510(k) clearance, a manufacturer must submit a premarket notification demonstrating that the proposed device is substantially equivalent to a previously cleared 510(k) device or to a pre-amendment device that was in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, or a predicate device, for which the FDA has not yet called for the submission of a PMA. In making a determination that the device is substantially equivalent to a predicate device, the FDA compares the proposed device to the predicate device and assesses whether the subject device is comparable to the predicate device with respect to intended use, technology, design and other features which could affect safety and effectiveness. If the FDA determines that the subject device is substantially equivalent to the predicate device, the subject device may be cleared for marketing. The 510(k) premarket notification pathway generally takes from three to twelve months from the date the application is completed, but can take significantly longer.

A PMA must be supported by valid scientific evidence, which typically requires extensive data, including technical, preclinical, clinical and manufacturing data, to demonstrate to the FDA’s satisfaction the safety and effectiveness of the device. For diagnostic tests, a PMA typically includes data regarding analytical and clinical validation studies. As part of its review of the PMA, the FDA will conduct a pre-approval inspection of the manufacturing facility or facilities to ensure compliance with the quality system regulation, or QSR, which requires manufacturers to follow design, testing, control, documentation and other quality assurance procedures. The FDA’s review of an initial PMA is required by statute to take between six to ten months, although the process typically takes longer, and may require several years to complete. If the FDA evaluations of both the PMA and the manufacturing facilities are favorable, the FDA will either issue an approval letter or an approvable letter, which usually contains a number of conditions that must be met in order to secure the final approval of the PMA. If the FDA’s evaluation of the PMA or manufacturing facilities is not favorable, the FDA will deny the approval of the PMA or issue a not approvable letter. A not approvable letter will outline the deficiencies in the application and, where practical, will identify what is necessary to make the PMA approvable. Once granted, PMA approval may be withdrawn by the FDA if compliance with post-approval requirements, conditions of approval or other regulatory standards is not maintained or problems are identified following initial marketing.

On July 31, 2014, the FDA issued a final guidance document addressing the development and approval process for “In Vitro Companion Diagnostic Devices.” According to the guidance document, for novel therapeutic products that depend on the use of a diagnostic test and where the diagnostic device could be essential for the safe and effective use of the corresponding therapeutic product, the companion diagnostic device should be developed and approved or cleared contemporaneously with the therapeutic, although the FDA recognizes that there may be cases when contemporaneous development may not be possible. However, in cases where a drug cannot be used safely or effectively without the companion diagnostic, the FDA’s guidance indicates it will generally not approve the drug without the approval or clearance of the diagnostic device. The FDA also issued a draft guidance document in July 2016 setting forth the principles for co-development of an in vitro companion diagnostic device with a therapeutic product. The draft guidance describes principles to guide the development and contemporaneous marketing authorization for the therapeutic product and its corresponding in vitro companion diagnostic.

38

Once cleared or approved, the companion diagnostic device must adhere to post-marketing requirements including the requirements of the FDA’s QSR, adverse event reporting, recalls and corrections along with product marketing requirements and limitations. Like drug makers, companion diagnostic makers are subject to unannounced FDA inspections at any time during which the FDA will conduct an audit of the product(s) and the company’s facilities for compliance with its authorities.

Other regulatory matters

Manufacturing, sales, promotion and other activities of product candidates following product approval, where applicable, or commercialization are also subject to regulation by numerous regulatory authorities in the United States in addition to the FDA, which may include the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, other divisions of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Justice, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Occupational Safety & Health Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency and state and local governments and governmental agencies.

Other healthcare laws

Pharmaceutical companies are subject to additional healthcare regulation and enforcement by the federal government and by authorities in the states and foreign jurisdictions in which they conduct their business that may constrain the financial arrangements and relationships through which we research, as well as sell, market and distribute any products for which we obtain marketing authorization. Such laws include, without limitation, state and federal anti-kickback, fraud and abuse, false claims, and transparency laws and regulations related to drug pricing and payments and other transfers of value made to physicians and other healthcare providers. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of such laws or any other governmental regulations that apply, we may be subject to penalties, including, without limitation, administrative, civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, the curtailment or restructuring of operations, integrity oversight and reporting obligations, exclusion from participation in federal and state healthcare programs, and responsible individuals may be subject to imprisonment.

Insurance coverage and reimbursement

In the United States and markets in other countries, patients who are prescribed treatments for their conditions and providers performing the prescribed services generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the associated healthcare costs. Thus, even if a product candidate is approved, sales of the product will depend, in part, on the extent to which third-party payors, including government health programs in the United States such as Medicare and Medicaid, commercial health insurers and managed care organizations, provide coverage, and establish adequate reimbursement levels for, the product. In the United States, the principal decisions about reimbursement for new medicines are typically made by CMS, an agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. CMS decides whether and to what extent a new medicine will be covered and reimbursed under Medicare and private payors tend to follow CMS to a substantial degree. No uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for drug products exists among third-party payors. Therefore, coverage and reimbursement for drug products can differ significantly from payor to payor. The process for determining whether a third-party payor will provide coverage for a product may be separate from the process for setting the price or reimbursement rate that the payor will pay for the product once coverage is approved. Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the prices charged, examining the medical necessity, reviewing the cost-effectiveness of medical products and services and imposing controls to manage costs. Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific products on an approved list, also known as a formulary, which might not include all of the approved products for a particular indication.

In order to secure coverage and reimbursement for any product that might be approved for sale, a company may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of the product, which will require additional expenditure above and beyond the costs required to obtain FDA or other comparable regulatory approvals. Additionally, companies may also need to provide discounts to purchasers, private health plans or government healthcare programs, and net prices for our products may also be reduced 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. Nonetheless, product candidates may not be considered medically necessary or cost effective. A decision by a third-party payor not to cover a product could reduce physician utilization once the product is approved and have a material adverse effect on sales, our operations and financial condition. Additionally, a third-party payor’s decision to provide coverage for a product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Further, one payor’s determination to provide coverage for a product does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage and reimbursement for the product, and the level of coverage and reimbursement can differ significantly from payor to payor.

The containment of healthcare costs has become a priority of federal, state and foreign governments, and the prices of 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

39

controls and cost-containment measures, and adoption of more restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could further limit a company’s revenue generated from the sale of any approved products. Coverage policies and third-party payor reimbursement rates may change at any time. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for one or more products for which a company or its collaborators receive regulatory approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future.

Current and future healthcare reform legislation

In the United States and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been, and likely will continue to be, a number of legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system directed at broadening the availability of healthcare, improving the quality of healthcare, and containing or lowering the cost of healthcare. For example, in March 2010, the United States Congress enacted the Affordable Care Act, or ACA, which, among other things, includes changes to the coverage and payment for products under government health care programs. The ACA includes provisions of importance to our potential product candidates that:

Since its enactment, there have been numerous judicial, administrative, executive, and legislative challenges to certain aspects of the ACA, and we expect there will be additional challenges and amendments to the ACA in the future. For example, on December 19, 2019, former President Trump signed into law the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act (H.R. 1865), which repealed the Cadillac tax, the health insurance provider tax, and the medical device excise tax. 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 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. It is unclear how other healthcare reform measures of the Biden administration or other efforts, if any, to challenge, repeal or replace the ACA will impact our business.

Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted. In August 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, included aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect in April 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, will remain in effect through 2030 unless additional Congressional action is taken. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act, or CARES Act, which was signed into law in March 2020, and subsequent legislation, suspended these reductions from May 1, 2020 through March 31, 2021. A 1% payment reduction occurred beginning April 1, 2022 through June 30, 2022, and the 2% payment reduction resumed on July 1, 2022. In January 2013, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was signed into law, which, among other things, further reduced Medicare payments to several providers, including hospitals, imaging centers and

40

cancer treatment centers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years.

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

The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, or the IRA, was signed into law in August 2022. The IRA includes several provisions that could impact our business to varying degrees, including provisions that create a $2,000 out-of-pocket cap for Medicare Part D beneficiaries, impose new manufacturer financial liability on all drugs in Medicare Part D, allow the U.S. government to negotiate Medicare Part B and Part D pricing for certain high-cost drugs and biologics without generic or biosimilar competition, require companies to pay rebates to Medicare for drug prices that increase faster than inflation, and delay the rebate rule that would require pass through of pharmacy benefit manager rebates to beneficiaries. The effect of IRA on our business and the healthcare industry in general is not yet known.

Outside the United States, ensuring coverage and adequate payment for a product also involves challenges. Pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals is subject to government control in many countries. Pricing negotiations with government authorities can extend well beyond the receipt of regulatory approval for a product and may require a clinical trial that compares the cost-effectiveness of a product to other available therapies. The conduct of such a clinical trial could be expensive and result in delays in commercialization.

In the European Union, or EU, pricing and reimbursement schemes vary widely from country to country. Some countries provide that products may be marketed only after a reimbursement price has been agreed upon. Some countries may require the completion of additional studies that compare the cost-effectiveness of a particular product candidate to currently available therapies or so-called health technology assessments, in order to obtain reimbursement or pricing approval. For example, the EU provides options for its Member States to restrict the range of products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices of medicinal products for human use. EU Member States may approve a specific price for a product or it may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the product on the market. Other Member States allow companies to fix their own prices for products, but monitor and control prescription volumes and issue guidance to physicians to limit prescriptions. Recently, many countries in the EU have increased the amount of discounts required on pharmaceuticals and these efforts could continue as countries attempt to manage healthcare expenditures, especially in light of the severe fiscal and debt crises experienced by many countries in the EU. The downward pressure on healthcare costs in general, particularly prescription products, has become intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products. Political, economic and regulatory developments may further complicate pricing negotiations, and pricing negotiations may continue after reimbursement has been obtained. Reference pricing used by various EU Member States, and parallel trade, i.e., arbitrage between low-priced and high-priced Member States, can further reduce prices. 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 products, if approved in those countries.

Compliance with other federal and state laws or requirements; changing legal requirements

If any products that we may develop are made available to authorized users of the Federal Supply Schedule of the General Services Administration, additional laws and requirements apply. Products must meet applicable child-resistant packaging requirements under the U.S. Poison Prevention Packaging Act. Manufacturing, labeling, packaging, distribution, sales, promotion and other activities also are potentially subject to federal and state consumer protection and unfair competition laws, among other requirements to which we may be subject.

The distribution of pharmaceutical products is subject to additional requirements and regulations, including extensive recordkeeping, licensing, storage and security requirements intended to prevent the unauthorized sale of pharmaceutical products.

The failure to comply with any of these laws or regulatory requirements may subject firms to legal or regulatory action. Depending on the circumstances, failure to meet applicable regulatory requirements can result in criminal prosecution, fines or other penalties, injunctions, exclusion from federal healthcare programs, requests for recall, seizure of products, total or partial suspension of production, denial or withdrawal of product approvals, relabeling or repackaging, or refusal to allow a firm to enter into supply contracts, including government contracts. Any claim or action against us for violation of these laws, even if we successfully defend against it, could cause us to incur significant legal expenses and divert our management’s attention from the operation of our business. Prohibitions or restrictions on marketing, sales or withdrawal of future products marketed by us could materially affect our business in an adverse way.

41

Changes in regulations, statutes or the interpretation of existing regulations could impact our business in the future by requiring, for example: (i) changes to our manufacturing arrangements; (ii) additions or modifications to product labeling or packaging; (iii) the recall or discontinuation of our products; or (iv) additional recordkeeping requirements. If any such changes were to be imposed, they could adversely affect the operation of our business.

Other U.S. environmental, health and safety laws and regulations

We may be subject to numerous environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, including those governing laboratory procedures and the handling, use, storage, treatment and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes. From time to time and in the future, our operations may involve the use of hazardous and flammable materials, including chemicals and biological materials, and may also produce hazardous waste products. Even if we contract with third parties for the disposal of these materials and waste products, we cannot completely eliminate the risk of contamination or injury resulting from these materials. In the event of contamination or injury resulting from the use or disposal of our hazardous materials, we could be held liable for any resulting damages, and any liability could exceed our resources. We also could incur significant costs associated with civil or criminal fines and penalties for failure to comply with such laws and regulations.

We maintain workers’ compensation insurance to cover us for costs and expenses we may incur due to injuries to our employees, but this insurance may not provide adequate coverage against potential liabilities. However, we do not maintain insurance for environmental liability or toxic tort claims that may be asserted against us.

In addition, we may incur substantial costs in order to comply with current or future environmental, health and safety laws and regulations. Current or future environmental laws and regulations may impair our research, development or production efforts. In addition, failure to comply with these laws and regulations may result in substantial fines, penalties or other sanctions.

Government regulation of drugs 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 or identification of an alternate regulatory pathway, manufacturing, commercial sales and distribution of our products.

Clinical trial approval

In April 2014, the EU adopted the new Clinical Trials Regulation, (EU) No 536/2014 (Clinical Trials Regulation) which replaced the current Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC on January 31, 2022. The Clinical Trials Regulation is directly applicable in all the EU Member States (meaning no national implementing legislation is required). The Clinical Trials Regulation aims to simplify and streamline the approval of clinical trials in the EU. The main characteristics of the Clinical Trials Regulation include: a streamlined application procedure via a single-entry point, the “EU portal”; a single set of documents to be prepared and submitted for the application, as well as simplified reporting procedures for clinical trial sponsors; and a harmonized procedure for the assessment of applications for clinical trials, which is divided in two parts. Part I is assessed by the competent authorities of all EU Member States in which an application for authorization of a clinical trial has been submitted (Member States concerned). Part II is assessed separately by each Member State concerned. Strict deadlines have been established for the assessment of clinical trial applications. The role of the relevant ethics committees in the assessment procedure will continue to be governed by the national law of the concerned EU Member State, however, overall related timelines are defined by the Clinical Trials Regulation.

Drug Review and Approval

In the EU, medicinal products must be authorized for marketing by using either the centralized authorization procedure or national authorization procedures.

42

Periods of authorization and renewals

A marketing authorization has an initial validity for five years in principle. The marketing authorization may be renewed after five years on the basis of a re-evaluation of the risk-benefit balance by the EMA or by the competent authority of the EU Member State for a nationally authorized product. Once subsequently definitively renewed, the marketing authorization shall be 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 period. Any authorization which is not followed by the actual placing of the medicinal product on the EU market (in the case of the centralized procedure) or on the market of the authorizing EU Member State for a nationally authorized product within three years after authorization, ceases to be valid (the so-called sunset clause).

Drug and market exclusivity

In the EU, innovative products for therapeutic indications that are authorized for marketing (i.e., reference products) qualify for eight years of data exclusivity and an additional two years of market exclusivity upon marketing authorization. The data exclusivity period prevents generic or biosimilar applicants from referencing the innovator’s preclinical and clinical trial data contained in the dossier of the reference product when applying for a generic or biosimilar marketing authorization in the EU during a period of eight years from the date on which the reference product was first authorized in the EU. The market exclusivity period prevents a successful generic or biosimilar applicant from commercializing its product in the EU until ten years have elapsed from the initial authorization of the reference product in the EU. The 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 marketing authorization 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. There is no guarantee that a product will be considered by the EMA to be an innovative medicinal product, and products may not qualify for data exclusivity. Even if a product is considered to be an innovative medicinal product so that the innovator gains the prescribed period of data exclusivity, another company nevertheless could also market another version of the product if such company obtained marketing authorization based on an MAA with a complete independent data package of pharmaceutical tests, preclinical tests and clinical trials.

Pediatric studies and exclusivity

Prior to obtaining a marketing authorization in the EU, applicants must demonstrate compliance with all measures included in an EMA-approved pediatric investigation plan, or PIP, covering all subsets of the pediatric population, unless the EMA has granted a product-specific waiver, a class waiver, or a deferral for one or more of the measures included in the PIP. The respective

43

requirements for all marketing authorization procedures are laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006, the so-called Pediatric Regulation. This requirement also applies when a company wants to add a new indication, pharmaceutical form or route of administration for a medicine that is already authorized. The Pediatric Committee of the EMA, or PDCO, may grant deferrals for some medicines, allowing a company to delay development of the medicine for children until there is enough information to demonstrate its effectiveness and safety in adults. The PDCO may also grant waivers when development of a medicine for children is not needed or is not appropriate, such as for diseases that only affect the elderly population. Before an MAA can be filed, or an existing marketing authorization can be amended, the EMA determines that companies actually comply with the agreed studies and measures listed in each relevant PIP. If an applicant obtains a marketing authorization in all EU Member States, or a marketing authorization granted in the centralized procedure by the European Commission, and the study results for the pediatric population are included in the product information, even when negative, the medicine is then eligible for an additional six-month period of qualifying patent protection through extension of the term of the Supplementary Protection Certificate or SPC, provided an application for such extension is made at the same time as filing the SPC application for the product, or at any point up to two years before the SPC expires, even where the trial results are negative. In the case of orphan medicinal products, a two year extension of the orphan market exclusivity may be available. This pediatric reward is subject to specific conditions and is not automatically available when data in compliance with the PIP are developed and submitted.

Orphan drug designation and exclusivity

The criteria for designating an “orphan medicinal product” in the EU are similar in principle to those in the United States. In the EU 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 the necessary investment in its development; 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. Orphan medicinal products are eligible for financial incentives such as reduction of fees or fee waivers and are, upon grant of a marketing authorization, entitled to ten years of market exclusivity for the approved therapeutic indication. During this ten-year orphan market exclusivity period, no marketing authorization application shall be accepted, and no marketing authorization shall be granted for a similar medicinal product for the same indication. A “similar medicinal product” is defined as a medicinal product containing a similar active substance or substances as contained in an authorized orphan medicinal product, and which is intended for the same therapeutic indication. An orphan product can also obtain an additional two years of market exclusivity in the EU for pediatric studies. 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, marketing authorization 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.

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

Regulatory requirements after a marketing authorization has been obtained

In case an authorization for a medicinal product in the EU is obtained, the holder of the marketing authorization is required to comply with a range of requirements applicable to the manufacturing, marketing, promotion and sale of medicinal products. These include:

44

The aforementioned EU rules are generally applicable in the European Economic Area, or EEA, which consists of the EU Member States, plus Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland.

Brexit and the regulatory framework in the United Kingdom

On June 23, 2016, the electorate in the United Kingdom, or UK, voted in favor of leaving the EU, commonly referred to as Brexit, and the UK formally left the EU on January 31, 2020. There was a transition period during which EU pharmaceutical laws continued to apply to the UK, which expired on December 31, 2020. However, the EU and the UK have concluded a trade and cooperation agreement, or TCA, which was provisionally applicable since January 1, 2021 and has been formally applicable since May 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. At present, Great Britain has implemented EU legislation on the marketing, promotion and sale of medicinal products through the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 (as amended) (under the Northern Ireland Protocol, the EU regulatory framework will continue to apply in Northern Ireland). The regulatory regime in Great Britain therefore currently aligns with EU regulations, however, it is possible that these regimes will diverge in the future now that Great Britain’s regulatory system is independent from the EU and the TCA does not provide for mutual recognition of UK and EU pharmaceutical legislation.

Government regulation of the processing of personal data collected outside of the United States

In the event we conduct clinical trials in the EEA and UK, we will be subject to additional data protection restrictions. The collection and use of personal data in the EEA, is governed by the General Data Protection Regulation, or the GDPR, which became effective on May 25, 2018. The GDPR applies to the processing of personal data of data subjects in the EEA by any company established in the EEA and to companies established outside the EEA to the extent they process personal data in connection with the offering of goods or services to data subjects in the EEA or the monitoring of the behavior of data subjects in the EEA. The GDPR sets forth data protection obligations for data controllers of personal data, including stringent requirements relating to notifying data subjects about how their personal data are being handled and how they can exercise their data protection rights, ensuring there is a valid legal basis to process personal data (if this is consent, the requirements for obtaining consent carry a higher threshold), requirements to conduct privacy impact assessments for certain “high risk” processing, requirements to appoint a data protection officer where sensitive personal data are processed on a “large scale,” limitations on retention of personal data, mandatory data breach notification in certain circumstances, requirements to
ensure appropriate technical measures are in place to safeguard personal data, and “privacy by design” requirements, and also creates direct obligations on service providers acting as data processors.

The GDPR also imposes strict rules on the transfer of personal data outside of the EEA to countries that do not ensure an adequate level of protection. Failure to comply with the requirements of the GDPR and the related national data protection laws of the EEA, which may deviate slightly from the GDPR, may result in fines of up to 4% of a company’s global revenues for the preceding financial year, or €20,000,000, whichever is greater. Moreover, the GDPR grants data subjects the right to claim material and non-material damages resulting from infringement of the GDPR. Given the breadth and depth of changes in data protection obligations, maintaining compliance with the GDPR will require significant time, resources and expense, and we may be required to put in place additional controls and processes to ensure compliance with the new data protection rules. In addition, further to the UK’s exit from the EU on January 31, 2020, the GDPR ceased to apply in the UK at the end of the transition period on December 31, 2020. However, as of January 1, 2021, the UK’s European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 incorporated the GDPR (as it existed on December 31, 2020 but subject to certain UK specific amendments) into UK law, referred to as the UK GDPR. The UK GDPR and the UK Data Protection Act 2018 set forth the UK’s data protection regime, which is independent from but aligned to the EU’s GDPR. Non-compliance with the UK GDPR may result in monetary penalties of up to £17.5 million or 4% of worldwide revenue, whichever is higher. Although the UK is regarded as a third country under the EU’s GDPR, the European Commission has now issued a decision recognizing the UK as providing adequate protection under the EU GDPR and, therefore, transfers of personal data originating in the EU to the UK remain unrestricted. Like the EU GDPR, the UK GDPR restricts personal data transfers outside the UK to countries not regarded by the UK as providing adequate protection. The UK government has confirmed that personal data transfers from the UK to the EEA remain free flowing.

Human Capital Resources

As of December 31, 2022, we had 327 full-time employees. 139 of our employees have M.D. or Ph.D. degrees. Within our workforce, 235 employees are engaged in research and development and 92 are engaged in business development, finance, legal, and general management and administration. None of our employees are represented by labor unions or covered by collective bargaining agreements. We consider our relationship with our employees to be good.

We believe that our people are among our greatest assets and that a diverse and inclusive organization is more innovative and higher performing. We are committed to increasing representation of under-represented populations at our company, particularly in leadership roles. As of December 31, 2022, among our employees, 46% were female and 54% were male. Among our

45

leadership (which we define as employees at the vice president level and above), approximately 28% were female. As of December 31, 2022, 32% of our employees and 22% of our leadership identify as being from diverse racial and ethnic groups. On our Board of Directors, five of our eight directors are women and/or from a diverse racial and ethnic group.

As part of our efforts to create a diverse and equitable workplace, our Diversity, Equity, Belonging and Inclusion Council, which is made up of a mix of employees from various functions and positions, provides strategic guidance, senior leader support and an operating budget to fund initiatives related to diversity, equity, belonging and inclusion. In 2022, we deepened our commitment to diversity, equity, belonging and inclusion by delivering programming focused on fostering psychological safety, so that all employees can voice their best ideas, take risks, and learn openly from mistakes. We also honored black history and celebrated Asian American and Pacific Islander heritage by hosting external speakers and leading internal employee-led discussions.

We have two employee resource groups, which are led by our employees and focus on a specific community. Both organizations work in parallel to make our company the most inclusive organization possible, and to give back to the communities in and surrounding Cambridge, Massachusetts, where our primary office and laboratory space is located.

As our workforce grows, we’re not only focused on recruiting top talent from a diverse range of backgrounds, industries and experiences, but also focused on retaining, developing and promoting our current employees. While the competition for talent remains strong as the number of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies in the Cambridge area increases, we believe we can attract and retain the talent we need to be successful. We maintain a robust onboarding program to ensure all new hires are grounded in our business and culture and we conduct periodic talent reviews to identify high performing and high potential talent within the organization. This data is used to inform specific development opportunities for current and future leaders, create custom leadership training, drive meaningful development conversations and enable succession planning for key roles. Additionally, all employees have access to a dedicated career coach to help foster continuous growth. As of December 31, 2022, our company turnover rate is lower than the industry average.

We regularly host company-wide sessions (virtual and onsite) where our employees brainstorm ideas, provide feedback on corporate initiatives, share scientific breakthroughs and recognize each other’s contributions and accomplishments. In 2022, we shifted our annual survey of employees to quarterly pulse checks to create a feedback-to-action loop, respond in a more timely fashion, celebrate team milestones and continue to leverage our strengths. These quarterly surveys help us measure employee engagement and inform future talent initiatives.

People are our most valuable resource and we are committed to protecting the health and safety of our workforce. Although we continue to monitor the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, with the easing of travel and other restrictions, we believe that our operations have largely resumed pre-pandemic norms. We continue to enable our workforce to work remotely and maintain a flexible schedule wherever possible. We regularly update our safety protocols, taking into consideration national and local public health guidelines and input from our employees.

Corporate Information

We were incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware on May 4, 2015 under the name Allostery, Inc. In December 2015, we changed our name to Relay Therapeutics, Inc. Our principal corporate office is located at 399 Binney Street, 2nd Floor, Cambridge, MA 02139, and our telephone number is (617) 370-8837. Our website address is www.relaytx.com. Our website and the information contained on, or that can be accessed through, the website will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference in, and are not considered part of, this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Available Information

Our website address is www.relaytx.com. Our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K, including exhibits, proxy and information statements and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Sections 13(a), 14, and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, are available through the “Investors & Media” portion of our website free of charge as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the SEC. Information on our website is not part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K or any of our other filings with the SEC unless specifically incorporated herein or therein by reference. In addition, our filings with the SEC may be accessed through the SEC’s Interactive Data Electronic Applications system at www.sec.gov. All statements made in any of our filings with the SEC or documents available on our website, including all forward-looking statements or information, are made as of the date of the document in which the statement is included, and we do not assume or undertake any obligation to update any of those statements or documents unless we are required to do so by law.

Our code of conduct, corporate governance guidelines and the charters of our Audit Committee, Research and Development Committee, Compensation Committee and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee are available through the “Investors & Media” portion of our website.

46

Item 1A. Risk Factors.

Investing in our common stock involves a high degree of risk. You should carefully consider the risks described below, as well as the other information in this 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,” before deciding whether to invest in our common stock. We believe the risks described below include risks that are material to us as well as other risks that may adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects. In such an event, the market price of our common stock could decline and you may lose all or part of your investment. Additional risks and uncertainties not presently known to us or that we currently deem immaterial may also materially harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects and could result in a complete loss of your investment. Consequently, you should not consider the following to be a complete discussion of all potential risks or uncertainties.

Risks Related to Our Product Candidates

Risks Related to Clinical Development

We have never successfully completed any clinical trials, and we may be unable to do so for any product candidates we develop.

We have not yet demonstrated our ability to successfully complete any clinical trials, including large-scale, pivotal clinical trials, 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 commercialization. We have three product candidates, RLY-4008, RLY-2608 and GDC-1971 (formerly known as RLY-1971), in clinical development. We may not be able to file INDs for any of our other product candidates on the timelines we expect, if at all. For example, we may experience manufacturing delays or delays with IND-enabling studies. Moreover, we cannot be sure that once we have submitted an IND, the FDA will allow further clinical trials to begin, or that, once begun, issues will not arise that require us to suspend or terminate clinical trials. The FDA or other regulatory authorities may impose a clinical hold before or after a trial begins for a number of reasons outlined in FDA regulations, including if the FDA believes the study drug raises a significant risk of illness or injury. If the FDA imposes a clinical hold, trials may not commence or recommence without FDA authorization and then only under terms authorized by the FDA. Accordingly, the submission of an IND does not mean the FDA will allow clinical trials to begin and, if and when clinical trials do commence under an active IND, issues may arise that require suspension or termination of such trials. Further, commencing each of these clinical trials is subject to finalizing the trial design based on discussions with the FDA and other regulatory authorities. Any guidance we receive from the FDA or other regulatory authorities is subject to change. Regulatory authorities could change their position, including, on the acceptability of our trial designs or the clinical endpoints selected, which may require us to complete additional clinical trials or impose stricter approval conditions than we currently expect. Successful completion of our clinical trials is a prerequisite to submitting a new drug application, or NDA, to the FDA and a Marketing Authorization Application, or MAA, to the EMA for each product candidate and, consequently, the ultimate approval and commercial marketing of each product candidate. Our RLY-4008 and RLY-2608 first-in-human clinical trials are ongoing, but we do not know whether any of our future clinical trials will begin on time or be completed on schedule, if at all.

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:

Clinical product development involves a lengthy and expensive process, with an uncertain outcome.

It is impossible to predict when or if any of our product candidates will prove effective and safe in humans or will receive regulatory approval. Before obtaining marketing approval from regulatory authorities for the sale of any product candidate, we must complete preclinical studies and then conduct the required 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

47

and is uncertain as to outcome. A failure of one or more clinical trials can occur at any stage of testing. The outcome of preclinical development testing and early clinical trials may not be predictive of the success of later clinical trials, and interim results of a clinical trial do not necessarily predict final results. Moreover, preclinical and clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses, and many companies that have believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in preclinical and other nonclinical studies and clinical trials have nonetheless failed to obtain marketing approval of their product candidates. Our preclinical and other nonclinical studies and future clinical trials may not be successful.

From time to time, we may publish interim, top-line or preliminary data from our clinical trials. Interim data from clinical trials are subject to the risk that one or more of the clinical outcomes may materially change as more participants enroll and as data mature. Preliminary or top-line data also remain subject to cleaning and verification procedures that may result in the final data being materially different from the preliminary data we previously published. As a result, interim and preliminary data should be viewed with caution until the final data are available. Adverse differences between preliminary or interim data and final data could significantly harm our business prospects.

We may incur additional costs or experience delays in completing, or ultimately be unable to complete, the development and commercialization of our product candidates.

We may experience delays in completing our preclinical studies and initiating or completing clinical trials, and we may experience numerous unforeseen events during, or as a result of, any future clinical trials that we could conduct that could delay or prevent our ability to receive marketing approval or commercialize our product candidates, including:

We could encounter delays if a clinical trial is suspended or terminated by us, by the IRBs of the institutions at which such trials are being conducted, by the Data Safety Monitoring Board, or DSMB, for such trial or by the FDA or other regulatory

48

authorities. Such authorities may impose a suspension or termination or clinical hold due to a number of factors, including failure to conduct the clinical trial in accordance with regulatory requirements or our clinical protocols, inspection of the clinical trial operations or clinical trial site by the FDA or other regulatory authorities, unforeseen safety issues or adverse side effects, failure to demonstrate a benefit from using a product, changes in governmental regulations or administrative actions or lack of adequate funding to continue the clinical trial. Many of the factors that cause, or lead to, a delay in the commencement or completion of clinical trials may also ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of our product candidates. Further, the FDA may disagree with our clinical trial design or our interpretation of data from clinical trials, or may change the requirements for approval even after it has reviewed and commented on the design for our clinical trials.

Our product development costs will also increase if we experience delays in preclinical studies, clinical trials or regulatory approvals. We do not know whether any of our future clinical trials will begin as planned, or whether any of our current or future clinical trials will need to be restructured or will be completed on schedule, if at all. Significant preclinical study or clinical trial delays, including those caused by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, 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 and impair our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates and may harm our business and results of operations. Any delays in our preclinical or current or future clinical development programs may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly.

If we experience delays or difficulties in the enrollment of patients in clinical trials, our receipt of necessary regulatory approvals could be delayed or prevented.

We may not be able to initiate or continue clinical trials for our product candidates if we are unable to locate and enroll a sufficient number of eligible patients to participate in these trials as required by the FDA or similar regulatory authorities outside the United States. In particular, because we will be deploying our drug discovery platform across a broad target space, our ability to enroll eligible patients may be limited or may result in slower enrollment than we anticipate. In addition, some of our competitors have ongoing clinical trials for product candidates that treat the same indications as our product candidates, and patients who would otherwise be eligible for our clinical trials may instead enroll in clinical trials of our competitors’ product candidates. Furthermore, our ability to enroll patients may be significantly delayed by developments in connection with the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, including increased severity or additional variant outbreaks thereof, which are highly uncertain, and we cannot predict the extent and scope of such delays at this point.

In addition to the competitive clinical trial environment, the eligibility criteria of our planned clinical trials will further limit the pool of available study participants as we will require that patients have specific characteristics that we can measure to assure their cancer is either severe enough or not too advanced to include them in a study. Additionally, the process of finding patients may prove costly. We also may not be able to identify, recruit and enroll a sufficient number of patients to complete our clinical studies because of the perceived risks and benefits of the product candidates under study, the availability and efficacy of competing therapies and clinical trials, the proximity and availability of clinical trial sites for prospective patients, and the patient referral practices of physicians. If patients are unwilling to participate in our studies for any reason, the timeline for recruiting patients, conducting studies and obtaining regulatory approval of potential products may be delayed.

We have engaged and may continue to engage third parties to develop companion diagnostics for use in our clinical trials, but such third parties may not be successful in developing such companion diagnostics, furthering the difficulty in identifying patients with the targeted genetic mutations for our clinical trials. Further, if we are required to develop companion diagnostics and are unable to include patients with the targeted genetic mutations, this could compromise our ability to seek participation in the FDA’s expedited review and development programs, including Breakthrough Therapy Designation and Fast Track Designation, or otherwise to seek to accelerate clinical development and regulatory timelines. The FDA has indicated that if we continue RLY-4008 and RLY-2608 in a specific biomarker-defined population, a companion diagnostic device will be required to ensure their safe and effective use. Although we have engaged Foundation Medicine, Inc. to develop its FoundationOne®CDx as a companion diagnostic for RLY-4008, if any of our current or future third-party companion diagnostic partners is unable or unwilling to obtain or maintain regulatory approval for a companion diagnostic for any of our product candidates, regulatory approval for such product candidates, if obtained at all, may be delayed.

Clinical trial enrollment may be affected by other factors including:

49

Positive data from preclinical or early clinical studies of our product candidates are not necessarily predictive of the results of later clinical studies and any future clinical trials of our product candidates. If we cannot replicate the positive data from our preclinical or early clinical studies of our product candidates in our future clinical trials, we will be unable to successfully develop, obtain regulatory approval for and commercialize our product candidates.

Any positive data from our preclinical or early clinical studies of our product candidates may not necessarily be predictive of the results of later clinical studies and any future clinical trials of our product candidates. Similarly, even if we are able to complete our planned preclinical and clinical studies or any future clinical trials of our product candidates according to our current development timeline, the positive data from such preclinical or early clinical studies and clinical trials of our product candidates may not be replicated in subsequent nonclinical studies or clinical trial results.

Many companies in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have suffered significant setbacks in late-stage clinical trials after achieving positive results in early-stage development and we cannot be certain that we will not face similar setbacks. These setbacks have been caused by, among other things, preclinical and other nonclinical findings made while clinical trials were underway, or safety or efficacy observations made in preclinical studies and clinical trials, including previously unreported adverse events. Moreover, preclinical, other nonclinical and clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses and many companies that believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in preclinical studies and clinical trials nonetheless failed to obtain FDA, EMA or other regulatory authority approval.

Our current or future clinical trials or those of our future collaborators may reveal significant adverse events not seen in our preclinical or other nonclinical studies or early clinical data and may result in a safety profile that would inhibit regulatory approval or market acceptance of any of our product candidates.

Before obtaining regulatory approvals for the commercial sale of any products, we must demonstrate through lengthy, complex and expensive preclinical or other nonclinical studies and clinical trials that our product candidates are both safe and effective for use in each target indication. Clinical testing is expensive and can take many years to complete, and its outcome is inherently uncertain. Failure can occur at any time during the clinical trial process. The results of preclinical or other nonclinical studies and early clinical trials of our product candidates may not be predictive of the results of later-stage clinical trials. In addition, initial success in clinical trials may not be indicative of results obtained when such trials are completed. There is typically an extremely high rate of attrition from the failure of product candidates proceeding through clinical trials. Product candidates in later stages of clinical trials also may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy profile despite having progressed through preclinical or other nonclinical studies and initial clinical trials. A number of companies in the biopharmaceutical industry have suffered significant setbacks in advanced clinical trials due to lack of efficacy or unacceptable safety issues, notwithstanding promising results in earlier trials. Most product candidates that commence clinical trials are never approved as products and there can be no assurance that any of our current or future clinical trials will ultimately be successful or support further clinical development of any of our product candidates.

We may develop future product candidates, in combination with one or more cancer therapies. The uncertainty resulting from the use of our product candidates in combination with other cancer therapies may make it difficult to accurately predict side effects in future clinical trials.

As is the case with many treatments for cancer and rare diseases, it is likely that there may be side effects associated with the use of our product candidates. If significant adverse events or other side effects are observed in any of our current or future clinical trials, we may have difficulty recruiting patients to our clinical trials, patients may drop out of our clinical trials, or we may be

50

required to abandon the clinical trials or our development efforts of one or more product candidates altogether. We, the FDA or other applicable regulatory authorities, or an IRB may suspend or terminate clinical trials of a product candidate at any time for various reasons, including a belief that subjects in such trials are being exposed to unacceptable health risks or adverse side effects. Some potential therapeutics developed in the biotechnology industry that initially showed therapeutic promise in early-stage clinical trials have later been found to cause side effects that prevented their further development. Even if the side effects do not preclude the product from obtaining or maintaining marketing approval, undesirable side effects may inhibit market acceptance of the approved product due to its tolerability versus other therapies. Any of these developments could materially harm our business, financial condition and prospects.

Although we intend to explore other therapeutic opportunities, in addition to the product candidates that we are currently developing, we may fail to identify viable new product candidates for clinical development for a number of reasons. If we fail to identify additional potential product candidates, our business could be materially harmed.

Research programs to pursue the development of our existing and planned product candidates for additional indications and to identify new product candidates and disease targets require substantial technical, financial and human resources whether or not they are ultimately successful. For example, pursuant to the DESRES Agreement, we collaborate with D. E. Shaw Research to develop various protein models and make predictions as to how molecules might move, with subsequent validation efforts in our and our CROs’ labs. There can be no assurance that we will find potential additional targets using this approach, that any such targets will be tractable, or that such clinical validations will be successful. Our research programs may initially show promise in identifying potential indications and/or product candidates, yet fail to yield results for clinical development for a number of reasons, including:

Because we have limited financial and human resources, we intend to initially focus on research programs and product candidates for a limited set of indications. As a result, we may forgo or delay pursuit of opportunities with other product candidates or for other indications that later prove to have greater commercial potential or a greater likelihood of success. Our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial products or profitable market opportunities.

Accordingly, there can be no assurance that we will ever be able to identify additional therapeutic opportunities for our product candidates or to develop suitable potential product candidates through internal research programs or in collaboration with third parties, which could materially adversely affect our future growth and prospects. We may focus our efforts and resources on potential product candidates or other potential programs that ultimately prove to be unsuccessful.

We intend to develop our current product candidates and potentially future product candidates, in combination with other therapies, which exposes us to additional risks.

We intend to develop our current product candidates, and may develop future product candidates, for use in combination with one or more currently approved cancer therapies. Even if any product candidate we develop was to receive marketing approval or be commercialized for use in combination with other existing therapies, we would continue to bear the risks that the FDA or similar regulatory authorities could revoke approval of the therapy used in combination with our product candidates or that safety, efficacy, manufacturing or supply issues could arise with these existing therapies. Combination therapies are commonly used for the treatment of cancer, and we would be subject to similar risks if we develop any of our product candidates for use in combination with other drugs or for indications other than cancer. This could result in our own products being removed from the market or being less successful commercially.

We may also evaluate our current product candidates or any other future product candidates in combination with one or more other cancer therapies that have not yet been approved for marketing by the FDA or similar regulatory authorities. We will not be able to market and sell any of our product candidates we develop in combination with any such unapproved cancer therapies that do not ultimately obtain marketing approval. Pursuant to the Genentech Agreement, Genentech will assume the development of GDC-1971, including developing GDC-1971 in combination with Genentech’s KRAS G12C program and in combination with atezolizumab, its PD-L1 antibody. See “Business – Our Collaborations – Key License Agreements and Strategic Collaborations – Collaboration and License Agreement with Genentech.”

51

If the FDA or similar regulatory authorities do not approve these other drugs or revoke their approval of, or if safety, efficacy, manufacturing, or supply issues arise with, the drugs we choose to evaluate in combination with our current product candidates or any product candidate we develop, we may be unable to obtain approval of or market any of the product candidates we develop.

Our product candidates utilize a novel mechanism of action and novel binding locations, which may result in greater research and development expenses, regulatory issues that could delay or prevent approval, or discovery of unknown or unanticipated adverse effects.

Our product candidates utilize novel mechanisms of action and novel binding locations, which may result in greater research and development expenses, regulatory issues that could delay or prevent approval, or discovery of unknown or unanticipated adverse effects. Our Dynamo platform uses advanced computational models in tight integration with our medicinal chemistry, structural biology, enzymology and biophysics capabilities to predict and design the compounds that will achieve the most desirable characteristics, including potency, selectivity, bioavailability, and drug-like properties. A disruption in any of these capabilities may have significant adverse effects in our abilities to expand our Dynamo platform, and we cannot predict whether we will continue to have access to these capabilities in the future to support our Dynamo platform. In addition, there can be no assurance that we will be able to rapidly identify, design and synthesize the necessary compounds or that these or other problems related to the development of this novel mechanism will not arise in the future, which may cause significant delays, or we raise problems we may not be able to resolve.

Regulatory approval of novel product candidates such as ours can be more expensive, riskier and take longer than for other, more well-known or extensively studied pharmaceutical or biopharmaceutical product candidates due to our and regulatory agencies’ lack of experience with them. The novelty of our mechanism of action may lengthen the regulatory review process, require us to conduct additional studies or clinical trials, increase our development costs, lead to changes in regulatory positions and interpretations, delay or prevent approval and commercialization of our product candidates or lead to significant post-approval limitations or restrictions. The novel mechanism of action also means that fewer people are trained in or experienced with product candidates of this type, which may make it more difficult to find, hire and retain personnel for research, development and manufacturing positions. Because our inhibitors utilize a novel mechanism of action that has not been the subject of extensive study compared to more well-known product candidates, there is also an increased risk that we may discover previously unknown or unanticipated adverse effects during our preclinical or other nonclinical studies and clinical trials. Any such events could adversely impact our business prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

We are conducting, or have filed clinical trial applications to conduct, clinical trials for our product candidates outside the United States, and the FDA and similar foreign regulatory authorities may not accept data from such trials.

We are conducting, or have filed clinical trial applications to conduct, additional clinical trials outside the United States, including Australia, the United Kingdom, Europe and Asia and may conduct, or file clinical trial applications to conduct, additional clinical trials in other foreign jurisdictions in the future. The acceptance of trial data from clinical trials conducted outside the United States by the FDA may be subject to certain conditions. In cases where data from clinical trials conducted outside the United States are intended to serve as the sole basis for marketing approval in the United States, the FDA will generally not approve the application on the basis of foreign data alone unless (i) the data are applicable to the United States population and United States medical practice; (ii) the trials were performed by clinical investigators of recognized competence and (iii) the data may be considered valid without the need for an on-site inspection by the FDA or, if the FDA considers such an inspection to be necessary, the FDA is able to validate the data through an on-site inspection or other appropriate means. Additionally, the FDA’s clinical trial requirements, including sufficient size of patient populations and statistical powering, must be met. Many foreign regulatory bodies have similar approval requirements. In addition, such foreign trials would be subject to the applicable local laws of the foreign jurisdictions where the trials are conducted. There can be no assurance that the FDA or any similar foreign regulatory authority will accept data from clinical trials conducted outside of the United States or the applicable jurisdiction. If the FDA or any similar foreign regulatory authority does not accept such data, it would result in the need for additional clinical trials, which would be costly and time-consuming and delay aspects of our business plan, and which may result in our product candidates not receiving approval or clearance for commercialization in the applicable jurisdiction.

Risks Related to Obtaining Regulatory Approvals

If we are not able to obtain, or if delays occur in obtaining, required regulatory approvals for our product candidates, we will not be able to commercialize, or will be delayed in commercializing, our product candidates, and our ability to generate revenue will be materially impaired.

Our product candidates and the activities associated with their development and commercialization, including their design, testing, manufacture, safety, efficacy, recordkeeping, labeling, storage, approval, advertising, promotion, sale, distribution, import and export are subject to comprehensive regulation by the FDA and other regulatory agencies in the United States and by similar authorities in other countries. Before we can commercialize any of our product candidates, we must obtain marketing

52

approval. Currently, all of our product candidates are in development, and we have not received approval to market any of our product candidates from regulatory authorities in any jurisdiction. It is possible that our product candidates, including any product candidates we may seek to develop in the future, will never obtain regulatory approval. We have only limited experience in filing and supporting the applications necessary to gain regulatory approvals and expect to rely on third-party CROs and/or regulatory consultants to assist us in this process. Securing regulatory approval requires the submission of extensive nonclinical and clinical data and supporting information to the various regulatory authorities for each therapeutic indication to establish the product candidate’s safety and efficacy. Securing regulatory approval also requires the submission of information about the product manufacturing process to, and inspection of manufacturing facilities by, the relevant regulatory authority. Our product candidates may not be effective, may be only moderately effective or may prove to have undesirable or unintended side effects, toxicities or other characteristics that may preclude our obtaining marketing approval or prevent or limit commercial use. In addition, regulatory authorities may find fault with our manufacturing process or facilities or that of third-party contract manufacturers. We may also face greater than expected difficulty in manufacturing our product candidates.

The process of obtaining regulatory approvals, both in the United States and abroad, is expensive and often takes many years. If the FDA or a similar foreign regulatory authority requires that we perform additional nonclinical studies or clinical trials, approval, if obtained at all, may be delayed. The length of such a delay varies substantially based upon a variety of factors, including the type, complexity and novelty of the product candidates involved. Changes in marketing approval policies during the development period, changes in or the enactment of additional statutes or regulations, or changes in regulatory review for each submitted NDA, a 510(k) or other premarket approval application, or PMA, or equivalent application types, may cause delays in the approval or rejection of an application. The FDA and similar authorities in other countries have substantial discretion in the approval process and may refuse to accept any application or may decide that our data are insufficient for approval and require additional nonclinical, clinical or other studies. Our product candidates could be delayed in receiving, or fail to receive, regulatory approval for many reasons, including the following:

Even if we were to obtain approval, regulatory authorities may approve any of our product candidates for fewer or more limited indications than we request, thereby narrowing the commercial potential of the product candidate. In addition, regulatory authorities may grant approval contingent on the performance of costly post-marketing clinical trials, or may approve a product

53

candidate with a label that does not include the labeling claims necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of that product candidate. Any of the foregoing scenarios could materially harm the commercial prospects for our product 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.

Risks Related to Commercialization

The incidence and prevalence for target patient populations of our product candidates have not been established with precision. If the market opportunities for our product candidates are smaller than we estimate or if any approval that we obtain is based on a narrower definition of the patient population, our revenue and ability to achieve profitability will be adversely affected, possibly materially.

In 2022, we completed enrollment of a Phase 1a dose escalation study of GDC-1971 as a monotherapy in patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumors, and pursuant to the Genentech Agreement entered into in December 2020, future development for GDC-1971, including the potential to conduct multiple combination studies, is governed by a joint development team between us and Genentech. Genentech initiated the cohort of GDC-1971 in combination with GDC-6036, its KRAS G12C inhibitor, in a Phase 1b trial in July 2021, and a Phase 1b trial of GDC-1971 in combination with atezolizumab, its PD-L1 antibody, in August 2022. We estimate there are approximately 37,000 patients annually in the United States with advanced lung cancer or colorectal cancer who might benefit from a combination of GDC-1971 with another targeted inhibitor. In the future, if GDC-1971 advances to earlier lines of combination treatment for lung cancer or colorectal cancer, we believe it could be applied in the treatment of approximately 69,000 patients annually in the United States. The subset of patients with KRAS G12C mutations in lung cancer and colorectal cancer who could potentially benefit from the combination of GDC-1971 with GDC-6036 is approximately 17,000 to 32,000 annually in the United States.

We are also evaluating the safety and tolerability of RLY-4008 in a first-in-human clinical trial initiated in September 2020 in patients with advanced or metastatic FGFR2-altered solid tumors with a single arm, potentially registration-enabling cohort for FGFRi treatment-naïve FGFR2-fusion CCA. We believe FGFR2-mediated cancers affect approximately 11,000 late-line patients annually in the United States. In the future, if RLY-4008 advances to earlier lines of treatment, we believe it could potentially address approximately 35,000 patients annually in the United States. These numbers reflect the inclusion of patients with additional FGFR2 gene fusions and rearrangements that result from truncation of the protein at exon 18 based on recently published research suggesting that patients with these truncations should be considered for FGFR-targeted therapies.

In December 2021, we dosed the first patient in a first-in-human clinical trial for RLY-2608, the first known allosteric, pan-mutant (H1047X, E542X and E545X) and isoform-selective PI3Kα inhibitor in clinical development. We believe RLY-2608 has the potential to address approximately 50,000 to 156,000 patients per year in the United States, one of the largest patient populations for a precision oncology medicine.

Our projections of both the number of people who have these diseases, as well as the subset of people with these diseases who have the potential to benefit from treatment with RLY-4008, RLY-2608 or GDC-1971, or our other product candidates, are based on estimates.

The total addressable market opportunity will ultimately depend upon, among other things, the diagnosis criteria included in the final label, and, if our product candidates are approved for sale for these indications, acceptance by the medical community and patient access, product pricing and reimbursement. The number of patients with cancers and solid tumors may turn out to be lower than expected, patients may not be otherwise amenable to treatment with our products, or new patients may become increasingly difficult to identify or gain access to, all of which would adversely affect our results of operations and our business. We may not be successful in our efforts to identify additional product candidates. Due to our limited resources and access to capital, we must prioritize development of certain product candidates, which may prove to be the wrong choice and may adversely affect our business.

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

The development and commercialization of new products in the biopharmaceutical and related industries is highly competitive. We compete in the segments of the pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and other related markets that address computationally focused structure-based drug design in cancer and genetic diseases. There are other companies focusing on structure-based drug design to develop therapies in the fields of cancer and other diseases. Some of these competitive products and therapies are based on scientific approaches that are the same as or similar to our approach, and others are based on entirely different approaches. These companies include divisions of large pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology companies of various sizes. We face competition with respect to our current product candidates, and will face competition with respect to any product candidates that

54

we may seek to develop or commercialize in the future, from major pharmaceutical companies, specialty pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology companies worldwide. 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.

Any product candidates that we successfully develop and commercialize will compete with currently approved therapies and new therapies that may become available in the future from segments of the pharmaceutical, biotechnology and other related markets that pursue precision medicines. Key product features that would affect our ability to effectively compete with other therapeutics include the efficacy, safety and convenience of our products. We believe principal competitive factors to our business include, among other things, the accuracy of our computations and predictions, ability to integrate computational and experimental capabilities, ability to successfully transition research programs into clinical development, ability to raise capital, and the scalability of the platform, pipeline, and business.

Many of the companies that we compete against or against which we may compete in the future have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals and marketing approved products than we do. Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical, biotechnology and diagnostic industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors. Smaller or earlier stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel and establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs. In addition, we cannot predict whether our current competitive advantages, such as our ability to leverage our Dynamo platform and our relationship with D. E. Shaw Research, will remain in place in the future. If these or other barriers to entry do not remain in place, other companies may be able to more directly or effectively compete with us.

Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient or are less expensive than any products that we or our collaborators 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 or our collaborators are able to enter the market. The key competitive factors affecting the success of all of our product candidates, if approved, are likely to be their efficacy, safety, convenience, price, the level of generic competition and the availability of reimbursement from government and other third-party payors.

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

In the United States and markets in other countries, patients generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the costs associated with their treatment. Adequate coverage and reimbursement from governmental healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and commercial payors is critical to new product acceptance. Our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates will depend in part on the extent to which coverage and adequate 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 establish reimbursement levels. The availability of coverage and extent of reimbursement by governmental and private payors is essential for most patients to be able to afford treatments. Sales of these or other product candidates that we may identify will depend substantially, both domestically and abroad, on the extent to which the costs of our product candidates will be paid by health maintenance, managed care, pharmacy benefit and similar healthcare management organizations, or reimbursed by government health administration authorities, private health coverage insurers and other third-party payors. If coverage and adequate reimbursement is not available, or is available only to limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize our product candidates. Even if coverage is provided, the approved reimbursement amount may not be high enough to allow us to establish or maintain pricing sufficient to realize a sufficient return on our investment.

There is also significant uncertainty related to the insurance coverage and reimbursement of newly approved products and coverage may be more limited than the purposes for which the medicine is approved by the FDA or similar foreign regulatory authorities. In the United States, the principal decisions about reimbursement for new medicines are typically made by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, an agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. CMS

55

decides whether and to what extent a new medicine will be covered and reimbursed under Medicare and private payors tend to follow CMS to a substantial degree.

Factors payors consider in determining reimbursement are based on whether the product is (i) a covered benefit under its health plan; (ii) safe, effective and medically necessary; (iii) appropriate for the specific patient; (iv) cost-effective; and (v) neither experimental nor investigational.

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. Increasingly, third-party payors are requiring that drug companies provide them with predetermined discounts from list prices and are challenging the prices charged for medical products. We cannot be sure that reimbursement will be available for any product candidate that we commercialize and, if reimbursement is available, the level of reimbursement. In addition, many pharmaceutical manufacturers must calculate and report certain price reporting metrics to the government, such as average sales price, or ASP, and best price. Penalties may apply in some cases when such metrics are not submitted accurately and in a timely manner. Further, these prices for drugs may be reduced by mandatory discounts or rebates required by government healthcare programs.

In addition, in some foreign countries, the proposed pricing for a drug must be approved before it may be lawfully marketed. The requirements governing drug pricing vary widely from country to country. For example, the EU provides options for its Member States to restrict the range of medicinal products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices of medicinal products for human use. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval, some of these countries may require the completion of clinical trials that compare the cost effectiveness of a particular product candidate to currently available therapies. A Member State may approve a specific price for the medicinal product or it may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the medicinal product on the market. There can be no assurance that any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for pharmaceutical products will allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements for any of our product candidates. Historically, products launched in the EU do not follow price structures of the U.S. and generally prices tend to be significantly lower.

Risks Related to Our Reliance on Third Parties

Under the DESRES Agreement, as amended, we collaborate with D. E. Shaw Research to rapidly develop various protein models, a process that depends on D. E. Shaw Research’s use of their proprietary supercomputer, Anton 2. A termination of the DESRES Agreement could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

Under the DESRES Agreement, we collaborate with D. E. Shaw Research to develop various protein models to make predictions as to how molecules might move in connection with identifying potential new biological targets and prospective drug compounds. There can be no assurance these protein models, or the technology used by D. E. Shaw Research to develop them (including the Anton 2 supercomputer), will provide reliable data or target information, or that the findings from these activities and our subsequent validation efforts will translate into the ability to develop therapeutically effective compounds. Our collaboration with D. E. Shaw Research is our key computational collaboration, and there can be no assurance that this collaboration will continue past the current term of the DESRES Agreement, on favorable terms or at all, or that at any time while the collaboration is in effect D. E. Shaw Research will provide a level of service that benefits our programs in a meaningfully positive manner. While we also have other computational collaborations, mostly focused on developing machine learning models, such collaborations do not provide a substitute for the technology made available through our collaboration with D. E. Shaw Research. The termination of the DESRES Agreement or any reduction in our collaboration with D. E. Shaw Research would require us to rely more heavily on these other collaborations and our own internal resources, and may delay or impair our development efforts.

Furthermore, while the termination of the DESRES Agreement would not directly impact the development of our lead product candidates, we cannot predict the effects such termination could have on our preclinical studies and development efforts and our ability to discover and develop additional product candidates. In particular, the technologies accessed through D. E. Shaw Research, including the Anton 2 supercomputer, are important aspects of our Dynamo platform, and we do not currently have access to another source of computational power comparable to that provided by the Anton 2 supercomputer. Currently, not only is our collaboration with D. E. Shaw Research for a limited time period, but it is also limited with respect to the number of target proteins available under the collaboration (with such number subject to increases or decreases from year to year, and with the number of total targets across categories capped at twenty, subject to some limitations), which could restrict our ability to broaden our platform across a larger number of targets and programs.

Under the DESRES Agreement, D. E. Shaw Research controls the rights to its technology, we control the rights to certain compounds, and we jointly own with D. E. Shaw Research any other work product created by D. E. Shaw Research and us. Any

56

work product we jointly own with D. E. Shaw Research and any other information that we or D. E. Shaw Research share is subject to a non-exclusive cross-license between us and D. E. Shaw Research, subject to certain exceptions. In some instances, D. E. Shaw Research is required to assign to us some of the work product created by D. E. Shaw Research. Disputes may arise between us and D. E. Shaw Research, as well as any future potential collaborators, regarding intellectual property subject to the DESRES Agreement. If disputes over intellectual property that we co-own or we own individually prevent or impair our ability to maintain our current collaboration arrangements on acceptable terms, or undermine our ability to successfully control the intellectual property necessary to protect our product candidates, we may be unable to successfully develop and commercialize the affected product candidates. Uncertainties or disagreements around our rights under any such intellectual property may undermine our ability to partner our programs with third parties.

In addition, the DESRES Agreement is complex and certain provisions may be susceptible to multiple interpretations. The resolution of any contract interpretation disagreement that may arise could be adverse to us, for example, by narrowing what we believe to be the scope of our rights to certain intellectual property, or increasing what we believe to be our financial or other obligations under the DESRES Agreement, and any such outcome could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

We are generally also subject to all of the same risks with respect to protection of intellectual property that we co-own, as we are for intellectual property that we own. See “ – Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property – Risks Related to Protecting our Intellectual Property.” If we or D. E. Shaw Research fail to adequately protect this intellectual property, our ability to commercialize products could suffer.

Moreover, we are subject to certain payment obligations under the DESRES Agreement, including payments to D. E. Shaw Research in connection with certain transactions, including our collaboration with Genentech pursuant to the Genentech Agreement. These payment obligations may decrease the value to us of certain transactional opportunities or otherwise burden our ability to enter into such transactions.

We rely on third parties to conduct our ongoing clinical trials of RLY-4008 and RLY-2608 and expect to rely on third parties to conduct future clinical trials, as well as investigator-sponsored clinical trials of our product candidates. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties, comply with regulatory requirements or meet expected deadlines, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for or commercialize our product candidates and our business could be substantially harmed.

We do not have the ability to independently conduct clinical trials. We rely and expect to continue to rely on medical institutions, clinical investigators, contract laboratories and other third parties, such as CROs, to conduct or otherwise support clinical trials for our product candidates. We may also rely on academic and private non-academic institutions to conduct and sponsor clinical trials relating to our product candidates. We will not control the design or conduct of the investigator-sponsored trials, and it is possible that the FDA or non-U.S. regulatory authorities will not view these investigator-sponsored trials as providing adequate support for future clinical trials, whether controlled by us or third parties, for any one or more reasons, including elements of the design or execution of the trials or safety concerns or other trial results.

Such arrangements will likely provide us certain information rights with respect to the investigator-sponsored trials, including access to and the ability to use and reference the data, including for our own regulatory filings, resulting from the investigator-sponsored trials. However, we would not have control over the timing and reporting of the data from investigator-sponsored trials, nor would we own the data from the investigator-sponsored trials. If we are unable to confirm or replicate the results from the investigator-sponsored trials or if negative results are obtained, we would likely be further delayed or prevented from advancing further clinical development of our product candidates. Further, if investigators or institutions breach their obligations with respect to the clinical development of our product candidates, or if the data prove to be inadequate compared to the first-hand knowledge we might have gained had the investigator-sponsored trials been sponsored and conducted by us, then our ability to design and conduct any future clinical trials ourselves may be adversely affected.

We rely and expect to continue to rely heavily on these parties for execution of clinical trials for our product candidates and control only certain aspects of their activities. Nevertheless, we are responsible for ensuring that each of our clinical trials is conducted in accordance with the applicable protocol, legal and regulatory requirements and scientific standards, and our reliance on CROs will not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities. For any violations of laws and regulations during the conduct of our clinical trials, we could be subject to warning letters or enforcement action that may include civil penalties up to and including criminal prosecution.

We, our principal investigators and our CROs are required to comply with regulations, including Good Clinical Practices, or GCPs, for conducting, monitoring, recording and reporting the results of clinical trials to ensure that the data and results are scientifically credible and accurate, and that the trial patients are adequately informed of the potential risks of participating in clinical trials and their rights are protected. These regulations are enforced by the FDA, the Competent Authorities of the

57

Member States of the European Economic Area and similar foreign regulatory authorities for any products in clinical development, including the EMA and the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency. These regulatory authorities enforce GCP regulations through periodic inspections of clinical trial sponsors, principal investigators and trial sites. If we, our principal investigators 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 similar foreign regulatory authorities may require us to perform additional clinical trials before approving our marketing applications. We cannot assure you that, upon inspection, these regulatory authorities will determine that any of our future clinical trials will comply with GCPs. In addition, our clinical trials must be conducted with product candidates produced under current Good Manufacturing Practice, or cGMP, regulations. Our failure or the failure of our principal investigators or CROs to comply with these regulations may require us to repeat clinical trials, which would delay the regulatory approval process and could also subject us to enforcement action. 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 certain timeframes. Failure to do so can result in fines, adverse publicity and civil and criminal sanctions.

Although we designed our first-in-human clinical trials of RLY-4008, RLY-2608 and GDC-1971, and intend to design the future clinical trials for the product candidates that we develop, we expect that CROs will conduct all of our clinical trials. As a result, many important aspects of our development programs, including their conduct and timing, are outside of our direct control. Our reliance on third parties to conduct future clinical trials also results in less direct control over the management of data developed through clinical trials than would be the case if we were relying entirely upon our own staff. Communicating with outside parties can also be challenging, potentially leading to mistakes as well as difficulties in coordinating activities. Outside parties may:

These factors may materially adversely affect the willingness or ability of third parties to conduct our clinical trials and may subject us to unexpected cost increases that are beyond our control. If the principal investigators or CROs do not perform clinical trials in a satisfactory manner, breach their obligations to us or fail to comply with regulatory requirements, the development, regulatory approval and commercialization of our product candidates may be delayed, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval and commercialize our product candidates, or our development program may be materially and irreversibly harmed. If we are unable to rely on clinical data collected by our principal investigators or CROs, we could be required to repeat, extend the duration of, or increase the size of any clinical trials we conduct and this could significantly delay commercialization and require significantly greater expenditures.

If any of our relationships with these third-party principal investigators or CROs terminate, we may not be able to enter into arrangements with alternative CROs. If principal investigators or CROs do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or obligations or meet expected deadlines, if they need to be replaced or if the quality or accuracy of the clinical data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to our clinical protocols, regulatory requirements or for other reasons, any clinical trials such principal investigators or CROs are associated with may be extended, delayed or terminated, and we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for or successfully commercialize our product candidates. As a result, we believe that our financial results and the commercial prospects for our product candidates in the subject indication would be harmed, our costs could increase and our ability to generate revenue could be delayed.

We contract with third parties for the manufacture of our product candidates for preclinical development, clinical testing, and expect to continue to do so for commercialization. This reliance on third parties increases the risk that we will not have sufficient quantities of our product candidates or products or such quantities at an acceptable cost or quality, which could delay, prevent or impair our development or commercialization efforts.

We do not currently own or operate, nor do we have any plans to establish in the future, any manufacturing facilities or personnel. We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties for the manufacture of our product candidates for preclinical development and clinical testing, as well as for the commercial manufacture of our products 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 or products or such quantities at an acceptable cost or quality, which could delay, prevent or impair our development or commercialization efforts.

58

The facilities used by our contract manufacturers to manufacture our product candidates must be inspected by the FDA pursuant to pre-approval inspections that will be conducted after we submit our marketing applications to the FDA. We do not control the manufacturing process of, and will be completely dependent on, our contract manufacturers for compliance with cGMPs in connection with the manufacture of our product candidates. If our contract manufacturers cannot successfully manufacture material that conforms to our specifications and the strict regulatory requirements of the FDA or others, they will not be able to pass regulatory inspections and/or maintain regulatory compliance for their manufacturing facilities. In addition, we have no control over the ability of our contract manufacturers to maintain adequate quality control, quality assurance and qualified personnel. If the FDA or a similar foreign regulatory authority finds deficiencies with or does not approve these facilities for the manufacture of our product candidates or if it finds deficiencies or withdraws any such approval in the future, we may need to find alternative manufacturing facilities, which would significantly impact our ability to develop, obtain regulatory approval for or market our product candidates, if approved. Further, 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 revocation, seizures or recalls of product candidates or products, if approved, operating restrictions and criminal prosecutions, any of which could significantly and adversely affect our business and supplies of our product candidates.

We may be unable to establish any agreements with third-party manufacturers or to do so on acceptable terms. Even if we are able to establish agreements with third-party manufacturers, reliance on third-party manufacturers entails additional risks, including:

Our product candidates and any products that we may develop may compete with other product candidates and approved products for access to manufacturing facilities. There are a limited number of manufacturers that operate under cGMP regulations and that might be capable of manufacturing for us. Due to capacity constraints at cGMP manufacturers relating to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, we have been required to forecast the amount of clinical trial supply needed for our clinical trials further in advance than had typically been required, and there is limited flexibility to adjust our manufacturing needs as our clinical trials progress, which may lead to added costs or delays in our clinical trials.

Any performance failure on the part of our existing or future manufacturers could delay clinical development or marketing approval. We are also unable to predict how the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic or the current conflict between Russia and Ukraine may affect our third-party manufacturers, including any potential disruptions to our global supply chain. If our current contract manufacturers cannot perform as agreed, we may be required to replace such manufacturers, which we may not be able to do on reasonable terms, if at all, or manufacture the materials ourselves, for which we may not have the capabilities or resources. In either scenario, our clinical trials supply could be delayed significantly as we establish alternative supply sources. In some cases, the technical skills required to manufacture our products or product candidates may be unique or proprietary to the original contract manufacturing organization, or CMO, and we may have difficulty, or there may be contractual restrictions prohibiting us from, transferring such skills to a back-up or alternate supplier, or we may be unable to transfer such skills at all. In addition, if we are required to change CMOs for any reason, we will be required to verify that the new CMO maintains facilities and procedures that comply with quality standards and with all applicable regulations. Changes in manufacturers often involve changes in manufacturing procedures and processes, which could require that we conduct bridging studies between our prior clinical supply used in our clinical trials and that of any new manufacturer. We may be unsuccessful in demonstrating the comparability of clinical supplies which could require the conduct of additional clinical trials. We may incur added costs and delays in identifying and qualifying any such replacement. Furthermore, a CMO may possess technology related to the manufacture of our product candidates that such CMO owns independently. This would increase our reliance on such CMO or require us to obtain a license from such CMO in order to have another CMO manufacture our product candidates.

Our current and anticipated future dependence upon others for the manufacture of our product candidates or products may adversely affect our future profit margins and our ability to commercialize any products that receive marketing approval on a timely and competitive basis.

59

The third parties upon whom we rely for the supply of the active pharmaceutical ingredients, drug product and starting materials used in our product candidates are our sole source of supply, and the loss of any of these suppliers could significantly harm our business.

The active pharmaceutical ingredients, or API, drug product and starting materials used in our product candidates are supplied to us primarily from single-source suppliers. Our ability to successfully develop our product candidates, and to ultimately supply our commercial products in quantities sufficient to meet the market demand, depends in part on our ability to obtain the API, drug product and starting materials for these products in accordance with regulatory requirements and in sufficient quantities for clinical testing and commercialization. We do not currently have arrangements in place for a redundant or second-source supply of any such API, drug product or starting materials in the event any of our current suppliers of such API, drug product or starting materials ceases its operations for any reason. If any of our third-party suppliers or manufacturers ceases its operations for any reason or is unable or unwilling to supply API, drug product or starting material in sufficient quantities, on the timelines necessary, or at acceptable prices, to meet our needs, it could impede, delay, limit or prevent our development efforts, which could harm our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects. We are also unable to predict how changing global economic or political conditions, such as the current conflict between Russia and Ukraine and related global economic sanctions, or potential global health concerns, such as the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, will affect our third-party suppliers and manufacturers. Any negative impact of such matters on our third-party suppliers and manufacturers may also have an adverse impact on our results of operations or financial condition.

For all of our product candidates, we intend to identify and qualify additional manufacturers to provide such API, drug product and starting materials prior to or after submission of an NDA to the FDA and/or an MAA to the EMA. We are not certain, however, that our single-source suppliers will be able to meet our demand for their products, either because of the nature of our agreements with those suppliers, our limited experience with those suppliers or our relative importance as a customer to those suppliers. It may be difficult for us to assess their ability to timely meet our demand in the future based on past performance. While our suppliers have generally met our demand for their products on a timely basis in the past, they may subordinate our needs in the future to their other customers.

Establishing additional or replacement suppliers for the API, drug product and starting materials used in our product candidates, if required, may not be accomplished quickly. If we are able to find a replacement supplier, such replacement supplier would need to be qualified and may require additional regulatory inspection or approval, which could result in further delay. While we seek to maintain adequate inventory of the API, drug product and starting materials used in our product candidates, any interruption or delay in the supply of components or materials, or our inability to obtain such API, drug product or starting materials from alternate sources at acceptable prices in a timely manner could impede, delay, limit or prevent our development efforts, which could harm our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects.

We have and may enter into other collaborations with third parties for the research, development, manufacture and commercialization of one or more of our programs or product candidates. If these collaborations are not successful, our business could be adversely affected.

We have entered into and may enter into collaborations with third parties for one or more of our programs or product candidates, such as our Genentech Agreement to develop and commercialize GDC-1971. If we enter into any such arrangements with any third parties, we will likely have limited control over the amount and timing of resources that any future collaborators dedicate to the development or commercialization of our product candidates. Our ability to generate revenue from these arrangements will depend on our collaborators’ abilities to successfully perform the functions assigned to them.

Any collaborations we have entered into or will enter into may pose risks, including the following:

60

If our collaborations do not result in the successful development and commercialization of products, or if one of any future collaborators terminates its agreement with us, we may not receive any milestone or royalty payments under the collaboration. If we do not receive the payments we expect under these agreements, our development of product candidates could be delayed and we may need additional resources to develop our product candidates. All of the risks relating to product development, regulatory approval and commercialization summarized and described in this report also apply to the activities of our collaborators.

In addition, if any collaborator terminates its agreement with us, we may find it more difficult to attract new collaborators and our reputation among the business and financial communities could be adversely affected.

We may seek to establish additional collaborations, and, if we are not able to establish them on commercially reasonable terms, or at all, we may have to alter our development and commercialization plans.

Our product development programs and the potential commercialization of our product candidates will require substantial additional cash to fund expenses. For some of our product candidates, we may decide to collaborate with additional pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies for the development and potential commercialization of those product candidates.

61

We face significant competition in seeking appropriate collaborators. Whether we reach a definitive agreement for a collaboration will depend, among other things, upon our assessment of the collaborator’s resources and expertise, the terms and conditions of the proposed collaboration and the proposed collaborator’s evaluation of a number of factors. Those factors may include the design or results of clinical trials, the likelihood of approval by the FDA or similar regulatory authorities outside the United States, the potential market for the subject product candidate, the costs and complexities of manufacturing and delivering such product candidate to patients, the potential of competing products, the existence of uncertainty with respect to our ownership of technology, which can exist if there is a challenge to such ownership without regard to the merits of the challenge, and industry and market conditions generally. The collaborator may also consider alternative product candidates or technologies for similar indications that may be available to collaborate on and whether such a collaboration could be more attractive than the one with us for our product candidate. The terms of any additional collaborations or other arrangements that we may establish may not be favorable to us.

We may also be restricted under collaboration agreements from entering into future agreements on certain terms with potential collaborators. Collaborations are complex and time-consuming to negotiate and document. In addition, there have been a significant number of recent business combinations among large pharmaceutical companies that have resulted in a reduced number of potential future collaborators.

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

We may be required to pay certain milestones and royalties under our license or collaboration agreements with third-party licensors or collaborators, which may adversely affect the overall profitability of any products that we may seek to commercialize.

Under our current and future license or collaboration agreements, including our DESRES Agreement, we may be required to pay milestones, royalties and other payments based on our revenues, including revenues from product sales, and these milestones and royalty payments could adversely affect the overall profitability of any products that we may seek to commercialize. In order to maintain our rights under these agreements, we may need to meet certain specified milestones in the development of our product candidates. Further, our licensors (or their licensors), licensees or other strategic collaborators may dispute the terms, including amounts, that we are required to pay under the respective license or collaboration agreements. If these claims result in a material increase in the amounts that we are required to pay to our licensors or collaborators, or in the event of a claim of breach of the license, our ability to research, develop and obtain approval of product candidates or to commercialize our products could be significantly impaired.

Risks Related to Our Financial Position and Ability to Raise Additional Capital

Risks Related to Our Operating History

We are a biopharmaceutical company with a limited operating history.

We are a biopharmaceutical company with a limited operating history and have incurred net losses in each year since our inception. Our net losses were $290.5 million, $363.9 million, and $52.4 million for the years ended December 31, 2022, 2021, and 2020, respectively. We had an accumulated deficit of $1.1 billion as of December 31, 2022. Biopharmaceutical product development is a highly speculative undertaking and involves a substantial degree of risk. We commenced operations in May 2015. Since inception, we have focused substantially all of our efforts and financial resources on developing our Dynamo drug discovery platform and initial product candidates. We have no products approved for commercial sale and therefore have never generated any revenue from product sales, and we do not expect to in the foreseeable future. We have not obtained regulatory approvals for any of our product candidates and there is no assurance that we will obtain approvals in the future. We expect to continue to incur significant expenses and operating losses over the next several years and for the foreseeable future. Our prior losses, combined with expected future losses, have had and will continue to have an adverse effect on our stockholders’ deficit and working capital.

62

We have incurred significant operating losses since our inception and anticipate that we will incur continued losses for the foreseeable future.

Substantially all of our operating losses have resulted from costs incurred in connection with our research and development programs and from general and administrative costs associated with our operations. We expect our research and development expenses to significantly increase in connection with the commencement and continuation of clinical trials of our product candidates. In addition, if we obtain marketing approval for our product candidates, we will incur significant sales, marketing and outsourced-manufacturing expenses. We will also continue to incur additional costs associated with operating as a public company. As a result, we expect to continue to incur significant and increasing operating losses for the foreseeable future. Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with developing pharmaceutical products, we are unable to predict the extent of any future losses or when we will become profitable, if at all. Even if we do become profitable, we may not be able to sustain or increase our profitability on a quarterly or annual basis.

The amount of our future losses is uncertain and our quarterly operating results may fluctuate significantly or may fall below the expectations of investors or securities analysts, each of which may cause our stock price to fluctuate or decline. Our quarterly and annual operating results may fluctuate significantly in the future due to a variety of factors, many of which are outside of our control and may be difficult to predict, including the following:

The cumulative effects of these factors could result in large fluctuations and unpredictability in our quarterly and annual operating results. As a result, comparing our operating results on a period-to-period basis may not be meaningful. This variability and unpredictability could also result in our failing to meet the expectations of industry or securities analysts or investors for any period. If our revenue or operating results fall below the expectations of analysts or investors or below any forecasts we may provide to the market, or if the forecasts we provide to the market are below the expectations of analysts or investors, the price of our common stock could decline substantially. Such a stock price decline could occur even when we have met any previously publicly stated guidance we may provide.

63

We have no products approved for commercial sale and we have not generated any revenue from product sales.

Our ability to become profitable depends upon our ability to generate revenue. To date, we have no products approved for commercial sale, we have not generated any revenue from our product sales and we do not expect to generate any revenue from the sale of products in the near future. We do not expect to generate significant revenue unless and until we obtain marketing approval of, and begin to sell one or more of our product candidates. Our ability to generate revenue depends on a number of factors, including, but not limited to, our ability to:

If we do not achieve one or more of these factors in a timely manner or at all, we may experience significant delays in our commercialization efforts or we may be unable to successfully commercialize our product candidates at all, which would materially harm our business and prospects. In addition, if we do not receive regulatory approvals for our product candidates, we may not be able to continue our operations.

Risks Related to Raising Additional Capital

We will need to raise substantial additional funding. If we are unable to raise capital when needed, we would be forced to delay, reduce or eliminate some of our product development programs or commercialization efforts.

The development of pharmaceutical products is capital-intensive. We are continuing our clinical trials of our lead product candidates, RLY-4008 and RLY-2608, and advancing our other product candidates through preclinical development. We expect our expenses to increase in connection with our ongoing activities, particularly as we continue the research and development of, initiate clinical trials of, and seek marketing approval for, our product candidates. In addition, depending on the status of regulatory approval or, if we obtain marketing approval for any of our product candidates, we expect to incur significant commercialization expenses related to product sales, marketing, manufacturing and distribution. We may also need to raise additional funds sooner if we choose to pursue additional indications and/or geographies for our product candidates or otherwise

64

expand more rapidly than we presently anticipate. Furthermore, we continue to incur additional costs associated with operating as a public 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 fail to do so on attractive terms, we would be forced to delay, reduce or eliminate certain of our research and development programs or future commercialization efforts.

We expect that our existing cash and cash equivalents and investments will be sufficient to fund our operations through at least the next 12 months. Our future capital requirements will depend on and could increase significantly as a result of many factors, including: