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 001-39323

VAXCYTE, INC.

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its Charter)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (650) 837-0111

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 the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates of the Registrant, based on the closing price of its Common Stock on the Nasdaq Global Select Market on June 30, 2022, the last business day of the Registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter, was approximately $1.1 billion. Shares of the Registrant’s common stock held by each executive officer, director and holder of 10% or more of the outstanding common stock have been excluded in that such persons may be deemed to be affiliates. This calculation does not reflect a determination that certain persons are affiliates of the Registrant for any other purpose.

The number of shares of Registrant’s Common Stock outstanding as of February 23, 2023 was 80,033,727.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Table of Contents

Unless the context otherwise requires, all references in this Annual Report on Form 10-K to “we,” “us,” “our,” “our company” and “Vaxcyte” refer to Vaxcyte, Inc.

“Vaxcyte,” “eCRM,” and other trademarks of ours appearing in this report are our property. This report contains additional trade names and trademarks of other companies. We do not intend our use or display of other companies’ trade names or trademarks to imply an endorsement or sponsorship of us by such companies, or any relationship with any of these companies.

i

Special Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements

This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains forward-looking statements about us and our industry that involve substantial risks and uncertainties. All statements other than statements of historical facts contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including statements regarding our future results of operations or financial condition, business strategy and plans and objectives of management for future operations, are forward-looking statements. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements because they contain words such as “anticipate,” “believe,” “contemplate,” “continue,” “could,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “may,” “plan,” “potential,” “predict,” “project,” “seek,” “should,” “target,” “will,” or “would,” or the negative of these words or other similar terms or expressions. Forward-looking statements contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K include, but are not limited to, statements about:

Actual events or results may differ from those expressed in forward-looking statements. You should not rely on forward-looking statements as predictions of future events. We have based the forward-looking statements contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K primarily on our current expectations and projections about future events and trends that we believe may affect our business, financial condition and operating results. The outcome of the events described in these forward-looking statements is subject to risks, uncertainties and other factors described in the section titled “Risk Factors” and elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Moreover, we operate in a very competitive and rapidly changing environment. New risks and uncertainties emerge from time to time, and it is not possible for us to predict all risks and uncertainties that could have an impact on the forward-looking statements contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. The results, events and circumstances reflected in the

ii

forward-looking statements may not be achieved or occur, and actual results, events or circumstances could differ materially from those described in the forward-looking statements.

In addition, statements that “we believe” and similar statements reflect our beliefs and opinions on the relevant subject. These statements are based on information available to us as of the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. While we believe that information provides a reasonable basis for these statements, that information may be limited or incomplete. Our statements should not be read to indicate that we have conducted an exhaustive inquiry into, or review of, all relevant information. These statements are inherently uncertain, and investors are cautioned not to unduly rely on these statements.

The forward-looking statements made in this Annual Report on Form 10-K relate only to events as of the date on which the statements are made. We undertake no obligation to update any forward-looking statements made in this Annual Report on Form 10-K to reflect events or circumstances after the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K or to reflect new information or the occurrence of unanticipated events, except as required by law. We may not actually achieve the plans, intentions or expectations disclosed in our forward-looking statements, and you should not place undue reliance on our forward-looking statements. Our forward-looking statements do not reflect the potential impact of any future acquisitions, mergers, dispositions, joint ventures or investments.

Summary of Risks Affecting Our Business

Our business is subject to numerous risks and uncertainties, including those discussed more fully in the section titled “Risk Factors” in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. These risks include, but are not limited to, the following:

iii

iv

PART I

Item 1. Business.

Overview

We are a clinical-stage vaccine innovation company engineering high-fidelity vaccines to protect humankind from the consequences of bacterial diseases. We are developing broad-spectrum conjugate and novel protein vaccines to prevent or treat bacterial infectious diseases. We are re-engineering the way highly complex vaccines are made through modern synthetic techniques, including advanced chemistry and the XpressCF™ cell-free protein synthesis platform, exclusively licensed from Sutro Biopharma, Inc., or Sutro Biopharma. Unlike conventional cell-based approaches, our system for producing difficult-to-make proteins and antigens is intended to accelerate our ability to efficiently create and deliver high-fidelity vaccines with enhanced immunological benefits.

Vaccines are one of the most successful and cost-effective global health interventions and prevent millions of deaths worldwide each year. Routine pediatric vaccinations are estimated to prevent 20 million cases of disease each year, saving over $180 billion in direct and societal costs in the United States alone. Adult vaccination rates are lower than pediatric vaccination rates, but new technologies are driving adult vaccine development, which in turn is fueling the growth of the overall vaccine market. Given the critical role vaccines play in preventing disease from childhood to adulthood, the global vaccine market is large, durable and growing. Therefore, there are areas of unmet medical need, including vaccines that can provide broader protection than currently marketed vaccines and novel vaccines that target pathogens for which there are no currently approved vaccines. We are driven to eradicate or treat invasive bacterial infections, which have serious and costly health consequences when left unchecked.

We carefully select our target disease areas and vaccine candidates based on the following criteria: areas of significant unmet medical need, well-defined commercial landscape and efficient market adoption, acceptable biological risk and established clinical pathways. We are leveraging our scalable cell-free protein synthesis platform to develop potentially superior and novel conjugate and protein vaccine candidates for adult and pediatric indications using these criteria.

Our pipeline includes:

1

2

Our modern synthetic techniques, including advanced chemistry and the XpressCF cell-free protein synthesis platform, offer several advantages over conventional cell-based protein expression methods, which we believe enable us to generate superior, novel, more broad-spectrum and/or more immunogenic vaccines. In the context of conjugate vaccines, we believe we can add more antigenic strains without compromising the overall immune response. In particular, our ability to specify the attachment point of antigens, including polysaccharides, on protein carriers represents a significant improvement over the random conjugation that occurs with conventional technologies. This site-specific conjugation is designed to ensure that B-cell and/or T-cell epitopes are optimally exposed, maximizing the immune response, whereas random conjugation blocks these critical immunogenic epitopes, which dampens the immune response and may lead to a phenomenon known as carrier suppression.

We believe this precise control of conjugation chemistry enables us to design broader-spectrum conjugate vaccine candidates using carrier-sparing conjugates that use less protein carrier without sacrificing immunogenicity. We are also able to design novel conjugate vaccine candidates using standard amounts of protein carrier to generate heightened immunogenicity. Beyond conjugate vaccines, we believe we can also design novel protein vaccine candidates based on well-appreciated but highly complex antigens that currently cannot be made using conventional technologies to address diseases for which there are no available vaccines. In addition, our platform enables us to rapidly screen vaccine candidates, requiring less effort than conventional chemistry which allows us to produce and iterate conjugate candidates, thereby dramatically accelerating the development cycle of designing, producing and testing vaccine candidates.

Our Approach

To address areas of significant unmet medical need, we carefully select the disease areas we target and are developing vaccine candidates based on the following criteria:

3

Our Platform

We are re-engineering the way highly complex vaccines are made through modern synthetic techniques, including advanced chemistry and the XpressCF cell-free protein synthesis platform to develop potentially superior and novel conjugate and protein vaccine candidates for adult and pediatric indications using the above criteria by taking advantage of the following:

Our Strategy

Our goal is to become a leader in the vaccines industry by using our cell-free protein synthesis platform to develop superior and/or novel vaccines to prevent or treat serious infectious diseases. Key elements of our strategy include:

4

5

6

Our Pipeline

We have utilized our cell-free protein synthesis platform to generate a pipeline of vaccine candidates that we believe, if approved, may offer important advantages over existing vaccines or for which there are no vaccines available today. The following table summarizes our current pipeline:

Global Vaccine Market (Excluding COVID-19 Vaccines)

The global vaccine market, excluding COVID-19 vaccines, was approximately $45 to $50 billion in 2022 and is expected to grow at an 10% CAGR to approximately $67 billion by 2026. The World Health Organization, or WHO, has reported that non-COVID vaccine revenues have grown at nearly twice the rate of therapeutic products over the last two decades. Conjugate vaccines, including PCVs, have historically represented the largest segment (approximately a third) of the global non-COVID vaccine market. The Prevnar franchise from Pfizer Inc., or Pfizer, comprised of Prevnar 13, or PCV13, and PCV20, was among the highest selling non-COVID vaccine products in the world in 2022, accounting for approximately 14% of global non-COVID vaccine sales.

The pediatric vaccine market is large and well-established in the United States and European Union and growing in emerging countries. The annual new birth cohort, which in the United States and Europe approached approximately 11 million in 2022, drives ongoing sales year after year. In the United States, once a new vaccine is approved by the FDA, the ACIP considers whether to recommend the use of the vaccine. New pediatric vaccines that receive a preferred recommendation from ACIP are nearly universally adopted by pediatricians and parents and are required by many schools, contributing to a national immunization rate for the diseases targeted by such vaccines of approximately 90%.

In addition, the adult vaccine market is currently undergoing rapid growth. Vaccination rates among adults have historically been lower and vary by disease, though strong initiatives are underway to increase awareness and utilization. Excluding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, studies estimate that 40,000 to 80,000 adults in the United States die annually of vaccine-preventable diseases, and hundreds of thousands more are hospitalized. In recent years, manufacturers have started developing more vaccines for the adult market, with Pfizer’s PCV13 and PCV20, Merck & Co., Inc.'s, or Merck, Vaxneuvance, or PCV15, and GSK plc's, or GSK, Shingrix each representing successful examples. The U.S. adult pneumococcal market generated annual sales of

7

over $2 billion, and Shingrix, a vaccine for shingles (herpes zoster) debuted with over $1 billion in sales in 2018 as it replaced Merck’s incumbent vaccine, Zostavax, after receiving an ACIP preferred recommendation, and generated over $2.5 billion in sales in 2020.

The complex development and production processes of vaccines create a high barrier to entry and long product lifecycles. In recent history, four multinational companies—GSK, Merck, Pfizer and Sanofi have been responsible for developing and introducing most new vaccines to the world. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, there have been a number of new entrants into the vaccines market, including multinational companies such as Johnson & Johnson, and emerging biopharmaceutical companies.

Pneumococcal Disease

Pneumococcal disease is an infection caused by Streptococcus pneumoniae (pneumococcus) bacteria. It can result in IPD, including meningitis and bacteremia, and non-invasive pneumococcal disease, including pneumonia, otitis media and sinusitis. The global incidence of pneumococcal disease is driven by emerging serotypes not covered by currently available vaccines. In the United States, approximately 320,000 people get pneumococcal pneumonia each year, which is estimated to result in approximately 150,000 hospitalizations and 5,000 deaths. Pneumococci also cause over 50% of all cases of bacterial meningitis in the United States. Antibiotics are used to treat pneumococcal disease, but some strains of the bacteria have developed resistance to treatments. The morbidity and mortality due to pneumococcal disease are highly significant, particularly for young children and older adults, underscoring the need for a more broad-spectrum vaccine.

Evolution of Pneumococcal Vaccines

There are currently two types of vaccines targeting pneumococcal disease—polysaccharide-only vaccines and polysaccharide-conjugate vaccines. Polysaccharide vaccines contain polysaccharide antigens, which induce antibodies (B-cell responses) that bind to a bacteria’s outer coating of polysaccharides and clear the bacteria. PCVs improve on polysaccharide vaccines by attaching, or conjugating, the polysaccharide antigen to a non-disease specific protein carrier. PCVs induce both an improved B-cell response and a T-cell response, resulting in a stronger and more durable immune response and longer-lasting protection, as compared to polysaccharide vaccines, which only induce a B-cell response.

Pneumococcal Polysaccharide-Only Vaccines

PPSV23, manufactured and marketed by Merck is the only pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine widely available. PPSV23 is indicated for the prevention of pneumococcal disease in adults and was first approved in the United States in 1977, at which time it contained 14 different strains of pneumococcal bacteria. In 1983, it was replaced by the current version containing 23 different strains. PPSV23 is routinely administered to adults to provide protection against bacteremia and generates sales of over $600 million per year.

Polysaccharide vaccines induce a B-cell response only and do not induce a T-cell dependent immune response. In the absence of immunological memory responses, the resulting antibody responses are transient and cannot be boosted. Without the ability to provide long-lasting durable immunity, polysaccharide vaccines are not effective in children below two years of age. In addition, the antibody responses primarily consist of immunoglobulin M, or IgM, antibodies that, due to their size, are restricted to blood and are unable to penetrate into lung tissue to protect against pneumonia. Therefore, polysaccharide vaccines such as PPSV23 are only thought to protect against blood-borne infections, such as bacteremia. Figure 1 below illustrates polysaccharide-induced T-cell independent antibody responses.

8

Figure 1.

Graphics adapted from Strugnell et al, Understanding Modern Vaccines, Vol 1, Issue 1, 61-88.

Polysaccharide vaccines also interfere with optimal use of PCVs, as they create a hyporesponsive immune effect. In particular, absent T-cell inducement, polysaccharide vaccines actually clear the memory B-cells that are formed following primary immunization with a PCV, thereby eliminating the ability to boost with subsequent vaccination. This historically has been a significant drawback of vaccination in older adults, which consisted of the administration of a limited spectrum PCV followed by the administration of a polysaccharide vaccine. Despite these shortcomings, PPSV23 historically has been widely used primarily to provide protection against circulating strains not contained in the currently available PCV. The current standard of care, which consists of the administration of either PCV20 alone or PCV15 followed by the administration of PPSV23, in adults, or PCV13 or PCV15 in infants, continues to include the alternative of a polysaccharide vaccine.

Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccines

PCVs overcome the limitations of polysaccharide vaccines by conjugating the polysaccharide to a more immunogenic protein carrier containing T-cell epitopes. These T-cell epitopes provide CD4+ help, which is critical to the conversion of a traditional B-cell dependent immune response to a more robust combined B-cell and T-cell dependent immune response. The T-cell response causes immediate class switching of the B-cells from more rudimentary IgM antibodies prevalent with polysaccharide vaccines to more refined IgG antibodies. IgG antibodies are refined enough to penetrate into lung tissues to prevent pneumonia. Furthermore, as polysaccharide strands attach to multiple copies of the protein carrier, they create an inter-strand cross-linked matrix structure, which the immune system easily recognizes as foreign. The T-cell dependent immune response also generates memory B-cells that can be re-stimulated, creating a prime-boost immune response and enabling a more robust and durable immune response, enabling the use of PCVs in young children. Figure 2 below illustrates this immune response:

9

Figure 2.

The first PCV, Prevnar, was a 7-valent vaccine that was launched in the United States in 2000. It included purified capsular polysaccharides of seven serotypes of S. pneumoniae (4, 6B, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F), each of which was individually conjugated to a T-cell-epitope-containing, nontoxic variant of diphtheria toxin known as CRM197 to produce seven separate conjugates. To obtain approval, a large field efficacy study was conducted that demonstrated the vaccine’s efficacy in infants. Efficacy correlated with serological immune endpoints, as measured by IgG titers (a measurement of concentration), and a seroconversion threshold (or reference antibody concentration) of protection was defined. Prevnar is credited with tremendous medical and commercial success, having dramatically reduced circulating disease in children. However, after a number of years of widespread use, IPD incidence caused by strains not contained in the vaccine started to opportunistically rise, a phenomenon called serotype replacement, which led to the need for a broader-spectrum version of the vaccine.

In the race to develop a broader-spectrum PCV than Prevnar, two vaccines were successfully developed: Synflorix, a 10-valent PCV from GSK, and PCV13, a 13-valent PCV from Wyeth (subsequently acquired by Pfizer). Based on its broader coverage of then-emerging strains, PCV13 was adopted as the standard of care in the United States and Europe. Synflorix continues to be used primarily in emerging countries.

PCV13 contains the seven serotypes originally included in Prevnar plus six more serotypes of S. pneumoniae (1, 3, 5, 6A, 7F and 19A) and was approved and launched in the United States in 2010. Each polysaccharide is conjugated to CRM197 to produce 13 individual conjugates, which are mixed into a final vaccine formulation and then adsorbed to alum. In 2010, PCV13 obtained FDA approval for the prevention of IPD in infants based on non-inferior IgG antibody responses relative to Prevnar, using the surrogate immune endpoints established by the prior Prevnar field efficacy study. While PCV13 failed to achieve non-inferiority on two of the common seven strains relative to Prevnar, it was granted approval across all 13 strains. Upon receipt of the ACIP preferred recommendation, PCV13 replaced Prevnar in the infant market as the standard of care. This also created a “catch-up” population for those children previously vaccinated with Prevnar to provide protection against the incremental serotypes covered by PCV13.

PCV13 has also received accelerated approval for the prevention of IPD and pneumonia in adults in the United States based on non-inferior OPA responses as compared to PPSV23. To fulfill a post-marketing commitment, a large-scale field efficacy study of adults in the Netherlands was completed in 2013, which showed protection against community-acquired pneumonia and concordance between OPA and protection from community-acquired pneumonia. Thus, OPA was established as a validated surrogate immune endpoint in adults to support future regulatory approvals. PCV13 subsequently received an ACIP preferred recommendation for adults 65 years and older, and the standard of care was amended to first vaccinate with PCV13, and then after a waiting period, PPSV23. This dual vaccine regimen provides some protection against the circulating strains over and above PCV13 but we believe creates coverage gaps and patient compliance and convenience challenges.

10

PCV13 quickly became the highest selling product in the global vaccine market. However, at the time of ACIP’s recommendation in 2014, it was determined that the recommendation would be revisited in four years to evaluate the impact of PCV13 on pneumococcal disease burden in older adults. In June 2019, the ACIP downgraded its recommendation of PCV13 for older adults, given the lack of disease caused by the incorporated strains, and instead began directing physicians and patients to decide whether to vaccinate on a case-by-case basis while still recommending universal vaccination with PPSV23 due to its broader coverage.

In an effort to develop even broader-spectrum PCVs than PCV13, two vaccines were successfully developed for the adult population: PCV20, a 20-valent PCV from Pfizer, and PCV15, a 15-valent PCV from Merck.

PCV20 contains the 13 serotypes included in PCV13 plus seven more serotypes of S. pneumoniae (8, 10A, 11A, 12F, 15B, 22F and 33F) and was granted regulatory approval and launched in the United States in 2021 for the prevention of IPD in adults based on non-inferior OPA responses relative to PCV13 without the need for a field efficacy study. While PCV20 failed to achieve non-inferiority on serotype 8 relative to PPSV23, it was still granted approval across all 20 strains.

PCV15 contains the 13 serotypes included in PCV13 plus two more serotypes of S. pneumoniae (22F and 33F) and was granted regulatory approval and launched in the United States in 2021 for the prevention of IPD in adults based on non-inferior OPA responses relative to PCV13 without the need for a field efficacy study.

In October 2021, the ACIP voted to recommend universal vaccination for the use of either PCV20 alone or PCV15 with PPSV23 for routine use in adults aged 65 years and older as well as for those between the ages of 19 and 64 years with certain underlying medical conditions or other risk factors. In October 2022, the ACIP voted to recommend a dose of PCV20 for adults aged 65 years and older at least five years after the last pneumococcal vaccine dose for those who haven't previously received PCV20.

PCV15 was granted regulatory approval and launched in the United States in June 2022 for the prevention of IPD in infants. Pfizer has a Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA, goal date of April 2023 for PCV20 in infants.

Drawbacks for Current PCVs

Routine immunization with PCVs has been effective in dramatically lowering the incidence of IPD in both adults and children in the United States and other industrialized nations. However, due to a phenomenon called serotype replacement, strains that are not covered by existing vaccines are increasing in prevalence. As published in 2020, over 71% of IPD incidence in 2017 for both children and adults was caused by strains beyond the 13 strains covered by PCV13. Efforts to improve upon current standard of care vaccines center around expanding the valency of PCVs to address the strains driving residual pneumococcal disease. However, limitations due to conventional conjugation chemistry and carrier suppression have complicated those efforts, and notwithstanding the recent approvals of PCV20 and PCV15, there remains a significant need for broader-spectrum PCVs, as evidenced by the fact that despite PCV20’s broader coverage, the combination of PCV15 and PPSV23 remains universally recommended in adults, as an alternative to PCV20 alone, given its broader-spectrum coverage.

While vaccination with current PCVs has been effective in dramatically lowering the incidence of IPD in both adults and children in the United States and other industrialized nations, current PCVs suffer from the following drawbacks.

Serotype Replacement

Current PCVs do not address circulating strains causing the majority of pneumococcal disease. Since its introduction, there has been a decrease in the incidence of disease attributable to the serotypes covered by PCV13 but an increase in incidence attributable to the incremental 11 strains that now cause most residual disease. Such change is driven by the void created when serotypes are taken out of circulation after widespread vaccination, which is a phenomenon known as serotype replacement. As a result of such change, broader-spectrum PCVs are required

11

to maintain protection against historically pathogenic strains while expanding coverage to address current circulating and emerging strains.

To date, the most comprehensive pneumococcal disease surveillance has been conducted by the CDC in the United States and by the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence, in the United Kingdom. As shown in Figure 3, IPD cases in adults in the United States initially declined after the introduction of PCV13 but have since plateaued. As published in 2020, non-covered serotypes were responsible for over 71% of IPD incidence in 2017 for both children and adults. The rate of serotype replacement has been more pronounced in the United Kingdom. Figure 4 shows the approximate IPD incidence rates in the United Kingdom caused by the incremental 11 strains over and above those in PCV13, which increased over the last three years of surveillance.

While these 11 strains are covered by PPSV23, that vaccine only protects against blood-borne infections and not pneumonia, leaving patients vulnerable to infection. Although PCV20 and PCV15 address more disease-causing strains than PCV13, we believe there remains a significant need for even broader-spectrum vaccines to address a greater number of currently circulating and emerging strains.

Carrier Suppression

Technical constraints inherent to conventional conjugation chemistry limit the coverage of current PCVs due to a phenomenon known as carrier suppression. In particular, traditional conjugation methods cannot control where conjugation of the polysaccharide occurs on the protein carrier. The protein carrier used in all versions of Prevnar is CRM197, a diphtheria toxin with a single point mutation rendering it non-toxic. The CRM197 protein contains 39 lysines, approximately 20% of which border relevant T-cell epitopes. Conventional conjugation chemistry randomly attaches the polysaccharide to any of the numerous lysines located on the protein carrier. When a polysaccharide is covalently bound to a protein carrier at a lysine residue that is co-resident with a T-cell epitope, it blocks the presentation of the T-cell epitope to the immune system, thus preventing the induction of a T-cell response. The masking of these critical epitopes prevents the conversion to a T-cell dependent immune response and negates the benefit of the protein carrier.

Meanwhile, the B-cell epitopes of both the protein carrier and the antigen are presented to the immune system, causing B-cells to the respective immunogens to compete with one another for the T-cell help engendered by unblocked T-cell epitopes. This competition for T-cell help diminishes the immune response to the polysaccharide antigen of interest, resulting in carrier suppression.

The result of carrier suppression is a decrease in the targeted immune response to the disease-specific polysaccharides, which intensifies with higher cumulative amounts of protein carrier. This phenomenon impedes the

12

ability to expand coverage of current PCVs and has been shown consistently when broader-spectrum versions of conventional PCVs have been compared to lesser-valent versions. When PCV13 was compared to Prevnar (Pfizer’s first generation 7-valent PCV) in a well-controlled Phase 3 study in infants, the IgG antibody responses directed against the polysaccharides of interest for all seven of the common strains in each vaccine were lower for PCV13 (Figure 5). In 2020, Pfizer presented results of a well-controlled Phase 3 study in adults, aged 60 and over, where they compared PCV20 to PCV13. In that study, the OPA responses directed against the polysaccharides of interest for all thirteen of the common strains were lower for the 20-valent development candidate (Figure 6). In 2021, Pfizer presented results of a well-controlled Phase 2 in infants, where they compared PCV20 to PCV 13. In that study, the IgG Geometric Mean Concentrations, or GMCs, one month after the third dose were lower for all 13 of the common strains of the 20-valent development candidate (Figure 7).

Figure 7.

1 Yeh et al, Pediatrics. 126:e493 (2010).

2 PCV20 BLA Clinical Review Memorandum. STN: 125731/0 June 8, 2021.

3 Clintrials.gov NCT03512288 Phase 2 study (N=460), posted March 2, 2021.

Conventional Chemistry

The problem of carrier suppression is compounded by conventional conjugation chemistry used to make current PCVs, including PCV13, PCV20 and PCV15, which requires a higher amount of CRM197 protein carrier than polysaccharide antigen to complete the conjugation reaction, as well as long reaction times and harsh conditions that can damage the critical epitopes on the polysaccharide antigens. This results in a higher ratio of protein carrier to polysaccharide antigen in their monovalent conjugates (approximately 1.1 on average), as well as a much higher amount of cumulative protein carrier in the final formulation compared to the amount of any given polysaccharide antigen. For example, in the marketed PCV13 formulation, there are 34 micrograms of the protein carrier, CRM197, relative to 2.2 micrograms of each polysaccharide (except serotype 6B at 4.4 micrograms), and in

13

the marketed PCV20 formulation, there are 51 micrograms of CRM197 relative to 2.2 micrograms of each polysaccharide (except serotype 6B at 4.4 micrograms). With substantially more protein carrier in the vaccine than polysaccharide antigen, the carrier suppression effect discussed above is exacerbated.

Our Solution

We are leveraging our cell-free protein synthesis platform to develop potentially superior conjugate vaccines for adult and pediatric indications. Our solution to the drawbacks with conventional conjugate vaccine techniques represents the first of three main applications of our platform.

Platform Application One: Creating Superior Conjugate Vaccines

Using our cell-free protein synthesis platform, we are developing superior, novel carrier-sparing PCVs designed to have broader-spectrum coverage in an effort to address current and future residual disease in ways that conventional technologies cannot. We are able to design our investigational PCVs using site-specific conjugation in an effort to ensure optimal exposure of targeted immunogenic T-cell epitopes on protein carriers. This enables us to create broader-spectrum conjugate vaccine candidates using carrier-sparing conjugates designed to minimize carrier suppression while maintaining protective immunogenicity.

Synthesizing proteins outside of a living host cell provides us greater freedom to design and produce specific proteins of interest under optimized conditions. We separate the precise cellular machinery required for transcription, translation and energy production—the critical components for protein production—into an Escherichia coli (E. coli)-derived extract. We can then optimally express a single protein carrier by adding the plasmid-DNA encoding that protein into the extract mixture.

Site-Specific Conjugation

Within a protein carrier, we can substitute non-native amino acids, or nnAAs, for native amino acids at specific sites. These inserted nnAAs serve as conjugation anchors that permit the attachment of antigens, including polysaccharides, at a specific site on a protein carrier to ensure optimal exposure of B-cell and/or T-cell epitopes to induce the desired immune response. This precise site-specific linkage is not possible using conventional conjugation chemistry with conventional carrier proteins and affords an advantage to our conjugate vaccine candidates. Figure 8 below depicts our method of inserting nnAAs into a protein carrier, where the DNA sequence has been modified to permit nnAA incorporation into the protein at pre-selected sites using a nnAA-RNA permitting transcription and translation of the protein in the ribosome to yield the protein carrier with nnAAs site-specifically incorporated, facilitating site-specific conjugation.

Figure 8.

Most conjugate vaccines available today use a non-disease-specific protein carrier, CRM197, in order to leverage T-cell epitopes to induce a T-cell dependent immune response. This traditional method produces a

14

heterogeneous mixture of conjugates with blocked and unblocked T-cell epitopes in a large immunogenic cross-linked matrix structure. In contrast, the precision and flexibility of cell-free protein expression, together with our ability to insert nnAAs, allow us to construct our proprietary enhanced protein carrier, or eCRM, with pre-determined conjugation sites. Our method produces homogenous conjugates that provide for the consistent exposure of T-cell epitopes and likewise form a large, immunogenic cross-linked matrix structure. By precisely conjugating polysaccharides to eCRM in a way that provides for optimal exposure of T-cell epitopes to the immune system, we can heighten immunogenicity attainable with conjugate vaccines.

The figures below illustrate the site-specific conjugation process. Figure 9 shows site-specific conjugation of the polysaccharide to the protein carrier, avoiding the T-cell epitopes. Figure 10 shows the inter-strand cross-linked matrix, which is the structure of each monovalent conjugate included in the final vaccine.

We believe consistent exposure of T-cell epitopes should translate to higher potency of the protein carrier on a weight-to-weight basis. To harness this potential potency advantage, we have elected to construct conjugates with a lower ratio of protein carrier to polysaccharide than conventional PCVs. We have observed in animal models that despite having approximately half as much protein on average in each monovalent conjugate, VAX-24 had comparable immunogenicity relative to PCV13 on a strain-by-strain basis. As a result, we believe we can incorporate more monovalent conjugates to create an even more broad-spectrum vaccine with less protein carrier per conjugate in order to minimize carrier suppression.

Better Chemistry

We also employ a rapid and less harsh chemistry method called copper-free click chemistry to site-specifically conjugate the polysaccharides to eCRM. We believe this distinctive technique is a better controlled, more efficient and faster method of conjugation relative to conventional chemistry used to make traditional PCVs. The click chemistry conjugation reaction is designed to cause less damage to the critical immunogenic epitopes on the protein carrier or the target antigen.

Our PCV Franchise

We are developing broad-spectrum investigational PCVs designed to minimize carrier suppression.

VAX-24

Our lead vaccine candidate, VAX-24, is designed to improve upon the standard of care by potentially covering an additional 10-28 percent of strains causing IPD in adults over the current standard-of-care PCVs. The 24 serotypes that comprise VAX-24 eclipse the coverage of all currently available conjugate and polysaccharide-only vaccines to prevent IPD. The 24 serotypes included in VAX-24 cover a significant portion of the IPD currently in circulation and are associated with high case-fatality rates, antibiotic resistance and meningitis. On October 24,

15

2022, we announced positive topline results from both the Phase 1 and Phase 2 portions of a clinical proof-of-concept study evaluating the safety, tolerability and immunogenicity of VAX-24 in healthy adults aged 18-64 .

VAX-24 includes 24 purified capsular polysaccharides of S. pneumoniae (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6A, 6B, 7F, 8, 9N, 9V, 10A, 11A, 12F, 14, 15B, 17F, 18C, 19A, 19F, 20, 22F, 23F and 33F), each of which is conjugated to eCRM to produce 24 monovalent conjugates. These conjugates are mixed into a final vaccine formulation and then adsorbed to alum.

As shown in Figure 11 below, there are critical differences between VAX-24 and other currently available PCVs relating to the protein carrier, particularly the use of site-specific conjugation and the milder reaction conditions. We achieve site-specific conjugation through the insertion of multiple nnAAs, which is not possible with the conventional chemistry used for making other PCVs. The click chemistry we use for site-specific conjugation may also minimize damage to the critical immunogenic epitopes on the protein carrier and the polysaccharides through milder and shorter reactions, while other PCVs use conventional chemistries that involve harsher and longer reaction conditions.

Figure 11.

Furthermore, VAX-24 nearly doubles the serotype spectrum of coverage of PCV13, yet contains a similar aggregate amount of protein carrier. We believe the resulting decreased carrier burden per conjugate of VAX-24 is critical for minimizing carrier suppression and producing broader-spectrum pneumococcal vaccines without sacrificing immunogenicity.

Where appropriate, we capitalize on the efficiencies of well-established clinical, manufacturing and regulatory precedents by leveraging conventional methods for the development of VAX-24. For example, our polysaccharide antigens are primarily made using conventional fermentation and purification techniques and activated through conventional methods. They are also labeled through conventional amination methods prior to being conjugated to eCRM. In addition, we use the same critical quality attribute assays for molecular weight and free polysaccharide that have served as the physicochemical measures of conjugates and also serve as predictors of their immunogenicity in vivo. We also use conventional IgG and OPA serological assays to gauge the immunogenicity of our conjugates, which have served as surrogate immunological endpoints in clinical studies that enabled the approval of PCV13, PCV20 and PCV15.

We leveraged the same animal models that were utilized in the development of approved PCVs. In particular, our preclinical studies utilized a recognized rabbit model that Pfizer used in its development of Prevnar, PCV13 and PCV20, that Merck used in its development of PCV15 and that GSK used in its development of Synflorix. We believe the demonstration of conjugate-like immune responses in rabbits that results in killing of bacteria via OPA and induction of IgG antibody responses are key development milestones and are critical readouts for the development of PCVs. In our preclinical studies, the rabbit model showed consistent immunological responsiveness across all strains for which we tested our conjugates and differentiated conjugated versus

16

unconjugated polysaccharide responses (i.e., T-cell dependent versus T-cell independent responses). The rabbit model also provided evidence regarding VAX-24’s potential to generate a booster response.

We are pursuing what to date has been a well-characterized clinical development path for VAX-24, consistent with other PCV developers. We anticipate that we will be able to conduct smaller and shorter clinical trials that target immune endpoints (e.g., OPA and IgG responses) previously recognized by regulatory authorities. Pfizer applied this approach to the development of PCV13 and PCV20 and Merck applied it to the development of PCV15. Based on this standard to date, as a prerequisite for regulatory approval, we believe that any investigational PCV will have to be compared to the standard of care at the time a clinical trial is initiated. Currently, the standard of care is either PCV20 alone or PCV15 followed by PPSV23 in adults and PCV13 or PCV15 in infants.

Preclinical Data

To obtain preclinical proof of concept on our way to the clinic, we evaluated VAX-24 compared to the then standard of care, PCV13, and assessed the comparative immune responses of VAX-24 using the same rabbit model utilized by other PCV developers. We dosed rabbits in our preclinical studies with 0.11mcg, as measured by the amount of polysaccharide in each conjugate, for each of the 24 conjugates in VAX-24, as well as 0.11mcg for the thirteen conjugates in PCV13 (except serotype 6B at 0.22mcg) and compared both PCVs immunogenically to each other and to PPSV23, where each of the 23 polysaccharides were dosed at 1.1mcg. The doses are representative of body weight differences in humans versus rabbits and roughly correspond to the dose differential between PCVs and polysaccharide-only vaccines. In humans, PCV13 is dosed at 2.2mcg per conjugate (except serotype 6B at 4.4mcg) or approximately one-tenth the dose of PPSV23, where each polysaccharide is dosed at 25mcg. The species of rabbits used were approximately five percent of the average weight of humans in North America, thus 0.11mcg approximates to the 2.2mcg dose for PCVs and the 1.1mcg dose approximates to the 25mcg dose for PPSV23.

We completed multiple preclinical proof-of-concept studies of VAX-24 compared to PCV13 and PPSV23 in rabbits. The endpoints of the studies were to measure, on a serotype-specific basis, IgG antibody responses, the surrogate endpoint for pediatrics, and OPA responses, the surrogate endpoint for adults. Initial proof of concept was obtained with research-grade raw materials and conjugates made at Vaxcyte prior to initiating technology transfer to Lonza and production scale-up. For subsequent preclinical studies, conjugates were made at Vaxcyte at small-scale using optimized processes and procedures using Lonza-produced raw materials, including our proprietary eCRM carrier and all 24 polysaccharides that had already been tech transferred and scaled up. In anticipation of clinical evaluation and potential commercial launch, we further scaled our manufacturing, completing a technology transfer of the optimized processes and procedures for the production of each of the 24 conjugates in VAX-24. The conjugates were then produced at Lonza at an over fifteen-fold scale increase to the prior scale at Vaxcyte. At each stage, all 24 of the conjugates in VAX-24 met the critical quality attributes and the combination vaccine was administered in the rabbit model.

In each of our preclinical studies, VAX-24 showed comparable or superior OPA responses at 1/10th the dose of PPSV23 and comparable OPA responses to an equivalent dose of PCV13 on a serotype-by-serotype basis. Additionally, VAX-24 showed superior IgG antibody responses at 1/10th the dose of PPSV23 and comparable IgG responses to an equivalent dose of PCV13 on a serotype-by-serotype basis.
 

VAX-24 Clinical Development Plan

To accelerate our time to market, we are pursuing clinical development first in the United States for adults and then in the pediatric population. We achieved clinical proof of concept in October 2022 when we announced positive topline results from a Phase 1/2 study evaluating the safety, tolerability and immunogenicity of VAX-24 in healthy adults aged 18-64, and we continue to advance our adult clinical development program. For adults, the FDA has granted VAX-24 Fast Track and Breakthrough Therapy designations which are designed to facilitate the development and expedite the review of drugs, including vaccines, that treat or prevent serious conditions and fill an unmet medical need. For the pediatric population, we announced in late February 2023 the FDA cleared the VAX-24 IND application for the prevention of IPD in infants. We plan to initiate the infant Phase 2 study in the second quarter of 2023, with topline safety, tolerability and immunogenicity data following the primary

17

three-dose immunization series expected by 2025. The study design will include a primary immunization series consisting of three doses followed by a subsequent booster dose.

Adult Indication

We are using OPA titers as the primary immunogenicity endpoint for the VAX-24 program in adults. OPA is believed to be the primary protective mechanism against pneumococcal disease. In addition, we are measuring IgG responses as a secondary endpoint, as such responses may serve as supportive evidence of immunogenicity for comparison. We currently believe that these endpoints, if met in a Phase 3 trial, will be sufficient to obtain regulatory approval of VAX-24 and do not anticipate the need for a clinical field efficacy trial. However, we have not yet obtained feedback from the FDA regarding our pivotal Phase 3 clinical development plans or the acceptability of our approach.

The FDA has previously approved pneumococcal vaccines upon the establishment of non-inferiority based on a head-to-head comparison using established surrogate immune endpoints in the target population. For adults, PCV13 was approved based on the establishment of non-inferiority of OPA responses relative to PPSV23, on a strain-by-strain basis, where non-inferiority was defined as greater than or equal to 0.50 of the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the OPA geometric mean titer ratio. PCV20 and PCV15 were approved based on the same non-inferiority criterion but compared with PCV13 and PPSV23.

Phase 1/2 Clinical Proof-of-Concept Study in Adults Aged 18 to 64

Our first-in-human study was a randomized, observer-blind, dose-finding, controlled Phase 1/2 clinical proof-of-concept study designed to evaluate the safety, tolerability and immunogenicity of VAX-24 in healthy adults. The Phase 1 portion of the study evaluated the safety and tolerability of a single injection of VAX-24 at three dose levels, 1.1mcg, 2.2mcg and 2.2mcg/4.4mcg, and compared to PCV20 in 64 healthy adults aged 18 to 49. Participants were randomized equally in four separate arms and were evaluated for safety 8 and 29 days after dosing. The Phase 2 portion evaluated the safety, tolerability and immunogenicity of a single injection of VAX-24 at the same three dose levels and compared to a single injection of PCV20 in 771 healthy adults 50 to 64 years of age. Participants were randomized equally in four separate arms and approximately 28 days after participants were dosed, samples were collected to assess immunogenicity. The immunogenicity objectives of the Phase 2 portion of the study included an assessment of the induction of antibody responses, using OPA and IgG, at each of the three VAX-24 doses and compared to PCV20, and for the additional four serotypes contained in VAX-24 (and PPSV23), but not in PCV20, the percentage of subjects that experienced a four-fold rise in antibody titers. Participants in the study are evaluated for safety through six months after vaccination.

Figure 12 is a schematic of the overall study design of our Phase 1/2 study:

Figure 12.

On October 24, 2022, we announced positive topline results from both the Phase 1 and Phase 2 portions of the study.

18

In this study, VAX-24 met the primary safety and tolerability objectives, demonstrating a safety profile similar to PCV20 for all doses studied. Frequently reported local and systemic reactions were generally mild-to-moderate, resolving within several days of vaccination, with no difference observed across the cohorts. No serious adverse events or new onset chronic illnesses were considered to be related to study vaccines.

Figure 13.

In this study, VAX-24 demonstrated robust OPA and IgG immune responses for all 24 serotypes at all doses studied (1.1mcg, 2.2mcg, 2.2mcg/4.4mcg). At the conventional 2.2mcg dose, which we intend to move forward into a Phase 3 program, VAX-24 met or exceeded the established regulatory immunogenicity standards for all 24 serotypes. At this dose, VAX-24 met the standard OPA response non-inferiority criteria for all 20 serotypes common with PCV20, of which 16 serotypes (3, 4, 6B, 7F, 8, 9V, 10A, 11A, 12F, 14, 15B, 18C, 19A, 19F, 23F and 33F) achieved higher immune responses and four serotypes (9V, 18C, 19F and 33F) reached statistical significance. Additionally, at all three doses, VAX-24 met the standard superiority criteria for all four serotypes (2, 9N, 17F and 20B) unique to VAX-24. VAX-24 has the potential to cover an additional 10-28 percent of strains causing IPD in adults over the current standard-of-care PCVs.

Figure 14.

19

Figure 15.

Based on the results of this study, the FDA granted Breakthrough Therapy designation for VAX-24 in adults. The FDA’s Breakthrough Therapy process is designed to expedite the development and review of drugs that are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening condition. The designation is based upon preliminary clinical evidence indicating that the drug or vaccine may demonstrate substantial improvement over available therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints. With Breakthrough Therapy designation, we will have access to all of the elements of the FDA’s Fast Track program, as well as the ability to receive guidance and support from the FDA on an efficient drug development program and an organizational commitment from senior managers within the FDA.

Phase 2 Clinical Study in Adults 65 and Older

To add to the body of data in adults, we are conducting a separate Phase 2 study for which we have completed enrollment. This study is a randomized, observer-blind, dose-finding, controlled Phase 2 study designed to evaluate the safety, tolerability and immunogenicity of a single injection of VAX-24 at the same three dose levels evaluated in the Phase 1/2 study, 1.1mcg, 2.2mcg and 2.2mcg/4.4mcg, in approximately 200 healthy adults aged 65 and older. Participants were randomized equally in four separate arms and approximately 28 days after participants were dosed, samples were collected to assess immunogenicity. The immunogenicity objectives of the study include an assessment of the induction of antibody responses, using OPA and IgG, at each of the three VAX-24 doses and compared to PCV20, and for the additional four serotypes contained in VAX-24 (and PPSV23), but not in PCV20, the percentage of subjects that experience a four-fold rise in antibody titers. This study was designed to inform the powering of a Phase 3 study and was not powered to demonstrate non-inferiority. We anticipate announcing topline safety, tolerability and immunogenicity results from this study in the second quarter of 2023. Participants in the study also are evaluated for safety through six months after vaccination.

20

Figure 16.

Adult Program Next Steps

We anticipate final results with the six-month safety data from both Phase 2 adult studies in the first half of 2023 and to hold regulatory interactions with the FDA to inform the Phase 3 program in the second half of 2023. The purposes of the VAX-24 Phase 3 program in the adult population will be to demonstrate non-inferiority to PCV20 for immunogenicity, generate a sufficient safety database in adults and establish consistency of manufacturing through a lot-to-lot consistency study. The Phase 3 non-inferiority results would then be used to seek approval of VAX-24 in the adult population. This approach is similar to the approaches utilized by Pfizer to develop PCV20 and Merck to develop PCV15, where the immunogenicity of the investigational PCVs was compared to PCV13, which was the standard of care at that time. We expect topline safety, tolerability and immunogenicity data from the Phase 3 non-inferiority study of VAX-24 in adults in 2025.

Based on Pfizer’s experience with PCV13, we believe that VAX-24, if approved, would have the potential to serve as a “catch-up” or booster for those who have previously received PPSV23 or a lower-valent PCV. We believe a study exploring serial vaccination with PCV20 and/or PPSV23 followed by VAX-24 at different intervals could generate valuable data supporting a recommendation for VAX-24 vaccination in previously vaccinated adults.

Pediatric Indication

We are also developing VAX-24 as a pediatric vaccine. In August 2022, we announced successful completion of a pre-IND meeting with the FDA regarding our pediatric clinical program for VAX-24. We received positive written feedback from the FDA supporting the initiation of a pediatric study that proceeds directly into infants contingent on satisfactory topline safety, tolerability and immunogenicity results from the VAX-24 Phase 1/2 clinical proof-of-concept study in adults 18 to 64 years of age, which we have since demonstrated. This approach provides us with an accelerated clinical path to deliver a potentially best-in-class PCV, VAX-24, to the pediatric population, which represents the largest portion of the pneumococcal vaccine market in the United States. We announced in late February 2023 the FDA cleared the VAX-24 IND application for the prevention of IPD in infants. We plan to initiate the infant Phase 2 study in the second quarter of 2023.

21

The Phase 2, randomized, observer-blind, dose-finding two-stage clinical study will evaluate the safety, tolerability and immunogenicity of VAX-24 at three dose levels (low dose/1.1mcg, middle dose/2.2mcg, mixed dose/2.2mcg or 4.4mcg) and compared to PCV15 in healthy infants. The Stage 1 portion of the study will evaluate the safety and tolerability of a single injection of VAX-24 at three dose levels compared to PCV15 in approximately 48 infants in a dose-escalation approach. The Stage 2 portion will evaluate the safety, tolerability and immunogenicity of VAX-24 at three dose levels and compared to PCV15 in approximately 750 infants. In line with recommendations from the ACIP, the study design includes a primary immunization series consisting of three doses given at two months, four months and six months of age, followed by a subsequent booster dose at 12-15 months of age. The key prespecified immunogenicity study endpoints include an assessment of immune responses for all three VAX-24 doses and compared to PCV15 on the shared serotypes measured at 30 days post-dose three, or PD3, and post-dose four, or PD4. Immune responses will be assessed based on anti-pneumococcal polysaccharide serotype-specific IgG responses (proportion of participants achieving the accepted IgG threshold value of ≥0.35mcg/ml) at 30 days PD3 and IgG geometric mean titer ratios at 30 days PD4. All participants in the study will be evaluated for safety through six months following the booster dose. We expect topline safety, tolerability and immunogenicity data following the primary three-dose immunization series expected by 2025.

Figure 17.

If dose-finding is performed in infants, the data would inform on the dose levels for each of the conjugates in the final VAX-24 infant formulation. Consistent with the approval processes for PCV13 and PCV15 in infants, we do not anticipate that a clinical field efficacy trial will be required for VAX-24 in the pediatric population. We expect the clinical development of VAX-24 to follow the same approach utilized for PCV13 and PCV15, where vaccine effectiveness against IPD was inferred from immunologic correlates. In contrast to the adult population, VAX-24 approval in the pediatric population is expected to be based on a non-inferiority comparisons of IgG responses to PCV15, the current standard of care in infants. However, we have not yet obtained feedback from the FDA regarding our clinical development plans or the acceptability of our approach.

If our Phase 2 trials are completed successfully, we expect to conduct pivotal Phase 3 trials in the pediatric population that focus on evaluating non-inferiority to PCV15 for immunogenicity and seroconversion or antibody concentration threshold; assessing U.S. routine vaccination responses following concomitant administration with VAX-24; and generating a sufficient safety database in infants. The Phase 3 non-inferiority results would then be used to seek approval of VAX-24 in the pediatric population. This approach is similar to the approach utilized to develop PCV13, where the immunogenicity of PCV13 was compared to the original 7-valent Prevnar product, which was the standard of care at the time, as well as PCV15 which was compared to PCV13.

VAX-31 (formerly VAX-XP)

VAX-31 is a franchise extension of VAX-24 that, if approved, would expand strain coverage to 31 strains and demonstrate the scalable and modular nature of conjugate vaccines we can develop. VAX-31 includes all of the strains contained in VAX-24 plus incremental strains that were selected based on the epidemiological evidence demonstrating their role in circulating IPD and is designed to protect against these emerging strains and to help address antibiotic resistance. The serotypes in VAX-31 cover approximately 95% of the circulating IPD in the United States adult population.

22

We have completed multiple preclinical proof-of-concept studies for VAX-31 in rabbit models compared to PCV13, as well as more than 30 polysaccharides adsorbed onto alum. IgG responses in rabbits were superior to polysaccharide alone plus alum and comparable with PCV13 in the common 13 strains. We completed the process of transferring and scaling the conjugation processes at Lonza for each of the incremental conjugates contained in VAX-31 over and above those contained in VAX-24. The data shown below in Figure 18 was generated using those conjugates produced at larger scale at Lonza and confirm that the eCRM and polysaccharide raw materials and the conjugation processes for each of the conjugates in VAX-31 demonstrate immunogenicity comparable to PCV13 and superior to polysaccharide alone, consistent with prior lots of VAX-31.

Figure 18.

Platform Application Two: Novel Conjugate Vaccine Opportunities

We are also developing novel conjugate vaccine candidates for other diseases for which there are no existing vaccines. By leveraging our platform, we have been able to generate novel protein carriers with site-specific incorporation of nnAAs designed to provide optimal exposure of both B-cell and T-cell epitopes on the carrier. Using these novel protein carriers, we can produce highly stable conjugate vaccine candidates through site-specific conjugation of antigens, including polysaccharides. Functionally, one significant advantage of using carriers may be the additional protective immunity that the protein itself can provide beyond the conjugated antigen itself.

Group A Strep Disease Background and Market Opportunity

Streptococcus pyogenes (S. pyogenes or Group A Strep) bacteria cause a wide spectrum of both acute and chronic clinical conditions that lead to considerable disease burden globally. Group A Strep results in 700 million cases of illness each year and is one of the leading infectious disease-related causes of death and disability worldwide. An estimated 500,000 deaths globally result from Group A Strep, which is in line with the impact seen from the Measles, Rotavirus and Pertussis. The annual mortality and loss of productivity costs in the United States attributable to Invasive Group A Strep disease and related acute respiratory infections exceed $6 billion, excluding the impact of significant antibiotic use on individuals and contribution to antimicrobial resistance. Among older adults (≥ 65 years) in the United States, rates of invasive disease and deaths caused by Group A Strep have more than doubled over the last decade. Some of the most serious consequences of Group A Strep include flesh eating disease (necrotizing fasciitis) and invasive diseases such as sepsis and rheumatic heart disease (RHD). Approximately 40 million people are currently affected by RHD worldwide. Importantly, the majority of Group A Strep infections lead to pharyngitis, commonly known as strep throat, which is highly prevalent in school-age children. In the United States, an estimated 17% of outpatient antibiotic prescriptions dispensed to children aged 3 to 9 years are for the treatment of suspected Group A Strep infections. Studies have indicated that antibiotic resistance to Group A Strep has significantly increased over the past decade, leading the CDC to categorize Group A Strep as a

23

concerning threat. Additionally, the development of vaccines against Group A Strep has become a priority for the WHO amid recognition of the rising disease incidence globally, as well as the need to combat avoidable antibiotic consumption.

It has been established that the repeated natural infection of children with Group A Strep results in immune responses that are protective against subsequent Group A Strep infection. We believe this observation justifies the development of a rationally designed vaccine for Group A Strep that is focused on conserved antigens expressed by all strains of the bacteria.

VAX-A1

We have developed a conjugate vaccine candidate, VAX-A1, designed to confer broad protection against subtypes of Group A Strep by virtue of polyrhamnose, a conserved polysaccharide, conjugated to Group A Strep specific immunogenic protein carrier using our site-specific conjugation technology. The resulting conjugate is designed to ensure optimal exposure of both the B-cell and T-cell epitopes on the protein carrier to confer robust, boostable and durable protective immune responses. We believe this single conjugate could potentially cover all Group A Strep strains. The vaccine is a combination of this novel protein-polysaccharide conjugate along with two additional conserved surface proteins.

Our initial preclinical proof-of-concept study was published in the journal Infectious Microbes & Diseases in December 2020. In the study, a novel protein and polysaccharide conjugate of the Group A Strep polysaccharide was constructed for inclusion in a universal subunit vaccine against infections by the pathogen. The VAX-A1 vaccine candidate, based on SpyAD-conjugated to a modified polyrhamnose backbone (lacking N-acetyl glucosamine) and including SLO and C5a peptidase, demonstrated protection from subcutaneous and systemic challenge in mice, antibody binding and opsonophagocytic killing for multiple Group A Strep M Protein Gene, or emm, types and no evidence of cross-reactivity to human heart and brain tissue antigens (Figure 19), which is a key leading indicator of vaccine safety. The study was carried out in collaboration with researchers at the Division of Host-Microbe Systems and Therapeutics, Department of Pediatrics, University of California School of Medicine and the Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences at the University of California, San Diego.

Figure 19.

Our VAX-A1 vaccine development program currently is funded in part by a grant obtained from CARB-X, a global non-profit partnership dedicated to accelerating antibacterial innovation to tackle the rising global threat of drug-resistant bacteria. The award committed initial funding of up to $1.6 million. In July 2020, the initial funding amount was amended from $1.6 million to $2.7 million and, if options to extend are exercised by CARB-X, up to $15.1 million in total funding available upon achievement of development milestones through Phase 1 human clinical trials. In April 2021, we received approval for the next phase of CARB-X development and executed the cost-reimbursement sub-award agreement with the Trustees of Boston University in August 2021. Pursuant to the agreement, the award committed additional funding of $3.2 million for IND-enabling activities and total potential funding of up to $29.7 million (including $6.6 million awarded funding to date) upon the achievement of future VAX-A1 development milestones. In January 2022, CARB-X revised the parameters for the contribution

24

of CARB-X funding and implemented maximum funding levels for all grant recipients. As a result, our total funding available upon achievement of development milestones through Phase 1 human clinical trials was revised from $29.7 million to $14.6 million.

We nominated the final vaccine candidate for our VAX-A1 program in the first quarter of 2021 and initiated IND-enabling activities in the second half of 2021. We continue to advance the development of VAX-A1 and we intend to provide further information about the anticipated timing of an IND application as the program progresses. Upon completion of the preclinical development program and IND-enabling activities for VAX-A1, we intend to conduct a multi-center, randomized, placebo-controlled Phase 1/2 study in adults. The primary objectives of the initial clinical trial will be to evaluate safety and tolerability. Secondary exploratory endpoints will be to measure IgG immune response to the vaccine antigens and to evaluate the ability of the antibodies produced in response to vaccination to inhibit and prevent infections caused by Group A Strep.

Platform Application Three: Protein Vaccine Opportunities

We believe we can also develop novel protein vaccine candidates constructed using “tough-to-make” protein antigens uniquely able to be expressed using the platform. In particular, the lack of a cellular membrane in our platform allows for the exogenous addition of components to manipulate transcription, translation and folding by modification of reaction conditions. Furthermore, removal of the typical restriction to maintain cell viability also creates unique avenues for optimizing and promoting protein production for antigens that might be cytotoxic to a cell-based system or require non-physiological conditions for optimal protein folding. Thus, utilizing these advantages, we believe we can express and purify important protein targets to generate unique candidates that are beyond the scope of traditional production systems. Our therapeutic periodontitis vaccine candidate is the first example of a “tough-to-make” protein-based vaccine.

Periodontitis Disease Background and Market Opportunity

Periodontal disease is a highly complex, chronic oral inflammatory disease that leads to the destruction of the soft and hard tissues supporting the teeth. The subgingival niche (below the gum margin of teeth) is populated by a diverse polymicrobial plaque. It is increasingly understood that the shift from periodontal health to disease is associated with changes in the microbial composition of the subgingival plaque, including activities of bacteria such as Porphyromonas gingivalis (P. gingivalis). The development of precise approaches to control this keystone pathogen, such as a vaccine, could then positively impact the periodontal disease burden.

Those with periodontitis also have an increased risk for heart attack, stroke and other serious cardiovascular events. In addition to gum and tooth disease, periodontal inflammation and infection with P. gingivalis have been linked to atherosclerotic heart disease mediated by P. gingivalis residing in atherosclerotic plaque. While we are focused on the treatment of periodontal disease with this vaccine candidate, if P. gingivalis is found to be causative in other chronic disorders, our vaccine candidate could potentially be a highly effective treatment and allow disease intervention at a much earlier stage of the disease. For example, recent research has suggested the potential for a link between P. gingivalis and Alzheimer’s disease.

Neither the natural host immune response nor currently available treatments are curative for periodontal disease. Existing treatment includes highly aggressive and invasive procedures, including scaling and root planing and surgical intervention, coupled with antibiotic use. Despite these types of aggressive treatments, diseased sites frequently progress, leading to tooth loss. Thus, the development of an effective vaccine for periodontitis would be highly desirable.

Periodontitis is a highly prevalent disease impacting > 40% of US adults above the age of 30, and with similar rates globally. Periodontal disease caused an estimated loss of $330.6 billion in the United States and Europe in 2018, with the direct costs alone exceeding $6 billion. The indirect costs are multiples of the direct costs as a result of high rates of edentulism (loss of teeth) and increased risk of many other diseases mentioned above.

25

VAX-PG

We are developing a novel protein vaccine candidate, VAX-PG, targeting P. gingivalis that incorporates protein antigens that we believe are uniquely enabled with our technology. Our initial goal is to develop a therapeutic vaccine to slow or stop disease progression; however, the results from clinical trials may inform the potential adoption of prophylactic immunization.

VAX-PG, which includes cell-free produced P. gingivalis virulence factors, including gingipains, were tested in a preclinical model that mimics periodontal disease. The results, which we believe generally demonstrate preclinical proof of concept for a periodontitis protein vaccine, were published in the Journal of Clinical Periodontology in February 2019. The vaccine elicited protein-specific IgG response following immunization and protected mice from P. gingivalis-elicited oral bone loss. Shown in Figure 20 is the objective bone loss of VAX-PG with alum, Monophospholipid A, or no adjuvant. Immunization with all formulations of VAX-PG provided significant protection against oral bone loss compared to the no vaccine oral challenged control group (p<0.01, ANOVA with Dunns multiple comparisons).

Figure 20.

ABC = alveolar bone crest

CEJ = cement-enamel junction

26

Shown below in Figure 21 are pictures of representative mouse jaws from the experiment. As can be seen, the vaccinated mice had considerably less bone loss than the unvaccinated and challenged control animals.

Figure 21.

We nominated a final vaccine candidate for our VAX-PG program in the fourth quarter of 2022. Upon completion of the preclinical development program and IND-enabling activities for VAX-PG, we intend to conduct a multi-center, randomized, placebo-controlled Phase 1/2 study in adults with mild to moderate chronic periodontal disease. The primary objectives of the initial clinical trial will be to evaluate safety and tolerability. Secondary exploratory endpoints will be to measure IgG immune response to the vaccine antigens and to evaluate the ability of the antibodies produced in response to vaccination to inhibit the formation of the poly-microbial biofilm, which is characteristic of periodontal disease.

VAX-GI

We announced that we have added VAX-GI, designed to prevent Shigellosis, to our pipeline. Shigella is a bacterial illness that causes dysentery with symptoms including bloody diarrhea, fever, and stomach cramps. Currently there are no prophylactics and treatment is primarily oral rehydration therapy, with antibiotics (mainly ciprofloxacin and azithromycin) used to shorten the duration of infection. However, the growing incidence of antibiotic resistance has complicated this approach with an increasing rate of extensively drug resistant (XDR). Shigella affects an estimated 188 million people worldwide each year and results in approximately 164,000 deaths annually, mostly among children under five years of age in low- and middle-income settings. Further, in young children Shigella can cause to malnutrition and induce or exacerbate stunting, leading to a long-term impact on both physical and cognitive development. This has resulted in the WHO including Shigella vaccine development as a priority goal.

Manufacturing and Supply

We have designed and developed a proprietary, scalable and portable manufacturing process for VAX-24 and VAX-31 that we believe can scale to address clinical and commercial vaccine supply needed to serve both adult and pediatric populations.

27

VAX-24 and VAX-31 Process

The manufacturing process for our VAX-24 and VAX-31 vaccine candidates consists of four key components: (i) our proprietary eCRM protein carrier; (ii) the 24 or 31 pneumococcal polysaccharides; (iii) the 24 or 31 conjugate drug substances and (iv) the mixture of these 24 or 31 drug substances into the final drug product.

eCRM

Our proprietary eCRM protein carrier is produced using our cell-free protein synthesis platform, which is exclusively licensed from Sutro Biopharma for the Vaccine Field (as defined in the Sutro Biopharma License Agreement (as defined below)). eCRM, contains multiple copies of non-native para azido-methyl-phenylalanine, or pAMF, amino acid. The pAMF amino acids have a specific structure that enables eCRM to participate in the site-specific click chemistry conjugation reaction with activated pneumococcal polysaccharides.

The cell-free reaction is performed in a manner analogous to traditional fermentation but without the cells. The first step in the production of eCRM is the manufacture of critical raw materials, namely E. coli extracts and lysates that contain the cellular machinery required for in vitro DNA transcription and translation. The eCRM protein is then manufactured by combining these E. coli extracts and lysates with classic media components such as amino acids, minerals and salts, with the in vitro reaction driven by the addition of plasmid DNA coding for the eCRM protein’s amino acid sequence. This cell-free reaction takes place in a standard fermenter, followed by standard protein purification chromatographic and filtration processes. The manufacturing process has consistently yielded a product of the desired quality.

Pneumococcal Polysaccharides

Each of the 24 or 31 pneumococcal polysaccharides is individually isolated from S. pneumoniae bacterial strains. Each individual S. pneumoniae strain is cultured in a bioreactor using an improved single standardized fed-batch bioreactor process and a single standardized downstream purification process. Overall, this standardized upstream and downstream process is simple and streamlined, thereby reducing manufacturing cost of goods and providing an efficient path of progression for the program from process characterization and validation through to commercialization, if our vaccine candidates are approved.

Conjugate Drug Substances

Each of the 24 or 31 conjugate drug substances is manufactured individually, as monovalent conjugates, by conjugating each of the 24 or 31 activated pneumococcal polysaccharide strains, one at a time, to the eCRM carrier protein.

Click chemistry provides for a conjugation reaction that is quick, consistent and high-yielding, and which we optimized to be largely standardized across the various polysaccharides. Through statistical design of experiment, or DoE, studies, we have gained a significant understanding of which variables to adjust to maximize product quality and, accordingly, immunogenicity in rabbit models.
 

Drug Product

All 24 or 31 conjugate drug substances are mixed, formulated with appropriate excipients and adsorbed onto alum. Clinical doses are filled in vials and stored refrigerated.

28

Key Achievements and Status

For VAX-24, we have completed the manufacturing, testing and release of all 24 drug substance conjugates and the final drug product for the Phase 1/2 and Phase 2 studies in adults and the Phase 2 study in infants. We are now progressing to Phase 3 clinical manufacturing and commercial supply activities.

For VAX-31, we have completed the manufacturing, testing and release of all 31 drug substance conjugates for the Phase 1/2 and Phase 2 studies in adults, and must complete the manufacturing, testing and release of the final drug product prior to initiation of these studies and contingent on the submission and acceptance of an IND filing.

We currently do not own or operate any manufacturing facilities, but our strategic partnerships with Lonza and other contract manufacturing organizations, or CMOs, provide us with access to substantial resources to facilitate an independent supply path to the market. We have entered into agreements with Lonza, a leading global contract manufacturer with deep domain expertise and experience in large and small-scale production of clinical, as well as commercial-stage products, to secure capacity, technical expertise and resources to support the production of eCRM, polysaccharides and drug substance for our VAX-24 Phase 3 program and VAX-31 Phase 1/2 and Phase 2 studies in adults. We believe we can satisfy the expected initial eCRM, polysaccharide and drug substance supply requirements following a potential launch of VAX-24 in adults using the existing facilities at Lonza; however, we would need to secure additional capacity at a new facility or facilities to satisfy the expected eCRM, polysaccharide and drug substance production requirements to support expected increased commercial quantities upon the potential approval and launch of VAX-24 in infants and to expand into other markets outside of the United States. We have relationships with other leading CMOs for the production of the final drug product for VAX-24 and VAX-31, for the extract and lysates that we use to manufacture eCRM and for certain raw materials. We have an agreement with Sutro Biopharma pursuant to which Sutro Biopharma supplies us with extract and custom reagents for use in manufacturing preclinical and certain clinical supply of vaccine compositions. In December 2019, we exercised our right to require Sutro Biopharma to establish a second supplier for extract and custom reagents to support future clinical and commercial needs. In December 2022, we entered into a separate agreement with Sutro Biopharma pursuant to which we enhanced our rights with the second supplier of extract and acquired an option to access expanded rights to develop and manufacture extract, among other rights.

Lonza Agreements

In October 2016, we entered into a non-exclusive development and manufacturing services agreement, as amended, with Lonza, or the 2016 Lonza DMSA, pursuant to which Lonza is obligated to perform manufacturing process development and the manufacture of components for VAX-24, including the polysaccharide antigens, our proprietary eCRM protein carrier and conjugated drug substances.

In June 2018, we entered into a letter agreement with Lonza, or the Lonza Letter Agreement, pursuant to which we agreed to certain terms for potential future payments in shares of our common stock as partial satisfaction of future obligations to Lonza. The Lonza Letter Agreement states that the initial pre-IND cash payments under the 2016 Lonza DMSA would be subject to a specified dollar cap, or the Initial Cash Cap. After the Initial Cash Cap has been reached, we would have the option to make any further pre-IND payments owed to Lonza in cash, in shares of our common stock at then market prevailing prices, or a combination of both, at our election. In April 2021, we reached the Initial Cash Cap and notified Lonza that we would be exercising our option to issue approximately $10.0 million in shares of our common stock as payment for a portion of pre-IND payments due April 30, 2021. In June 2021, we issued 399,680 shares of our common stock to Lonza at a price of $25.02 per share to pay for $10.0 million of the pre-IND payments due April 30, 2021.

29

In October 2018, we entered into a second non-exclusive development and manufacturing services agreement with Lonza, or the 2018 Lonza DMSA, pursuant to which Lonza is obligated to perform services including manufacturing process development and the manufacture and supply of VAX-24 finished drug product.

In April 2022, we entered into a third non-exclusive development and manufacturing services agreement with Lonza, as amended, or the 2022 Lonza DMSA, effective as of March 22, 2022. Pursuant to the 2022 Lonza DMSA, Lonza will perform manufacturing process development and clinical manufacture and supply of our proprietary PCV.

Under each of the 2016 Lonza DMSA, 2018 Lonza DMSA and 2022 Lonza DMSA, collectively the Lonza Agreements, we will pay Lonza agreed-upon fees for its performance of development and manufacturing services and pass through expenses incurred by Lonza for raw materials, as well as customary procurement and handling fees. Under each Lonza Agreement, we will own all right, title and interest in and to any and all New Customer Intellectual Property (as defined in each Lonza Agreement), and Lonza shall own all right, title and interest in New General Application Intellectual Property (as defined in each Lonza Agreement). Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Lonza Agreements, Lonza granted us a non-exclusive, world-wide, fully paid-up, irrevocable, transferable license, including the right to grant sublicenses, under the New General Application Intellectual Property (as defined in each Lonza Agreement), to research, develop, make, have made, use, sell and import the Product (as defined in each Lonza Agreement) manufactured under each Lonza Agreement.

Unless earlier terminated, each Lonza Agreement will remain in place for a period of five years and includes customary conditions for termination prior to that period. The 2016 Lonza DMSA has been amended to extend its term until March 31, 2023.

Sutro Biopharma Agreements

Sutro Biopharma is a clinical stage, publicly traded drug discovery, development and manufacturing company using precise protein engineering and rational design (enabled by Sutro Biopharma’s proprietary XpressCF platform technology) to advance next-generation oncology therapeutics. Following our corporate formation, we acquired an exclusive license to Sutro Biopharma’s proprietary cell-free protein synthesis platform, XpressCF, for the discovery, development and sale of vaccines for the treatment or prevention of infectious diseases, excluding cancer vaccines. Under a related supply agreement with Sutro Biopharma, we have an exclusive relationship in our field to buy extract and certain custom reagents for use in manufacturing the vaccine compositions covered by the exclusive license, which we use to produce our protein carriers and certain of our antigens. Under a separate agreement with Sutro Biopharma, we enhanced our rights with respect to access to a second supplier of extract and acquired an option to access expanded rights to develop and manufacture extract, among other rights.

Amended and Restated License Agreement with Sutro Biopharma

We are party to a license agreement with Sutro Biopharma, or the Sutro Biopharma License Agreement, on August 1, 2014. The Sutro Biopharma License Agreement was amended on October 12, 2015 and again on May 9, 2018 and May 29, 2018. Under the Sutro Biopharma License Agreement, we received an exclusive, worldwide, royalty-bearing, sublicensable license under Sutro Biopharma’s patents and know-how relating to cell-free expression of proteins to (i) research, develop, use, sell, offer for sale, export, import and otherwise exploit specified vaccine compositions, such rights being sublicensable, for the treatment or prophylaxis of infectious diseases, excluding cancer vaccines, and (ii) manufacture, or have manufactured by an approved contract manufacturing organization, such vaccine compositions from extracts supplied by Sutro Biopharma pursuant to the Sutro Biopharma Supply Agreement (as described below). We are obligated to use commercially reasonable efforts to develop, obtain regulatory approval for and commercialize the vaccine compositions. In consideration of the rights granted under the Sutro Biopharma License Agreement, we are obligated to pay Sutro Biopharma a 4% royalty on worldwide aggregate annual net sales of our vaccine products for human health and a 2% royalty on such net sales of vaccine products for animal health. Such royalty rates are subject to specified reductions, including standard reductions for third-party payments and for expiration of relevant patent claims. We are also obligated to pay Sutro Biopharma any royalties due to Stanford University (the upstream licensor of Sutro Biopharma), to the extent the royalties payable by Sutro Biopharma to Stanford University are greater than the royalties payable by us to Sutro

30

Biopharma. Royalties are payable on a vaccine composition-by-vaccine composition and country-by-country basis until the later of expiration of the last valid claim in the licensed patents covering such vaccine composition in such country and ten years after the first commercial sale of such vaccine composition. The latest expiration date of a licensed Sutro Biopharma patent application, if issued, would be 2036, subject to any adjustment or extension of patent term that may be available in a particular country. In addition, we are obligated to pay Sutro Biopharma a percentage of net sublicensing revenue received in the low teen percentages. In addition, in the event we sublicense our non-manufacturing rights under the Sutro Biopharma License Agreement before a specified date, we are obligated to pay Sutro Biopharma a percentage, in the low double-digits, of the sublicensing revenue we receive under such agreement.

The Sutro Biopharma License Agreement will remain in effect until terminated. The agreement may be terminated by either party for the other party’s material breach uncured within 60 days’ notice, by us at will with 60 days’ notice, or by Sutro Biopharma if we challenge Sutro Biopharma’s patents or if we undergo a change of control with a specified competitor of Sutro Biopharma.

 

Supply Agreement with Sutro Biopharma

In May 2018, we entered into a supply agreement, or the Sutro Biopharma Supply Agreement, with Sutro Biopharma pursuant to which we purchase from Sutro Biopharma extract and custom reagents for use in manufacturing non-clinical and certain clinical supply of vaccine compositions utilizing the technology licensed under the Sutro Biopharma License at prices not to exceed a specified percentage above Sutro Biopharma’s fully burdened manufacturing cost. If any extracts or custom reagents do not meet the specifications and warranties provided, then we will not have an obligation to pay for the non-conforming product, and Sutro Biopharma will be obligated to replace the non-conforming product within the shortest possible time with conforming product at our cost. The term of the Sutro Biopharma Supply Agreement is from execution until the later of July 31, 2022 and the date the parties enter into and commence activities under the supply agreement unless extended through a subsequent supply agreement for the supply of extract and custom reagents for vaccine compositions for Phase 3 and commercial uses as contemplated in the Sutro Biopharma Supply Agreement.

The Sutro Biopharma Supply Agreement may be terminated by either party for the other party’s material breach uncured within 60 days’ notice, by us at will with 60 days’ notice, or by mutual agreement of the parties. In December 2019, we exercised our right to require Sutro Biopharma to establish a second supplier for extract and custom reagents to support our anticipated clinical and commercial needs.

 

Option Agreement with Sutro Biopharma

In December 2022, we entered into an option grant agreement with Sutro Biopharma, or the Option Agreement. Pursuant to the Option Agreement, we acquired from Sutro Biopharma (i) authorization to enter into an agreement with an independent alternate CMO to directly source Sutro Biopharma’s cell-free extract, allowing us to have direct oversight over financial and operational aspects of the relationship with the CMO; and (ii) a right, but not an obligation, to obtain certain exclusive rights to internally manufacture and/or source extract from certain CMOs and the right to independently develop and make improvements to extract (including the right to make improvements to the extract manufacturing process as well as cell lines) for use in connection with the exploitation of certain vaccine compositions, or the Option. We and Sutro Biopharma have agreed to negotiate the terms and conditions of a form definitive agreement to be entered into in the event we exercise the Option, which shall include the terms and conditions set forth in an executed term sheet between us, or the Term Sheet, and such terms that are necessary to give effect to each of the terms and conditions set forth in the Term Sheet, or the Form Definitive Agreement. The Option period is five years from the date of the Option Agreement, subject to potential acceleration in the event we undergo a change of control.

As consideration for the Option and other rights and authorizations granted to us under the Option Agreement, we agreed to pay Sutro Biopharma upfront consideration of $22.5 million, consisting of (i) $10.0

31

million in cash and $7.5 million worth of shares of our common stock (the number of shares to be calculated based on the arithmetic average of the daily volume weighted average price of our common stock as traded on Nasdaq in the three consecutive trading days immediately prior to the issuance thereof), and (ii) $5.0 million payable within five business days after we and Sutro Biopharma mutually agree in writing upon the Form Definitive Agreement. The 167,780 shares of common stock issued was recorded at fair value of $8.0 million on the date of settlement, December 22, 2022. In the event that we elect to exercise the Option, we would pay Sutro Biopharma an aggregate Option exercise price of $75.0 million in cash in two installments and, upon the occurrence of certain regulatory milestones, certain additional milestone payments totaling up to $60.0 million in cash. In the event that we undergo a change of control, certain rights and payments may be accelerated.

 

University of California, San Diego License Agreement

We are party to a license agreement with the University of California, San Diego, or the UCSD License, dated February 2019 whereby we are the exclusive licensee of an issued U.S. patent and pending U.S. patent application related to a non-cross-reactive Group A Strep carbohydrate antigen and methods of producing the antigen. We licensed this technology for the development of our Group A Strep vaccine candidate.

Upon execution of the UCSD License, we made an upfront payment of $10,000, and each year during the term we are obligated to pay an annual license maintenance fee in the single digit thousands. We are also obligated to pay UCSD up to approximately $1 million in development and regulatory milestone payments for each licensed product under the agreement. Additionally, we are obligated to pay UCSD a fixed royalty on net sales of licensed products in the low single digits. Such royalty rate is subject standard reductions for third-party payments. Royalties are payable until expiration of the last licensed patent. Additionally, in the event we sublicense commercial rights under the UCSD License, we are obligated to pay UCSD a percentage of all sublicensing revenue received, excluding any earned royalties or reimbursements of research and development expenses, of 20% up to a maximum of $2.5 million.

We are obligated to use commercially reasonable efforts to diligently develop, manufacture and sell licensed products and to achieve specified research and clinical development milestone events. If we are unable to meet our diligence obligations and do not agree with UCSD to modify such obligations or do not cure such obligations, then UCSD may terminate the license or convert the license to non-exclusive.

The UCSD License will remain in effect until the expiration of the last licensed patent. The UCSD patent and patent application, if issued, would expire in 2032, subject to any adjustment or extension of patent term that may be available in the United States. The UCSD License may be terminated by us at will with 90 days’ notice or by UCSD for our breach uncured within 90 days’ notice or if we challenge the licensed patents.

Other Partners

In addition to those listed above, we seek to partner with various academic, governmental and public or private research institutions as needed to advance the discovery or development of our vaccine candidates.

32

Competition

In recent history, the global vaccine market has been highly concentrated among a small number of multinational pharmaceutical companies. Pfizer, Merck, GSK and Sanofi have been responsible for developing and introducing most new vaccines to the world. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, there have been a number of new entrants to the vaccines market, including multinational companies such as Johnson & Johnson, and emerging biopharmaceutical companies. Other pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, academic institutions, governmental agencies and public and private research institutions are also working towards new solutions given the continuing global unmet medical need.

Within the current pneumococcal vaccine market, Pfizer, Merck and GSK have historically dominated, with Pfizer’s PCV13 and PCV20, Merck’s PPSV23 and PCV15 and GSK’s Synflorix totaling a combined $7.4 billion in global pneumococcal vaccine sales in 2022 (approximately 85%, 10% and 5%, of such sales for these three products, respectively). While PCV13 covers fewer pneumococcal strains than PPSV23, it delivers a T-cell dependent immune response leading to a stronger and more durable immune response than PPSV23.

Existing vaccine makers, as well as new entrants, are competing to develop the next generation of pneumococcal vaccines. For use in adults, Pfizer's PCV20 was approved by the FDA in June 2021 and Merck's PCV15 was approved in July 2021. As a result of these approvals, the current standard of care in adults consists of the administration of either PCV20 alone or PCV15 followed by the administration of PPSV23. For use in infants, Merck’s PCV15 was approved by the FDA in June 2022. Based on this approval, the current standard of care in infants is PCV13 or PCV15. Pfizer has a PDUFA goal date of April 2023 for PCV20 in infants.

In August 2022, Pfizer announced topline results from its U.S. Phase 3 study in infants evaluating PCV20 for the prevention of IPD, and in January 2023, the FDA accepted for priority review a supplemental Biologics License Application for PCV20 for the prevention of IPD in infants and children. Merck announced in April 2022 that V116, the company’s investigational 21-valent PCV for adults, received Breakthrough Therapy designation from the FDA, and later announced that it enrolled the first patient in their Phase 3 clinical trial. In June 2022, Merck presented positive results from its Phase 1/2 study evaluating V116 in pneumococcal vaccine-naïve adults 18-49 years of age (Phase 1) and 50 years of age and older (Phase 2). Also in June 2022, Merck announced that the CDC's ACIP unanimously voted to provisionally recommend use of Merck's PCV15 as an option for pneumococcal vaccination in infants and children and in September 2022, Merck announced it received a positive CHMP Opinion for PCV15 in infants and children. Sanofi and SK Chemicals have partnered to develop a 21-valent PCV, and GSK, which recently acquired Affinivax, is developing an affinity-bound pneumococcal vaccine that includes 24 pneumococcal serotypes. GSK also has a 30-plus valent pneumococcal candidate vaccine in preclinical development. We believe success will ultimately be based on the combination of immunogenicity, boostability and the broadest coverage of serotypes, as well as safety and tolerability. Convenience and pricing may also be factors. Other vaccines in development may obtain FDA approval and commercially launch before VAX-24. However, if approved, we believe VAX-24 may obtain an ACIP preferred recommendation and potentially replace both incumbents for pneumococcal disease prevention in both adult and pediatric populations because of its broader coverage should compare favorably to these PCV candidates as a 24-valent alternative, based on our unique site-specific conjugation and carrier-sparing technology. We also believe VAX-31 has the potential to compete favorably in the PCV market based on its further expanded spectrum.

The competitive landscape for vaccine development for Group A Strep was dormant for more than three decades. However, the FDA lifted a 30-year ban on Group A Strep vaccine clinical trials in 2005, and research has slowly started to resurface in academic institutions. However, we are not aware of other Group A Strep vaccines in clinical development that would cover all strains of the bacteria. Additionally, we are not aware of any other vaccines under clinical development to treat periodontitis. We believe the success of our vaccine candidates in these areas will be based on potential efficacy, safety, tolerability, convenience and pricing. We are aware of some companies developing treatments for other diseases that target the same underlying pathogens that cause Group A Strep and periodontitis.

Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize vaccines that are safer, more effective, more convenient, less expensive or with a more favorable label than VAX-24, VAX-31 or any other vaccine we may develop. Many of the companies against which we

33

compete have significantly greater financial resources, and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals and marketing approved drugs than we do.
 

Intellectual Property

We have developed, and are continuing to develop, a comprehensive intellectual property portfolio related to vaccine applications, including manufacturing, formulation and process applications as well as protection for our specific vaccine candidates.

Our success depends in part on our ability to obtain and maintain proprietary protection for our vaccine candidates, technology and know-how, to operate without infringing the proprietary rights of others and to prevent others from infringing our proprietary rights. Our policy is to seek to protect our proprietary position by, among other methods, pursuing and obtaining patent protection in the United States and in jurisdictions outside of the United States related to our proprietary technology, inventions, improvements and vaccine candidates that are important to the development and implementation of our business. Our patent portfolio is intended to cover our vaccine candidates and components thereof, their methods of use and processes for their manufacture and any other inventions that are commercially important to our business. We may also rely on trademarks, trade secrets and know-how to develop and maintain our proprietary position.

Generally, issued patents are granted a term of 20 years from the earliest claimed non-provisional filing date. In certain instances, patent term can be adjusted to recapture a portion of delay by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, in examining the patent application or extended to account for term effectively lost as a result of the FDA regulatory review period, or both. In addition, we cannot provide any assurance that any patents will be issued from our pending or future applications or that any issued patents will adequately protect our vaccine candidates.

Our patent portfolio as of February 27, 2023 contains one issued U.S. patent, one issued Japanese patent, one issued Mexican patent, seven pending U.S. patent applications and three pending patent cooperation treaty applications that are solely owned by us, as well as certain foreign counterparts of a subset of these patent applications in foreign countries, including Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, India, Israel, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Mexico, New Zealand, the Philippines, Singapore, South Africa and countries within the European Patent Convention and the Eurasian Patent Organization. For our pneumococcal vaccines, these applications are directed to vaccine formulations, protein-antigen conjugates, methods of making protein-antigen conjugates and other processes related to vaccine production, and the promotion of immunogenicity using the protein-antigen conjugates and vaccines. For our Group A Strep vaccine, these patent applications are directed to vaccine formulations, protein-antigen conjugates, vaccines and components thereof, as well as processes for their manufacture. For our periodontitis vaccine, the patent and applications relate to vaccine formulations, protein antigens, and methods of using the vaccine. If issued, the 20-year term expiration dates of our patents will expire between 2037 and 2042, not including any extension of the patent term that may be available in certain jurisdictions. We continue to seek to maximize the scope of our patent protection for all our programs.

In addition to patents, we also rely upon trademarks, trade secrets, know-how and continuing technological innovation to develop and maintain our competitive position. We maintain and are seeking both registered and common law trademarks. Common law trademark protection typically continues where and for as long as the mark is used. Registered trademarks continue in each country for as long as the trademark is registered. We believe that we have certain know-how and trade secrets relating to our technology and vaccine candidates. We rely on trade secrets to protect certain aspects of our technology related to our current and future vaccine candidates. However, trade secrets can be difficult to protect. We seek to protect our proprietary information, including trade secrets, in part, by using confidentiality agreements with our commercial partners, collaborators, employees and consultants, and invention assignment agreements with our employees. We also have confidentiality agreements or invention assignment agreements with our commercial partners and selected consultants. These agreements may be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies for any breach. In addition, our trade secrets may otherwise become known or be independently discovered by competitors. We also seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our data and trade secrets by maintaining the physical security of our premises and physical and

34

electronic security of our information technology systems. To the extent that our commercial partners, collaborators, employees and consultants use intellectual property owned by others in their work for us, disputes may arise as to the rights in related or resulting know-how and inventions.

Obtaining patents does not guarantee our right to practice the patented technology or commercialize the patented product. Third parties may have or obtain rights to patents that could be used to prevent or attempt to prevent us from commercializing our vaccine candidates. If third parties prepare and file patent applications in the United States or other jurisdictions that also claim technology to which we have rights, we may have to participate in interference or derivation proceedings in the USPTO or similar proceedings in other jurisdictions to determine the priority of invention.

Coverage and Reimbursement

Sales of our products in the United States will depend, in part, on the extent to which the costs of the products are covered by third-party payors, such as government health programs, commercial insurance and managed health care organizations. The process for determining whether a third-party payor will provide coverage for a pharmaceutical or biological product is typically separate from the process for setting the price of such a product or for establishing the reimbursement rate that the payor will pay for the product once coverage is approved. As a result, a third-party payor’s decision to provide coverage for a pharmaceutical or biological product does not imply that the reimbursement rate will be adequate. Certain Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, or collectively, ACA, marketplace and other private payor plans are required to include coverage for certain preventative services, including vaccinations recommended by the ACIP without cost share obligations (i.e., co-payments, deductibles or co-insurance) for plan members. Children through 18 years of age without other health insurance coverage may be eligible to receive such vaccinations free-of-charge through the CDC’s Vaccines for Children program, or VCF. For Medicare beneficiaries, vaccines may be covered under either the Part B program or Part D depending on several criteria, including the type of vaccine and the beneficiary’s coverage eligibility. If our vaccine candidates, once approved, are covered only under the Part D program, physicians may be less willing to use our products because of the claims adjudication costs and time related to the claims adjudication process and collection of co-payments associated with the Part D program.

Further, no uniform policy for coverage and reimbursement exists in the United States, and coverage and reimbursement can differ significantly from payor to payor. Third-party payors often rely upon Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own reimbursement rates, but also have their own methods and approval process apart from Medicare determinations. As such, one third-party payor’s decision to cover a particular medical product or service does not ensure that other payors will also provide coverage for the medical product or service or will provide coverage at an adequate reimbursement rate. Further, coverage policies and third party reimbursement rates may change at any time. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for one or more products that receives regulatory approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future.

Government Regulation

Government authorities in the United States, at the federal, state and local level, and other countries extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, safety, effectiveness, manufacture, quality control, approval, post-approval monitoring and reporting, labeling, packaging, storage, record-keeping, promotion, advertising, distribution, marketing and export and import of products such as those we are developing. A new biological product must be licensed by the FDA through the approval of a BLA, before it may be legally marketed in the United States.

In the United States, pharmaceutical products are regulated by the FDA under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and other laws, including, in the case of biologics, the Public Health Service Act, or PHS Act.

Failure to comply with FDA requirements, both before and after product approval, may subject us or our partners, contract manufacturers and suppliers to administrative or judicial sanctions, including FDA refusal to

35

approve applications, warning letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, fines and/or criminal prosecution.

The steps required before a biologic may be approved for marketing of an indication in the United States generally include:

Before conducting studies in humans, laboratory evaluation of product chemistry, toxicity and formulation, as well as animal studies to assess the potential safety and efficacy of the biologic candidate, must be conducted. Preclinical toxicology studies in animals must be conducted in compliance with FDA regulations.

The results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information, known as CMC, and analytical data, are submitted to the FDA as part of an IND application. Some preclinical testing may continue even after the IND application is submitted. In addition to including the results of the preclinical testing, the IND application will also include a protocol detailing, among other things, the objectives of the clinical trial, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated if the first phase or phases of the clinical trial lend themselves to an efficacy determination. The IND application will automatically become effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA unless the FDA within the 30-day time period places the IND application on clinical hold because of safety concerns about the vaccine candidate or the conduct of the trial described in the clinical protocol included in the IND application. The IND application sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before clinical trials can begin. Submission of an IND application therefore may or may not result in FDA authorization to begin a clinical trial.

All clinical trials for new drugs and biologics must be conducted under the supervision of one or more qualified principal investigators in accordance with GCPs, which include the requirement that all research subjects

36

provide their informed consent for their participation in any clinical trial. They must be conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the applicable phase of the trial, dosing procedures, research subject selection, exclusion criteria and the safety and effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. Each protocol must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND application, and progress reports detailing the status of the clinical trials must be submitted to the FDA annually. Sponsors must also report to the FDA within specified timeframes, serious and unexpected adverse reactions, any clinically significant increase in the rate of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or investigator’s brochure or any findings from other studies or animal or in vitro testing that suggest a significant risk in humans exposed to the vaccine candidate. An IRB at each institution participating in the clinical trial must review and approve the protocol before a clinical trial commences at that institution, approve the information regarding the trial and the consent form that must be provided to each research subject or the subject’s legal representative and monitor the trial until completed.

Clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases, but the phases may overlap, and different trials may be initiated with the same vaccine candidate within the same phase of development in similar or differing patient populations.

In some cases, the FDA may require, or companies may voluntarily pursue, additional clinical trials after a product is approved to gain more information about the product. These so-called Phase 4 studies may also be made a condition to approval of the BLA. These clinical trials are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication, particularly for long-term safety follow-up.

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

Assuming successful completion of all required testing in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements, the results of the preclinical studies and clinical trials, together with other detailed information, including information on the manufacture and composition of the vaccine candidate, are submitted to the FDA as part of a BLA requesting approval to market the vaccine candidate for a proposed indication or indications. The BLA must include all relevant data available from preclinical and clinical trials, including negative or ambiguous results as well as positive findings, together with detailed information relating to the product’s CMC and proposed

37

labeling, among other things. Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, the fees payable to the FDA for reviewing a BLA, as well as annual program user fees for approved products, can be substantial but are subject to certain limited deferrals, waivers and reductions that may be available. Additionally, no user fees are assessed on BLAs for products designated as orphan drugs, unless the product also includes a non-orphan indication. Each BLA submitted to the FDA for approval is reviewed for administrative completeness and reviewability within 60 days following receipt by the FDA of the application. If the BLA is found complete, the FDA will file the BLA, triggering a full review of the application. The FDA may refuse to file any BLA that it deems incomplete or not properly reviewable at the time of submission. The FDA’s established goal is to review 90% of priority BLAs within six months after the application is accepted for filing and 90% of standard BLAs within 10 months of the acceptance date, whereupon a review decision is to be made. Priority review will direct overall attention and resources to the evaluation of applications for products that, if approved, would be significant improvements in the safety or effectiveness of the treatment, diagnosis or prevention of serious conditions. In both standard and priority reviews, the review process is often significantly extended by FDA requests for additional information or clarification. The FDA reviews a BLA to determine, among other things, whether a product is safe, pure and potent and the facility in which it is manufactured, processed, packed or held meets standards designed to assure the product’s continued safety, purity and potency. The FDA may also convene an advisory committee to provide clinical insight on application review questions. The FDA is not bound by recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations when making decisions regarding approval.

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

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

If a product is approved, the approval may impose limitations on the uses for which the product may be marketed, may require that warning statements be included in the product labeling, may require that additional studies be conducted following approval as a condition of the approval and may impose restrictions and conditions on product distribution, prescribing or dispensing in the form of a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, or otherwise limit the scope of any approval. A REMS is a safety strategy to manage a known or potential serious risk associated with a medicine and to enable patients to have continued access to such medicines by managing their safe use, and could include medication guides, physician communication plans or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. The FDA also may condition approval on, among other things, changes to proposed labeling or the development of adequate controls and specifications. In most cases, the FDA must approve a BLA supplement or a new BLA before a product may be marketed for other uses or before specific manufacturing or other changes may be made to the approved product. As a condition of approval, the FDA may also require one or more Phase 4 post-market studies and surveillance to further assess and monitor the product’s safety and effectiveness after commercialization, and may limit further marketing of the product based on the results of these post-marketing studies. Also, product approvals may be withdrawn if compliance with regulatory standards is not maintained or if safety or manufacturing problems

38

occur following initial marketing. In addition, new government requirements may be established that could delay or prevent regulatory approval of our vaccine candidates under development.

Both before and after the FDA approves a product, the manufacturer and the holder or holders of the BLA for the product are subject to comprehensive regulatory oversight. For example, quality control and manufacturing procedures must conform, on an ongoing basis, to cGMP requirements, and the FDA periodically inspects manufacturing facilities to assess compliance with cGMPs. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to spend time, money and effort to maintain cGMP compliance.

Post-Approval Requirements

Any drug products manufactured or distributed by us or our partners pursuant to FDA approvals will be subject to pervasive and continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, record-keeping requirements, reporting of adverse experiences with the drug, providing the FDA with updated safety and efficacy information, distribution requirements, complying with individual electronic records and signature requirements and complying with FDA promotion and advertising requirements. Once approval is granted, the FDA may withdraw the approval if compliance with regulatory standards is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the market. After approval, most changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications, specific manufacturing changes and additional labeling claims, are subject to further FDA review and approval. Biologic manufacturers, their subcontractors and other entities 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 cGMP regulations and other laws and regulations. Changes to the manufacturing process are strictly regulated and, depending on the significance of the change, may require prior FDA approval before being implemented. FDA regulations also require investigation and correction of any deviations from cGMP and impose reporting requirements upon us and any third-party manufacturers that we may decide to use. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain compliance with cGMP and other aspects of regulatory compliance.

Discovery of previously unknown problems, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or the failure to comply with the applicable regulatory requirements may result in restrictions on the marketing of a product or withdrawal of the product from the market as well as possible civil or criminal sanctions. Failure to comply with the applicable U.S. requirements at any time during the product development process, approval process or after approval, may subject an applicant or manufacturer to administrative or judicial civil or criminal sanctions and adverse publicity. FDA sanctions could include refusal to approve pending applications, withdrawal or suspension of an approval or license, clinical holds, warning or untitled letters, product recalls, product seizures, safety alerts, Dear Healthcare Provider letters, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, mandated corrective advertising or communications with doctors, debarment, restitution, disgorgement of profits, consent decrees or civil or criminal penalties.

The FDA strictly regulates labeling, advertising, promotion and other types of information on products that are placed on the market and imposes requirements and restrictions on drug manufacturers, such as those related to direct-to-consumer advertising, the prohibition on promoting products for uses or inpatient populations that are not described in the product’s approved labeling (known as “off-label use”), industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities and promotional activities involving the internet. Failure to comply with these requirements can result in, among other things, adverse publicity, warning letters, corrective advertising and potential civil and criminal penalties. Physicians may prescribe legally available products for uses that are not described in the product’s labeling and that differ from those tested by us and approved by the FDA. Such off-label uses are common across medical specialties. Physicians may believe that such off-label uses are the best treatment for many patients in varied circumstances. The FDA does not regulate the behavior of physicians in their choice of treatments. The FDA does, however, restrict the manufacturer’s communications on the subject of off-label use of their products.

39

Additional Controls for Biologics

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

After a BLA is approved, the product will also be subject to official lot release as a condition of approval. As part of the manufacturing process, the manufacturer is required to perform specific tests on each lot of the product before it is released for distribution. If the product is subject to an official release by the FDA, the manufacturer submits samples of each lot of product to the FDA together with a release protocol showing a summary of the history of the manufacture of the lot and the results of all the manufacturer’s tests performed on the lot. The FDA may also perform specific confirmatory tests on lots of some products, such as vaccines, before releasing the lots for distribution by the manufacturer. In addition, the FDA conducts laboratory research related to the regulatory standards on the safety, purity, potency and effectiveness of biological products. As with drugs, after approval of biologics, manufacturers must address any safety issues that arise, are subject to recalls or a halt in manufacturing and are subject to periodic inspection after approval.

Expedited Development and Review Programs

A sponsor may seek approval of its vaccine candidate under programs designed to accelerate the FDA’s review and approval of new drugs and biological products that meet certain criteria. Specifically, new drugs and biological products are eligible for fast track designation if they are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the disease or condition. For a fast track product, the FDA may consider sections of the BLA for review on a rolling basis before the complete application is submitted, if the sponsor provides a schedule for the submission of the sections of the application, the FDA agrees to accept sections of the application and determines that the schedule is acceptable and the sponsor pays any required user fees upon submission of the first section of the application. A fast track designated vaccine candidate may also qualify for priority review, under which the FDA sets the target date for FDA action on the BLA at six months after the FDA accepts the application for filing. Priority review is granted when there is evidence that the proposed product would be a significant improvement in the safety or effectiveness of the treatment, diagnosis or prevention of a serious disease or condition. If criteria are not met for priority review, the application is subject to the standard FDA review period of 10 months after FDA accepts the application for filing. Priority review designation does not change the scientific/medical standard for approval or the quality of evidence necessary to support approval.

Under the accelerated approval program, the FDA may approve a BLA on the basis of either a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit, or on a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than irreversible morbidity or mortality, that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. Post-marketing studies or completion of ongoing studies after marketing approval are generally required to verify the biologic’s clinical benefit in relationship to the surrogate endpoint or ultimate outcome in relationship to the clinical benefit. In addition, the FDA currently requires as a condition for accelerated approval pre-approval of promotional materials, which could adversely impact the timing of the commercial launch of the product. FDA may withdraw approval of a drug or indication approved under accelerated approval if, for example, the confirmatory trial fails to verify the predicted clinical benefit of the product.

In addition, a sponsor may seek FDA designation of its vaccine candidate as a breakthrough therapy if the vaccine candidate is intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the therapy may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. If the FDA designates a product as a breakthrough therapy, it may take actions appropriate to expedite the development and review of the application, which may include holding meetings with the sponsor and the review team throughout

40

the development of the therapy; providing timely advice to, and interactive communication with, the sponsor regarding the development of the drug to ensure that the development program to gather the nonclinical and clinical data necessary for approval is as efficient as practicable; involving senior managers and experienced review staff, as appropriate, in a collaborative, cross-disciplinary review; assigning a cross-disciplinary project lead for the FDA review team to facilitate an efficient review of the development program and to serve as a scientific liaison between the review team and the sponsor; and considering alternative clinical trial designs when scientifically appropriate, which may result in smaller trials or more efficient trials that require less time to complete and may minimize the number of patients exposed to a potentially less efficacious treatment. Breakthrough therapy designation comes with all of the benefits of fast track designation.

Even if a drug or biologic qualifies for one or more of these programs, the FDA may later decide that the drug no longer meets the conditions for qualification or that the time period for FDA review or approval will be shortened.

Biosimilars and Exclusivity

The ACA includes a subtitle called the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, or BPCIA, which created an abbreviated approval pathway for biological products that are biosimilar to or interchangeable with an FDA-licensed reference biological product. The FDA has issued several guidance documents outlining an approach to review and approval of biosimilars. Biosimilarity, which requires that there be no clinically meaningful differences between the biological product and the reference product in terms of safety, purity and potency, can be shown through analytical studies, animal studies and a clinical trial or trials. Interchangeability requires that a product is biosimilar to the reference product and the product must demonstrate that it can be expected to produce the same clinical results as the reference product in any given patient and, for products that are administered multiple times to an individual, the biologic and the reference biologic may be alternated or switched after one has been previously administered without increasing safety risks or risks of diminished efficacy relative to exclusive use of the reference biologic.

Under the BPCIA, an application for a biosimilar product may not be submitted to the FDA until four years following the date that the reference product was first licensed by the FDA. In addition, the approval of a biosimilar product may not be made effective by the FDA until 12 years from the date on which the reference product was first licensed. During this 12-year period of exclusivity, another company may still market a competing version of the reference product if the FDA approves a full BLA for the competing product containing that applicant’s own preclinical data and data from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to demonstrate the safety, purity and potency of its product. The BPCIA also created certain exclusivity periods for biosimilars approved as interchangeable products. A biological product can also obtain pediatric market exclusivity in the United States. Pediatric exclusivity, if granted, adds six months to existing exclusivity periods and patent terms. This six-month exclusivity, which runs from the end of other exclusivity protection or patent term, may be granted based on the voluntary completion of a pediatric study in accordance with an FDA-issued “Written Request” for such a study.

United States Healthcare Reform

In the United States, there has been and continues to be, several legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system that could, among other things, prevent or delay marketing approval of vaccine candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities and affect the profitable sale of vaccine candidates.

Among policymakers and payors in the United States, there is significant interest in promoting changes in healthcare systems with the stated goals of containing healthcare costs, improving quality and/or expanding access. In the United States, the pharmaceutical industry has been a particular focus of these efforts and has been significantly affected by major legislative initiatives. For example, in March 2010, the ACA was passed, which substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both the government and private insurers and significantly impacts the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. The ACA, among other things: (1) increased the minimum Medicaid rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program and extended the rebate program to individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations; (2) created a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for certain drugs and biologics that

41

are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted or injected; (3) established an annual, nondeductible fee on any entity that manufactures or imports certain specified branded prescription drugs and biologic agents apportioned among these entities according to their market share in specific government healthcare programs; (4) expanded the eligibility criteria for Medicaid programs; (5) created a new Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to oversee, identify priorities in, and conduct comparative clinical effectiveness research, along with funding for such research; (6) created a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program, in which manufacturers must now agree to offer 70% point-of-sale discounts off negotiated prices of applicable brand drugs to eligible beneficiaries during their coverage gap period, as a condition for the manufacturer’s outpatient drugs to be covered under Medicare Part D; and (7) established a Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, to test innovative payment and service delivery models to lower Medicare and Medicaid spending, potentially including prescription drugs.

There have been judicial and political challenges to certain aspects of the ACA. By way of example, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, or the Tax Act, was signed into law and included a provision repealing, effective January 1, 2019, the tax-based shared responsibility payment imposed by the ACA on specific individuals who fail to maintain qualifying health coverage for all or part of a year that is commonly referred to as the “individual mandate.” The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, among other things, amends the ACA, effective January 1, 2019, to close the coverage gap in most Medicare drug plans, commonly referred to as the “donut hole.” On June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed a challenge on procedural grounds that argued the ACA is unconstitutional in its entirety because the "individual mandate" was repealed by Congress. Prior to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on January 28, 2021, President Biden issued an executive order that initiated a special enrollment period 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. On August 16, 2022, President Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, or IRA, into law, which among other things, extends enhanced subsidies for individuals purchasing health insurance coverage in ACA marketplaces through plan year 2025. The IRA also eliminates the “donut hole” under the Medicare Part D program beginning in 2025 by significantly lowering the beneficiary maximum out-of-pocket cost and creating a new manufacturer discount program. It is unclear how any additional healthcare reform measures of the Biden administration will impact the ACA and our business.

Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted. For example, on August 2, 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011 was signed into law, which, among other things, resulted in aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect on April 1, 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, including the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, will remain in effect through 2031, with the exception of a temporary suspension and reduction from May 1, 2020 through June 30, 2022, unless additional Congressional action is taken. Under current legislation, the actual reduction in Medicare payments will vary from 1% in 2022 to up to 4% in the final fiscal year of this sequester. On January 2, 2013, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was signed into law, which, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to several providers, including hospitals, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years.

Moreover, there has recently been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several Congressional inquiries, presidential executive orders and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products. At the federal level in July 2021, the Biden administration released an executive order, “Promoting Competition in the American Economy,” with multiple provisions aimed at prescription drugs. In response to Biden’s executive order, on September 9, 2021, the Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, released a Comprehensive Plan for Addressing High Drug Prices that outlines principles for drug pricing reform and sets out a variety of potential legislative policies that Congress could pursue as well as potential administrative actions HHS can take to advance these principles. The IRA will also, among other things, (i) allow HHS to negotiate the price of certain high-expenditure, single-source drugs and biologics under Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D, and subject drug manufacturers to civil monetary penalties and a potential excise tax if they do not offer Medicare a price that is

42

equal to or less than the negotiated “maximum fair price” under the law, and (ii) impose rebates for certain drugs and biologics sold under Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation. Unless an exception applies, single-source vaccines can qualify for Medicare price negotiations 11 years after their BLA is approved and become subject to the IRA’s negotiated maximum fair price ceiling two years after that. However, certain vaccines, including pneumococcal virus vaccines, are excluded from the Medicare Part B inflation rebate. Additionally, CMS has stated in guidance released on February 9, 2023, that it will not impose Medicare Part D inflation rebates at this time on vaccines and other drugs and biologics that are not “covered outpatient drugs” under Medicaid or otherwise do not have an obligation to report drug pricing data to Medicaid. Further, as of January 1, 2023, the IRA eliminates patient cost sharing for FDA-approved adult vaccines that are recommended by the ACIP, and covered under Medicare Part D and mandates that all state Medicaid programs cover FDA-approved adult vaccines that are recommended by the ACIP and their administration without cost sharing starting October 1, 2023. However, the IRA does not change either VFC or the related provisions added in 2010 under the ACA. VFC was established to give first-dollar coverage to children up to 18 years of age whose families could not pay for vaccinations while the ACA guaranteed coverage of vaccines without cost sharing for Americans who are either privately insured or newly covered in states that expanded Medicaid. The IRA permits HHS to implement many of these provisions through guidance, as opposed to regulation, for the initial years. These provisions will take effect progressively starting in fiscal year 2023, although they may be subject to legal challenges. It is currently unclear how the IRA will be effectuated but is likely to have a significant impact on the pharmaceutical industry. The Biden administration also released an additional executive order on October 14, 2022, directing HHS to submit a report on how the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation can be further leveraged to test new models for lowering drug costs for Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries. At the state level, legislatures have increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to regulate pharmaceutical product pricing, including price or reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on specific product access, marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures and, in some cases, measures designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. Further, it is possible that additional government action is taken in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

United States Healthcare Fraud and Abuse Laws and Compliance Requirements

Federal and state healthcare laws and regulations restrict certain business practices in the biopharmaceutical industry, including anti-kickback and false claims laws and regulations, data privacy and security laws and regulations and transparency laws and regulations.

The federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits, among other things, individuals or entities from knowingly and willfully offering, paying, soliciting or receiving remuneration, directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, in cash or in-kind to induce or in return for purchasing, leasing, ordering or arranging for or recommending the purchase, lease or order of any item or service reimbursable under Medicare, Medicaid or other federal healthcare programs. A person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of this statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation.

The federal civil and criminal false claims laws, including the civil False Claims Act, and civil monetary penalties laws, prohibit, among other things, any individual or entity from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a false claim for payment to the federal government or knowingly making, using or causing to be made or used a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim to the federal government. Private individuals, commonly known as “whistleblowers,” can bring civil False Claims Act qui tam actions, on behalf of the government and such individuals and may share in amounts paid by the entity to the government in recovery or settlement. In addition, the government may assert that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the civil False Claims Act.

The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, created additional federal civil and criminal statutes that prohibit, among other things, knowingly and willfully executing a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program. Similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation. In addition, HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, and their implementing regulations, imposes specific requirements relating to the privacy, security and transmission of

43

protected health information on HIPAA covered entities, which include certain healthcare providers, health plans and healthcare clearinghouses and their business associates and covered subcontractors who conduct certain activities for or on their behalf involving protected health information on their behalf.

The federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act requires certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program, with specific exceptions, to report annually to CMS information related to payments or other transfers of value made to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors), other healthcare professionals (such as physician assistants and nurse practitioners) and teaching hospitals, and applicable manufacturers and applicable group purchasing organizations to report annually to CMS ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members. Similar state, local and foreign healthcare laws and regulations may also restrict business practices in the pharmaceutical industry, such as state anti-kickback and false claims laws, which may apply to business practices, including but not limited to, research, distribution, sales and marketing arrangements and claims involving healthcare items or services reimbursed by non-governmental third-party payors, including private insurers, or by patients themselves; state laws that require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government, or otherwise restrict payments that may be made to healthcare providers and other potential referral sources; state laws and regulations that require drug manufacturers to file reports relating to pricing and marketing information or which require tracking gifts and other remuneration and items of value provided to physicians, other healthcare providers and entities; state and local laws that require the registration of pharmaceutical sales representatives; and state and local laws governing the privacy and security of health information in some circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not preempted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts.

Efforts to ensure compliance with applicable healthcare laws and regulations can involve substantial costs. Violations of healthcare laws can result in significant penalties, including the imposition of significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, monetary fines, disgorgement, individual imprisonment, possible exclusion from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other U.S. healthcare programs, integrity oversight and reporting obligations, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings and curtailment or restructuring of operations.

Foreign Regulation

In addition to regulations in the United States, we expect to be subject to a variety of foreign regulations governing clinical trials and commercial sales and distribution of our vaccine candidates. Whether or not we obtain FDA approval for a vaccine candidate, we must obtain approval from the comparable regulatory authorities of foreign countries or economic areas, such as the European Union, before we may commence clinical trials or market products in those countries or areas. The approval process and requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary greatly from place to place, and the time may be longer or shorter than that required for FDA approval.

Certain countries outside of the United States have a process that requires the submission of a clinical trial application, much like an IND prior to the commencement of human clinical trials. In Europe, for example, a clinical trial application, or CTA, must be submitted to the competent national health authority and to independent ethics committees in each country in which a company intends to conduct clinical trials. Once the CTA is approved in accordance with a country’s requirements, clinical trial development may proceed in that country. In all cases, the clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with GCPs and other applicable regulatory requirements.

The requirements and process governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary from country to country. In all cases, the clinical trials are conducted in accordance with GCP and the applicable regulatory requirements and the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki.

Under European Union regulatory systems, a company may submit marketing authorization applications either under a centralized or decentralized procedure. The centralized procedure is compulsory for medicinal products produced by biotechnology or those medicinal products containing new active substances for specific

44

indications such as the treatment of AIDS, cancer, neurodegenerative disorders, diabetes, viral diseases and designated orphan medicines, and optional for other medicines which are highly innovative. Under the centralized procedure, a marketing application is submitted to the European Medicines Agency, or EMA, where it will be evaluated by the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use, and a favorable opinion typically results in the grant by the European Commission of a single marketing authorization that is valid for all European Union member states within 67 days of receipt of the opinion. The initial marketing authorization is valid for five years, but once renewed is usually valid for an unlimited period.

To market a medicinal product in the European Economic Area, or EEA, (which is comprised of the 28 Member States of the EU plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein), we must obtain a Marketing Authorization, or MA. There are two types of marketing authorizations:

Under the above-described procedures, before granting the MA, the EMA, or the competent authorities of the Member States of the EEA make an assessment of the risk-benefit balance of the product on the basis of scientific criteria concerning its quality, safety and efficacy.

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

Additional Regulation

We are also subject to regulation under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Environmental Protection Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and other present and potential federal, state or local regulations. These and other laws govern our use, handling and disposal of various biological and chemical substances used in, and waste generated by our operations. Our research and development involve the controlled use of hazardous materials, chemicals, bacteria and viruses. Although we believe that our safety procedures for handling and disposing of such materials comply with the standards prescribed by state and federal regulations, the risk of accidental contamination or injury from these materials cannot be completely eliminated. In the event of such an accident, we could be held liable for any damages that result and any such liability could exceed our resources.

There have been a number of federal and state proposals during the last few years regarding the pricing of pharmaceutical and biological products, government control and other changes to the healthcare system of the United States. It is uncertain what legislative proposals will be adopted or what actions federal, state or private payors for medical goods and services may take in response to any healthcare reform proposals or legislation. We

45

cannot predict the effect medical or healthcare reforms may have on our business, and no assurance can be given that any such reforms will not have a material adverse effect.

Privacy and Data Protection Laws

We are, or may become subject to numerous data privacy and security obligations, including federal, state, local, and foreign laws, regulations, guidance, and industry standards related to data privacy, security, and the protection of health-related and other personal data. Such obligations may include, without limitation, the Federal Trade Commission Act, the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, as amended by the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020, or the CPRA, and collectively, the CCPA, the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation 2016/679, or EU GDPR, and the EU GDPR as it forms part of United Kingdom, or UK, law by virtue of section 3 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, or the UK GDPR, and the ePrivacy Directive. In addition, several states within the United States have enacted or proposed data privacy laws. For example, Virginia passed the Consumer Data Protection Act, and Colorado passed the Colorado Privacy Act.

These privacy and security laws (including the EU GDPR and UK GDPR) may impose significant and complex compliance obligations on entities that are subject to those laws. For example, the EU GDPR applies to any company established in the European Economic Area, or the EEA, and to companies established outside the EEA that 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. Failure to comply with the requirements of GDPR and the applicable national data protection laws of the EU member states may result in fines of up to €20,000,000 or up to 4% of the total worldwide annual turnover of the preceding financial year, whichever is higher, and other administrative penalties;; or private litigation related to processing of personal data brought by classes of data subjects or consumer protection organizations authorized at law to represent their interests.

See the section titled “Risks Related to Government Regulation” for additional information about the laws and regulations to which we are or may become subject to and about the risks to our business associated with such laws and regulations.

Employees & Human Capital

As of December 31, 2022, we had 158 full-time employees, 30 of whom have Ph.D. degrees. 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.

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

Corporate and Other Information

We are headquartered in San Carlos, California. We were incorporated in the state of Delaware on November 27, 2013 as Sutrovax, Inc. and we changed our name to Vaxcyte, Inc. in May 2020. Our website is located at https://www.vaxcyte.com. Our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K including their exhibits, proxy and information statements, and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a), 14, and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, are available through the “Investors” 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 securities filings unless specifically incorporated herein or therein by reference. In addition, our filings with the SEC may be accessed through the SEC’s website at http://www.sec.gov. All statements made in any of our securities filings, 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.

46

Item 1A. Risk Factors.

RISK FACTORS

Our business involves significant risks, some of which are described below. You should carefully consider the risks described below, as well as the other information in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and the financial statements and the related notes. Many of the following risks and uncertainties are, and will be, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic and any worsening of the global business and economic environment as a result. The occurrence of any of the events or developments described below could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects. In such an event, the market price of our common stock could decline and you may lose all or part of your investment. Additional risks and uncertainties not presently known to us or that we currently deem immaterial also may impair our business operations. This Annual Report on Form 10-K also contains forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. Our actual results could differ materially from those anticipated in the forward-looking statements as a result of factors that are described below and elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Risks Related to Our Financial Position and Capital Needs

We are in the clinical or preclinical stages of vaccine development and have a very limited operating history and no products approved for commercial sale, which may make it difficult for you to evaluate the success of our business to date and to assess our future viability.

To date, we have devoted substantially all of our resources to performing research and development, undertaking preclinical studies, clinical trials and manufacturing activities in support of our product development efforts, acquiring and developing our technology and vaccine candidates, organizing and staffing our company, performing business planning, establishing our intellectual property portfolio and raising capital to support and expand such activities. As an organization, we have not yet demonstrated an ability to successfully complete clinical development, obtain regulatory approvals, manufacture a commercial-scale product or conduct sales and marketing activities necessary for successful commercialization or arrange for a third party to conduct these activities on our behalf. Consequently, any predictions about our future success or viability may not be as accurate as they could be if we had a longer operating history.

Our current vaccine candidate pipeline includes five preclinical programs. We may encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays and other known or unknown factors in achieving our business objectives, including with respect to our vaccine candidates. We will need to transition at some point from a company with a research and development focus to a company capable of supporting commercial activities. We may not be successful in such a transition.

We have incurred significant net losses since inception and anticipate that we will continue to incur substantial net losses for the foreseeable future. We currently have no source of product revenue and may never achieve profitability. Our stock is a highly speculative investment.

We are a clinical-stage biotechnology vaccine company. Investment in clinical-stage companies and vaccine development is highly speculative because it entails substantial upfront capital expenditures and significant risk that any potential vaccine candidate will not gain regulatory approval or become commercially viable. We do not have any products approved for sale and have not generated any revenue from product sales. As a result, we are not profitable and have incurred losses in each year since inception. Our net losses were $223.5 million and $100.1 million for the years ended December 31, 2022 and 2021, respectively. As of December 31, 2022, we had an accumulated deficit of $522.1 million.

We expect to continue to spend significant resources to fund research and development of, and seek regulatory approvals for, our vaccine candidates. We expect to incur substantial and increasing operating losses over the next several years as our research, development, manufacturing, preclinical testing and clinical trial activities increase. As a result, our accumulated deficit will also increase significantly. We may encounter unforeseen

47

expenses, difficulties, complications, delays and other unknown factors that may adversely affect our business. The size of our future net losses will depend, in part, on the rate of future growth of our expenses and our ability to generate revenue. However, we do not expect to generate any revenue from commercial product sales unless and until we successfully complete development and obtain regulatory approval for one or more of our vaccine candidates, which we expect will take a number of years. Our prior losses and expected future losses have had and will continue to have an adverse effect on our stockholders’ equity and working capital. Even if we eventually generate revenue, we may never be profitable and, if we do achieve profitability, we may not be able to sustain or increase profitability on a quarterly or annual basis.

We will require substantial additional funding to finance our operations, which may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all. If we are unable to raise additional capital when needed, we could be forced to delay, reduce or terminate certain of our development programs or other operations.

As of December 31, 2022, we had cash, cash equivalents and investments of $957.9 million. We believe our existing cash, cash equivalents and investments will fund our current operating plans through at least 12 months from the filing date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. However, our operating plan may change as a result of many factors currently unknown to us, and we may need to seek additional funds sooner than planned. We have raised substantial capital, however, we will need to raise substantial additional capital to complete the development and commercialization of our drug candidates. We expect to finance our cash needs through public or private equity or debt financings, third-party (including government) funding and marketing and distribution arrangements, as well as other collaborations, strategic alliances and licensing arrangements or any combination of these approaches. In July 2021, we entered into an Open Market Sales AgreementSM, or the ATM Sales Agreement with Jefferies LLC, or Jefferies, which provides that, upon the terms and subject to the conditions and limitations set forth in the ATM Sales Agreement, we may elect to issue and sell, from time to time, shares of our common stock having an aggregate offering price of up to $150.0 million through Jefferies acting as our sales agent or principal. As of December 31, 2022, we have sold 4,488,573 shares of our common stock under the ATM Sales Agreement at an average price of $25.56 per share for aggregate gross proceeds of $114.7 million ($111.2 million net of commissions and offering expenses). Our ability to raise additional capital may be adversely impacted by potential worsening global economic conditions, including higher inflation rates and changes in interest rates and the recent disruptions to and volatility in the credit and financial markets in the United States and worldwide, including the trading price of common stock, resulting from the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and civil and political unrest in certain countries and regions. Our future capital requirements will depend on many factors, including:

48

Our ability to raise additional funds will depend on financial, economic and other factors, many of which are beyond our control. We cannot be certain that additional funding will be available on acceptable terms, or at all. We have no committed source of additional capital and if we are unable to raise additional capital in sufficient amounts or on terms acceptable to us, we may have to significantly delay, scale back or discontinue the development or commercialization of our vaccine candidates or other research and development initiatives. Our license agreements may also be terminated if we are unable to meet the payment obligations or milestones under the agreements. We could be required to seek collaborators for our vaccine candidates at an earlier stage than otherwise would be desirable or on terms that are less favorable than might otherwise be available, or relinquish or license on unfavorable terms our rights to our vaccine candidates in markets where we otherwise would seek to pursue development or commercialization ourselves.

Due to the significant resources required for the development of our vaccine candidates, and depending on our ability to access capital, we must prioritize development of certain vaccine candidates. Moreover, we may expend our limited resources on vaccine candidates that do not yield a successful vaccine and fail to capitalize on vaccine candidates that may be more profitable or for which there is a greater likelihood of success.

Due to the significant resources required for the development of our vaccine candidates, we must decide which vaccine candidates to pursue and advance and the amount of resources to allocate to each. Our decisions concerning the allocation of research, development, management and financial resources toward particular vaccine candidates may not lead to the development of any viable commercial vaccines and may divert resources away from better opportunities. Similarly, our potential decisions to delay, terminate, license or collaborate with third parties in respect of certain vaccine candidates may subsequently also prove to be less than optimal and could cause us to miss valuable opportunities. If we make incorrect determinations regarding the viability or market potential of any of our vaccine candidates or misread trends in the biopharmaceutical industry, in particular for vaccines, our business could be seriously harmed. As a result, we may fail to capitalize on viable commercial products or profitable market opportunities, be required to forego or delay pursuit of opportunities with other vaccine candidates that may later prove to have greater commercial potential than those we choose to pursue or relinquish valuable rights to such vaccine candidates through collaboration, licensing or other royalty arrangements in cases in which it would have been advantageous for us to invest additional resources to retain sole development and commercialization rights.

Risks Related to Our Business and Industry

Our approach to the discovery and development of our vaccine candidates is based on novel technologies that are unproven, which may expose us to unforeseen risks, require us to modify processes, and make it difficult to predict the time and cost of vaccine candidate development and the timing to apply for and obtain regulatory approvals.

We are developing a pipeline of vaccine candidates utilizing our cell-free protein synthesis platform, which is comprised of the XpressCF platform exclusively licensed from Sutro Biopharma, and our proprietary know-how for vaccine applications against infectious disease, and our future success depends on the successful application of this approach to vaccine development. We are in the clinical or preclinical stages of developing our vaccine candidates and there can be no assurance that any development problems we experience in the future will not cause significant delays or unanticipated costs, or that such development problems can be overcome. For

49

example, although we have achieved proof-of-concept for our carrier-sparing approach with VAX-24, our approach may not be validated for our other vaccine candidates or subsequent trials of VAX-24. We may also experience delays in developing a sustainable, reproducible and scalable manufacturing process or transferring that process to manufacturing partners, which may prevent us from completing our clinical trials or commercializing our products on a timely or profitable basis, if at all. In addition, since we have not yet completed clinical development, we do not know the specific doses that may be effective in the clinic or, if approved, commercially. Finding a suitable dose may delay our anticipated clinical development timelines.

Furthermore, our expectations with regard to our scalability and costs of manufacturing may vary significantly as we develop our vaccine candidates and understand these critical factors. Conjugate vaccine development is highly complex, and development of broad-valency PCVs is further complicated by the number of components, analytical assays and potential for adjustments, including but not limited to changes in raw materials, composition, formulation, manufacturing methods and dosing, which could result in drug substances and/or drug product that may vary between preclinical and clinical studies over time. Over the course of the development and manufacturing of VAX-24, we have encountered process-related matters that have required us to make adjustments to our processes. We encountered such process-related matters during our drug substance manufacturing campaign for VAX-24 at Lonza, Ltd., or Lonza. The cumulative impact of the time required to make adjustments to our processes led to a delay of our drug substance manufacturing campaign due to scheduling conflicts and capacity constraints at Lonza. There can be no assurance that we or Lonza will be able to successfully manufacture drug substances in a timely manner in the future, or at all. Such process changes and manufacturing delays have caused a change in our Investigational New Drug, or IND, application timelines in the past and future changes or delays could impact future timelines for VAX-24 or for our other product candidates.

In addition, the preclinical and clinical trial requirements of the FDA, European Medicines Agency, or EMA, and other regulatory agencies and the criteria these regulators use to determine the safety and efficacy of a vaccine candidate are determined according to the type, complexity, novelty and intended use and market of the potential products. Approvals by the FDA and EMA for existing pneumococcal vaccines, such as PCV13, PPSV23, PCV20 and PCV15 may not be indicative of what these regulators may require for approval of our vaccine candidates. For example, we have used opsonophagocytic activity, or OPA, titers as the primary immunogenicity surrogate endpoint for the VAX-24 program in adults because PCV13 and PCV20 were approved based on the establishment of non-inferiority of serotype-specific OPA responses relative to PPSV23 and PCV13 respectively; however, there can be no assurance that this streamlined non-inferiority approach will be sufficient for regulatory approval or that regulators will not require field efficacy trials. Furthermore, while there have been approvals granted for both PCVs and meningococcal conjugate vaccines based on surrogate immune endpoints rather than field efficacy studies, we will not be able to confirm this approach’s applicability for our vaccines until we complete our Phase 2 clinical development program. Additionally, novel aspects of our vaccine candidates and manufacturing processes may create further challenges in obtaining regulatory approval. The regulatory approval process for our novel vaccine candidates can be more complex and consequently more expensive and take longer than for other, better known or extensively studied pharmaceutical or other vaccine candidates. More generally, approvals by any regulatory agency may not be indicative of what any other regulatory agency may require for approval or what such regulatory agencies may require for approval in connection with new vaccine candidates. Moreover, our vaccine candidates may not perform successfully in clinical trials.

Our vaccine candidates are in clinical or preclinical stages of development and may fail in development or suffer delays that materially and adversely affect their commercial viability. If we are unable to complete development of or commercialize our vaccine candidates or experience significant delays in doing so, our business would be materially harmed.

None of our vaccine candidates have been the subject of late-stage or pivotal clinical trials. On October 24, 2022, we announced positive topline results from our Phase 1/2 clinical proof-of-concept study of VAX-24 in adults ages 18 to 64. We also announced in July 2022 the initiation of a separate Phase 2 study of VAX-24 in healthy adults aged 65 and older and expect to announce topline safety, tolerability and immunogenicity results from this study in the second half of 2023. Final results with the six-month safety data of the Phase 2 adult studies are anticipated in the first half of 2023. Regulatory interactions to inform the Phase 3 program are anticipated in the second half of 2023 following the receipt of the final safety reports from the two adult Phase 2 studies, and topline safety, tolerability and immunogenicity data from the pivotal Phase 3 non-inferiority study in adults are expected in

50

2025. With regard to our VAX-24 pediatric program, in late February 2023, we announced that the FDA cleared the IND application for the prevention of IPD in infants. We plan to initiate an infant Phase 2 study in the second quarter of 2023, with topline safety, tolerability and immunogenicity data following the primary three-dose immunization series expected by 2025. We anticipate submitting an IND application to the FDA for VAX-31 (formerly VAX-XP) in the second half of 2023. Topline safety, tolerability and immunogenicity data from a Phase 1/2 study in adults are expected in 2024. In addition to our PCV franchise, our pipeline includes VAX-A1, a novel conjugate vaccine candidate designed to prevent disease caused by Group A Strep; VAX-PG, a novel protein vaccine candidate targeting the keystone pathogen responsible for periodontitis; VAX-GI, a vaccine designed to prevent Shigellosis; and other discovery-stage programs. Our ability to achieve and sustain profitability depends on obtaining regulatory approvals for and successfully commercializing our vaccine candidates, either alone or with third parties, and we cannot guarantee that we will ever obtain regulatory approval for any of our vaccine candidates. We have limited experience in conducting and managing the clinical trials necessary to obtain regulatory approvals, including approval by the FDA. Before obtaining regulatory approval for the commercial distribution of our vaccine candidates, we must conduct extensive preclinical studies and clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of our vaccine candidates.

We may not have the financial resources to continue development of, or to enter into new collaborations for, a vaccine candidate if we experience any issues that delay or prevent regulatory approval of, or our ability to commercialize, vaccine candidates, including:

51

In particular, while we believe our PCVs could receive regulatory approval based on well-defined surrogate immune endpoints, consistent with how other PCVs have obtained regulatory approval in the past, rather than requiring clinical field efficacy studies, there can be no assurance that the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities will provide approvals on such basis. In addition, changes to the standard of care or the approval of new vaccines could change the threshold for achievement of non-inferiority using the established surrogate immune endpoints that our PCVs will need to meet in our clinical trials.

Our inability to complete development of or commercialize our vaccine candidates, or significant delays in doing so due to one or more of these factors, could have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Moreover, principal investigators for our clinical trials may serve as scientific advisors or consultants to us from time to time and receive compensation in connection with such services. Under certain circumstances, we may be required to report some of these relationships to the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. The FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may conclude that a financial relationship between us and a principal investigator has created a conflict of interest or otherwise affected interpretation of the study. The FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may therefore question the integrity of the data generated at the applicable clinical trial site and the utility of the clinical trial itself may be jeopardized. This could result in a delay in approval, or rejection, of our marketing applications by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, as the case may be, and may ultimately lead to the denial of marketing approval of one or more of our vaccine candidates.

Our business is highly dependent on the success of VAX-24, which is in clinical development. If we are unable to obtain approval for VAX-24 and effectively commercialize VAX-24, our business would be significantly harmed.

Our business and future success depends on our ability to obtain regulatory approval of, and then successfully commercialize, our most advanced vaccine candidate, VAX-24. Although VAX-24 has produced positive topline results in a Phase 1/2 clinical study, it may not demonstrate the same results in future pivotal studies. VAX-24 will require additional clinical and non-clinical development, regulatory review and approval in multiple jurisdictions, substantial investment, access to sufficient clinical and commercial manufacturing capacity and significant marketing efforts before we can generate any revenue from product sales. We cannot provide any assurance that we will be able to successfully advance VAX-24 through the development process.

The clinical and commercial success of VAX-24 and future vaccine candidates will depend on a number of factors, including the following:

52

These factors, many of which are beyond our control, could cause us to experience significant delays or an inability to obtain regulatory approvals or commercialize our vaccine candidates. Even if regulatory approvals are obtained, we may never be able to successfully commercialize any of our vaccine candidates. Accordingly, we cannot provide assurances that we will be able to generate sufficient revenue through the sale of our vaccine candidates or any future vaccine candidates to continue our business or achieve profitability.

53

Our primary competitors have significantly greater resources and experience than we do, which may make it difficult for us to successfully develop our vaccine candidates, or may result in others discovering, developing or commercializing products before or more successfully than us.

The vaccine market is intensely competitive and is dominated by a small number of multinational, globally established pharmaceutical corporations with significant resources; in recent history, Pfizer Inc, or Pfizer, Merck & Co., Inc., or Merck, GSK plc, or GSK and Sanofi have been responsible for developing and introducing most new vaccines to the world. We may also face competition from many different sources, including pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, academic institutions, governmental agencies and public and private research institutions.

Vaccine candidates that we successfully develop and commercialize may compete with existing vaccines and new vaccines that may become available in the future. Many of our competitors have substantially greater financial, lobbying, technical, human and other resources than we do and may be better equipped to develop, manufacture and market technologically superior vaccines, including the potential that our competitors may develop chemical processes or utilize novel technologies for developing vaccines that may be superior to those we employ. In addition, many of these competitors have significantly greater experience than we have in undertaking preclinical studies and clinical trials of new products and in obtaining regulatory approvals, including for many vaccine franchises. Accordingly, our competitors may succeed in obtaining FDA approval or a preferred recommendation for their products. For example, PCV13 obtained FDA approval for the prevention of invasive pneumococcal disease, or IPD, in infants based on non-inferior IgG antibody responses relative to Prevnar, using the surrogate immune endpoints established by the prior Prevnar field efficacy study. Pfizer implemented a similar approach to development of its 20-valent PCV vaccine candidate, PCV20, which was approved by the FDA in June 2021 for use in adults. In August 2022, Pfizer announced topline results from its U.S. Phase 3 study in infants evaluating PCV20 for the prevention of IPD and in January 2023, the FDA accepted for priority review a supplemental Biologics License Application for PCV20 for the prevention of IPD in infants and children. Merck received approval for PCV15, its 15-valent PCV, in July 2021 for use in adults and in June 2022 for use in infants. Merck announced in April 2022 that V116, the company’s investigational 21-valent PCV for adults, received Breakthrough Therapy designation from the FDA, and later announced that it enrolled the first patient in their Phase 3 clinical trial. In June 2022, Merck announced positive results from its Phase 1/2 study evaluating the safety, tolerability and immunogenicity of V116 in pneumococcal vaccine-naïve adults 18-49 years of age (Phase 1) and 50 years of age and older (Phase 2). In addition, Sanofi and SK Chemicals have partnered to develop a PCV, and GSK, which recently acquired Affinivax, is developing a 24-valent affinity-bound pneumococcal vaccine. Affinivax also has a 30-plus valent pneumococcal candidate vaccine in preclinical development.

Many of our competitors have established distribution channels for the commercialization of their vaccine products, whereas we have no such established channels or capabilities. In addition, many competitors have greater name recognition, more extensive collaborative relationships or the ability to leverage a broader vaccine portfolio. Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize vaccines that are safer, more effective, more convenient, less expensive or with a more favorable label than any vaccine candidates that we may develop.

As a result of these factors, our competitors may obtain regulatory approval of their products before we are able to, which may limit our ability to develop or commercialize our vaccine candidates, or achieve a competitive position in the market. This would adversely affect our ability to generate revenue. Our competitors may also develop vaccines that are safer, more effective, more widely accepted or less expensive than ours, and may also be more successful than we are in manufacturing and marketing their products. These advantages could render our vaccine candidates obsolete or non-competitive before we can recover the costs of such vaccine candidates’ development and commercialization.

Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors. Smaller and early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. These third parties compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific, management and commercial personnel, establishing clinical trial sites and subject enrollment for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs.

54

We and our contract manufacturers may face difficulty satisfying chemistry, manufacturing and controls requirements imposed by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities. To date, no product developed using a cell-free manufacturing platform has received approval from the FDA or been commercialized.

While we are designing and developing a manufacturing process that we believe can scale to address clinical and commercial vaccine supply, we do not own or operate any manufacturing facilities. We rely on contract manufacturing organizations, or CMOs, including our strategic partnership with our contract manufacturer, Lonza, to access resources to facilitate the development and, if approved, commercialization of VAX-24 and our other vaccine candidates. Advancing our vaccine candidates may create significant challenges, including:

Before we can initiate a clinical trial or commercialize any of our vaccine candidates, we must demonstrate to the FDA that the CMC for our vaccine candidates meet applicable requirements, and prior to authorization in the European Union, or EU, a manufacturing authorization must be obtained from the appropriate EU regulatory authorities. Because no product manufactured on a cell-free manufacturing platform has been approved in the United States, there is no manufacturing facility that has demonstrated the ability to comply with FDA requirements, and, therefore, the timeframe for demonstrating compliance to the FDA’s satisfaction is uncertain. Delays in establishing that our manufacturing process and the facilities we utilize for manufacturing comply with cGMP or disruptions in our manufacturing processes, implementation of novel technologies or scale-up activities, may delay or disrupt our development efforts.

Even if we obtain regulatory approval of our vaccine candidates, the products may not gain market acceptance among regulators, advisory boards, physicians, patients, third-party payors and others in the medical community necessary for commercial success.

Even if any of our vaccine candidates receive marketing approval, they may fail to receive recommendations for use by regulators or advisory boards that recommend vaccines, or gain market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors and others in the medical community. If such vaccine candidates do not achieve an adequate level of acceptance, we may not generate significant product revenue and may not become profitable. The degree of market acceptance of any vaccine candidate, if approved for commercial sale, will depend on a number of factors, including but not limited to:

55

In the United States, the CDC and ACIP develop vaccine recommendations for both children and adults, as do similar agencies around the world. To develop its recommendations, ACIP forms working groups that gather, analyze and prepare scientific information. The ACIP also considers many of the factors above, as well as myriad additional factors such as the value of vaccination for the target population regarding the outcomes, health economic data and implementation issues. ACIP recommendations are also made within categories, such as in an age group or a specified risk group. For example, the ACIP may determine that a preferred recommendation in a smaller child population may be more economical than recommending vaccinations for a larger adult population, which could adversely impact our market opportunity.

New pediatric vaccines that receive an ACIP preferred recommendation are almost universally adopted, and adult vaccines that receive a preferred recommendation are widely adopted. For example, in 2014, the ACIP voted to recommend PCV13 for routine use to help protect adults aged 65 years and older against pneumococcal disease, which caused PCV13 to become the standard of care along with continued use of PPSV23. ACIP can also modify its preferred recommendation. For instance, in June 2019, the ACIP voted to revise the pneumococcal vaccination guidelines and recommend PCV13 for adults 65 and older based on the shared clinical decision making of the provider and patient, rather than a preferred use recommendation, which means the decision to vaccinate should be made at the individual level between health care providers and their patients. In October 2021, the ACIP voted to recommend the use of either Pfizer’s PCV20, or Merck’s PCV15 with PPSV23, for routine use in adults aged 65 years and older as well as for those between the ages of 19 and 64 years with certain underlying medical conditions or other risk factors. In June 2022, ACIP voted to recommend that Merck’s PCV15 may be used as an option to the currently available PCV13 for children aged under 19 years according to currently recommended PCV13 dosing and schedules.

If our vaccine candidates are approved but fail to receive CDC and ACIP recommendations, or recommendations of other comparable foreign regulatory and advisory bodies, or achieve market acceptance among physicians, healthcare providers, patients, third-party payors or others in the medical community, we will not be able to generate significant revenue. Even if our products achieve market acceptance, we may not be able to maintain that market acceptance over time if new products or technologies are introduced that are more favorably received than our products, are more cost effective or render our products obsolete.

We may not be successful in our efforts to use our cell-free protein synthesis platform to expand our pipeline of vaccine candidates and develop marketable products.

The success of our business depends in large part upon our ability to identify, develop and commercialize products based on our cell-free protein synthesis platform. We intend to pursue clinical development of additional vaccine candidates beyond VAX-24, including VAX-31 for PCV, VAX-A1 for Group A Strep, VAX-PG for periodontitis and VAX-GI for Shigellosis. Our research programs may fail to identify potential vaccine candidates for clinical development for a number of reasons or we may focus our efforts and resources on potential programs or vaccine candidates that ultimately prove to be unsuccessful. In addition, we cannot provide any assurance that we will be able to successfully advance any of our existing or future vaccine candidates through the development process.

56

Our potential vaccine candidates may be shown to have harmful side effects or may have other characteristics that may make the products unmarketable or unlikely to receive marketing approval. If any of these events occur, we may be forced to abandon our development efforts for a program or for multiple programs, which would materially harm our business and could potentially cause us to cease operations.

Even if we receive FDA approval to market additional vaccine candidates, we cannot provide assurance that any such vaccine candidates will be successfully commercialized, widely accepted in the marketplace or more effective than other commercially available alternatives. In addition, current PCVs do not address the majority of circulating strains causing pneumococcal disease. There has been a decrease in the incidence of disease attributable to the strains covered by existing vaccines but an increase in incidence attributable to non-covered strains that now cause most residual disease. Such change is driven by the void created when strains are taken out of circulation after widespread vaccination, which is a phenomenon known as serotype replacement. As a result of such change, broader spectrum PCVs are required to maintain protection against historically pathogenic strains while expanding coverage to current circulating and emerging strains. There can be no assurance that we will be able to develop higher-valent vaccines to address serotype replacement.

In addition, because VAX-24 is our most advanced vaccine candidate, and because our other vaccine candidates are also based on our cell-free protein synthesis platform, if VAX-24 encounters safety or efficacy problems, manufacturing problems, developmental delays, regulatory issues or other problems, our development plans and business would be significantly harmed.

We currently rely on third-party manufacturing and supply partners, including Lonza and Sutro Biopharma, to supply raw materials and components for, and manufacture of, our preclinical and clinical supplies as well as our vaccine candidates. Our inability to procure necessary raw materials or to have sufficient quantities of preclinical and clinical supplies or the inability to have our vaccine candidates manufactured, including delays or interruptions at our third-party manufacturers, or our failure to comply with applicable regulatory requirements or to supply sufficient quantities at acceptable quality levels or prices, or at all, would materially and adversely affect our business.

Efficient and scalable manufacturing and supply is a vital component of our business strategy. We currently do not own or operate any manufacturing facilities. We are designing and developing a manufacturing process that we believe can scale to address clinical and commercial vaccine supply. However, our assumptions as to our ability and our CMOs’ ability to produce vaccines at the scale needed for clinical development and commercial demand, in particular for our PCVs, may prove to be wrong. If we encounter substantial problems in our manufacturing processes or in our ability to scale to address commercial vaccine supply, our business would be materially adversely affected. Examples of potential issues related to our manufacturing processes or our ability to scale include difficulties with production costs, yields and quality control, including stability of the drug substance or drug product.

We rely on third-party contract manufacturers to manufacture preclinical and clinical trial product materials and supplies for our needs. There can be no assurance that our preclinical and clinical development product supplies will not be limited or interrupted or be of satisfactory quality or continue to be available on acceptable terms. Over the course of the development and manufacturing of VAX-24, we have encountered process-related matters that have required us to make adjustments to our processes. We encountered such process-related matters during our drug substance manufacturing campaign for VAX-24 at Lonza. The cumulative impact of the time required to make adjustments to our processes led to a delay of our drug substance manufacturing campaign due to scheduling conflicts and capacity constraints at Lonza. There can be no assurance that we or Lonza will be able to successfully manufacture drug substances in a timely manner in the future, or at all. Such process changes and manufacturing delays have caused a change in our IND timelines in the past and future changes or delays could impact future timelines for VAX-24 or for our other product candidates. As a third-party manufacturer, we are also subject to Lonza’s scheduling commitments for its other clients. Scheduling conflicts with Lonza’s other clients have contributed to manufacturing delays in the past, and there is no guarantee that future scheduling conflicts or related capacity constraints will not affect our manufacturing campaigns and related timelines. In addition, certain aspects of our manufacturing process for our clinical trial product materials and supplies were adversely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, and could be adversely affected by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, earthquakes and other natural or man-made disasters, equipment failures, labor shortages, power failures and numerous other factors

57

in the future. Please see the risk factor titled “Health epidemics, including the effects of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, have impacted and could continue to impact our business, including in regions where we or third parties on which we rely have significant manufacturing facilities, concentrations of potential clinical trial sites or other business operations.”

The manufacturing process for a vaccine candidate is subject to FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authority review. Our suppliers and manufacturers must meet applicable manufacturing requirements and undergo rigorous facility and process validation tests required by regulatory authorities in order to comply with regulatory standards, such as cGMPs.

If our contract manufacturers cannot successfully manufacture material that conforms to our specifications and the strict regulatory requirements of the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, we may not be able to rely on their manufacturing facilities for the manufacture of elements of our vaccine candidates. Moreover, we do not control the manufacturing process at our contract manufacturers and are completely dependent on them for compliance with current regulatory requirements. In the event that any of our manufacturers fails to comply with such requirements or to perform its obligations in relation to quality, timing or otherwise, or if our supply of components or other materials becomes limited or interrupted for other reasons, we may be forced to manufacture the materials ourselves or enter into an agreement with another third party, which we may not be able to do on reasonable terms, if at all. In some cases, the technical skills, raw materials or technology required to manufacture our vaccine candidates may be unique or proprietary to the original manufacturer or supplier, and we may have difficulty applying such skills or technology or sourcing such raw materials ourselves, or in transferring such skills, technology or raw materials to another third party, or such transfer may be subject to certain consent obligations and payment terms to Lonza. These factors would increase our reliance on such manufacturer or require us to obtain a license from such manufacturer in order to enable us, or to have another third party, manufacture our vaccine candidates. If we are required to change manufacturers for any reason, we will be required to verify that the new manufacturer maintains facilities and procedures that comply with quality standards and with all applicable regulations and guidelines, and we may be required to repeat some of the development program. The delays associated with the verification of a new manufacturer could negatively affect our ability to develop vaccine candidates in a timely manner or within budget.

We expect to continue to rely on third-party manufacturers and suppliers, including Lonza, if we receive regulatory approval for any PCV or any other vaccine candidates. To the extent that we have existing, or enter into future, manufacturing arrangements with third parties, we will depend on these third parties to perform their obligations in a timely manner consistent with contractual and regulatory requirements, including those related to quality control and assurance. In December 2019, we exercised our right to require Sutro Biopharma to establish a second supplier for extract and custom reagents to support our anticipated clinical and commercial needs. In December 2022, we entered into an option agreement with Sutro Biopharma, or the Option Agreement, pursuant to which we acquired, among other thing, authorization to enter into an agreement with an independent alternate CMO to directly source Sutro Biopharma’s cell-free extract, allowing us to have direct oversight over financial and operational aspects of the relationship with the CMO. If we are unable to obtain or maintain third-party manufacturing for vaccine candidates, or to do so on commercially reasonable terms, we may not be able to develop and commercialize our vaccine candidates successfully. Our or a third party’s failure to execute on our manufacturing requirements and comply with cGMPs could adversely affect our business in a number of ways, including:

58

In addition, because VAX-24 is our most advanced vaccine candidate, and because our other vaccine candidates are also based on our cell-free protein synthesis platform, if VAX-24 encounters safety or efficacy problems, manufacturing problems, developmental delays, regulatory issues or other problems, our development plans and business would be significantly harmed.

Additionally, we and our contract manufacturers may experience manufacturing difficulties due to limited vaccine manufacturing experience, resource constraints or as a result of labor disputes or unstable political environments. If we or our contract manufacturers were to encounter any of these difficulties, our ability to manufacture sufficient vaccine supply for our preclinical studies and clinical trials, or to provide product for patients once approved, would be jeopardized.

Our vaccine candidates may cause undesirable side effects or have other properties, including interactions with existing vaccine regimens, that could halt their clinical development, prevent their regulatory approval, limit their commercial potential or result in significant negative consequences.

Adverse effects or other undesirable or unacceptable side effects caused by our vaccine candidates could cause us or regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials and could result in a more restrictive label or the delay or denial of regulatory approval by the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities. Results of our clinical trials could reveal a high and unacceptable severity and prevalence of side effects or unexpected characteristics. In such an event, our clinical trials could be suspended or terminated, and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities could order us to cease further development of or deny approval of our vaccine candidates. Such side effects could also affect trial recruitment or the ability of enrolled subjects to complete the clinical trial or result in potential product liability claims. A data safety monitoring board may also suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research volunteers are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Vaccine-related side effects could also affect recruitment or the ability of enrolled subjects to complete the trial or result in potential product liability claims. In addition, any vaccine to be approved in pediatric populations may need to undergo extensive vaccine-vaccine interference studies with the standard of care pediatric vaccine regimen. Further, to the extent field efficacy studies are required, prophylactic vaccines typically require clinical testing in thousands to tens of thousands of healthy volunteers to define an approvable benefit-risk profile. The need to show a high degree of safety and tolerability when dosing healthy individuals could result in rare and even spurious safety findings, negatively impacting a program prior to or after commercial launch. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly.

Negative developments and negative public opinion of new technologies on which we rely may damage public perception of our vaccine candidates or adversely affect our ability to conduct our business or obtain regulatory approvals for our vaccine candidates.

Negative developments and negative public opinion of new or existing technologies on which we rely may damage public perception of our vaccine candidates or adversely affect our ability to conduct our business or obtain regulatory approvals for our vaccine candidates. Public perception may be influenced by claims that vaccines are unsafe, and products incorporating new vaccine technology may not gain the acceptance of the public or the medical community. Adverse public attitudes may negatively impact our ability to enroll subjects in clinical trials. Moreover, our success will depend upon physicians prescribing, and their patients being willing to receive, our vaccine candidates in lieu of, or in addition to, existing, more familiar vaccines for which greater clinical data may be available. Any increase in negative perceptions of the technologies that we rely on may result in fewer physicians prescribing our products or may reduce the willingness of patients to utilize our products or participate in clinical trials for our vaccine candidates.

We may not be able to file IND applications to commence clinical trials on the timelines we expect, and even if we are able to, the FDA may not permit us to proceed.

Our timing of submitting the IND applications for our product candidates is dependent on preclinical and manufacturing success, and if we experience additional delays, we may fail to meet our anticipated timelines. In addition, we cannot be sure that submission of an IND application or IND application amendment will result in the FDA allowing testing and clinical trials to begin, or that, once begun, issues will not arise that suspend or terminate

59

such clinical trials. Additionally, even if such regulatory authorities agree with the design and implementation of the clinical trials set forth in an IND or clinical trial application, we cannot guarantee that such regulatory authorities will not change their requirements in the future.

We may encounter substantial delays in our clinical trials or may not be able to conduct our trials on the timelines we expect.

Clinical testing is expensive, time consuming and subject to uncertainty. We cannot guarantee that any clinical studies will be conducted as planned or completed on schedule, if at all. Even if these trials begin as planned, issues may arise that could suspend or terminate such clinical trials. A failure of one or more clinical studies can occur at any stage of testing, and our future clinical studies may not be successful. Events that may prevent successful or timely completion of clinical development include:

60

For example, based on the positive topline results from the VAX-24 Phase 1/2 proof-of-concept study, which evaluated the safety, tolerability and immunogenicity of VAX-24 in adults 18-64 years of age, the FDA supported the initiation of a pediatric study in infants. This study could uncover risks in this study population that could have potentially been discovered during a child and/or toddler study, which could then delay completion of clinical development. Any inability to successfully complete preclinical and clinical development could result in additional costs to us or impair our ability to generate revenue. In addition, if we make manufacturing or formulation changes to our vaccine candidates, we may be required to or we may elect to conduct additional studies to bridge our modified vaccine candidates to earlier versions. Clinical trial delays could also shorten any periods during which our products have patent protection and may allow our competitors to bring products to market before we do, which could impair our ability to successfully commercialize our vaccine candidates and may harm our business and results of operations.

If we encounter difficulties enrolling subjects in any clinical trials we may conduct, including any field efficacy trials that may be required, our clinical development activities could be delayed or otherwise adversely affected.

We may experience difficulties in enrolling subjects in any clinical trials we may conduct for a variety of reasons. The timely completion of clinical trials in accordance with their protocols depends, among other things, on our ability to enroll a sufficient number of subjects who remain in the study until its conclusion. The enrollment of subjects depends on many factors, including:

To the extent we are required to conduct any field efficacy studies, enrollment of a sufficient number of subjects may require additional time and resources given widespread vaccination rates in the United States, particularly in the pediatric population. As a result, we may be required to conduct any such trials outside the United States, which could cause additional complexity and delay. Delays in enrollment may result in increased costs or may affect the timing or outcome of any clinical trials we may conduct, which could prevent completion of these trials and adversely affect our ability to advance the development of our vaccine candidates.

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

61

From time to time, we may publish interim topline or preliminary data from our preclinical or clinical trials. For instance, on October 24, 2022, we announced positive topline results from the Phase 1/2 clinical proof-of-concept study evaluating the safety, tolerability and immunogenicity of VAX-24 in healthy adults aged 18-64. Interim topline data from clinical trials that we may complete are subject to the risk that one or more of the clinical outcomes may materially change as more patient data become available. We also make assumptions, estimations, calculations and conclusions as part of our analyses of data, and we may not have received or had the opportunity to fully and carefully evaluate all data when we publish such data. As a result, the topline results that we report may differ from future results of the same studies, or different conclusions or considerations may qualify such results once additional data have been received and fully evaluated. Preliminary or topline data also remain subject to audit and verification procedures that may result in the final data being materially different from the preliminary data we may publish. 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.

Further, others, including regulatory agencies, may not accept or agree with our assumptions, estimates, calculations, conclusions or analyses or may interpret or weigh the importance of data differently, which could impact the value of the particular program, the approvability or commercialization of the particular vaccine candidate and our company in general. In addition, the information we choose to publicly disclose regarding a particular study or clinical trial is based on what is typically extensive information, and you or others may not agree with what we determine is the material or otherwise appropriate information to include in our disclosure. Any information we determine not to disclose may ultimately be deemed significant by you or others with respect to future decisions, conclusions, views, activities or otherwise regarding a particular vaccine candidate or our business. If the topline data that we report differ from final results, or if others, including regulatory authorities, disagree with the conclusions reached, our ability to obtain approval for, and commercialize, vaccine candidates may be harmed, which could significantly harm our business prospects.

We may seek Breakthrough Therapy designation or Fast Track designation by the FDA for one or more of our vaccine candidates, but we may not receive such designation, and even if we do, such designation may not lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process and it does not increase the likelihood that our vaccine candidates will receive marketing approval.

We may seek Breakthrough Therapy or Fast Track designation for some of our vaccine candidates. For instance, in August 2022 we announced that the FDA granted Fast Track designation to VAX-24 in adults ages 18 and older and, in January 2023, we announced that the FDA granted Breakthrough Therapy designation for VAX-24 for the prevention of IPD in adults. A sponsor may seek FDA designation of its vaccine candidate as a Breakthrough Therapy if the vaccine candidate is intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the therapy may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. For vaccines that have been designated as Breakthrough Therapies, the FDA may take actions to expedite the development and review of the application, and interaction and communication between the FDA and the sponsor of the trial can help to identify the most efficient path for clinical development while minimizing the number of patients placed in ineffective control regimens.

A vaccine designated as a Breakthrough Therapy by the FDA may also be eligible for expedited review and approval. If a vaccine candidate is intended for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening condition and clinical or preclinical data demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for this condition, the sponsor may apply for Fast Track designation. The FDA has broad discretion whether or not to grant this designation, so even if we believe a particular vaccine candidate is eligible for this designation, we cannot assure you that the FDA would decide to grant it.

Even if we obtain Fast Track designation for one or more of our vaccine candidates, we may not experience a faster development process, review or approval compared to non-expedited FDA review procedures. For instance, although the FDA has granted Fast Track designation to VAX-24 in adults, we may not experience a faster development, review or approval process compared to the conventional process. In addition, the FDA may withdraw Fast Track designation from VAX-24, or from any other of our vaccine candidates that may receive the

62

designation in the future, if it believes that the designation is no longer supported. Fast Track designation alone does not guarantee qualification for the FDA’s Priority Review procedures.

Whether to grant Breakthrough Therapy or Fast Track designations are within the discretion of the FDA. Accordingly, even if we believe one of our vaccine candidates meets the criteria for these designations, the FDA may disagree and instead determine not to make such designation. In any event, the receipt of either of these designations for a vaccine candidate may not result in a faster development process, review or approval compared to vaccine candidates considered for approval under non-expedited FDA review procedures and does not assure ultimate approval by the FDA. In addition, even if one or more of our vaccine candidates qualify for either of these designations, the FDA may later decide that the vaccine candidate no longer meets the conditions for qualification and rescind the designations.

We currently have no marketing and sales organization, and as an organization have no experience in marketing products. If we are unable to establish marketing and sales capabilities or enter into agreements with third parties to market and sell our vaccine candidates, we may not be able to generate product revenue.

We currently have no sales, marketing or distribution capabilities and as an organization have no experience in marketing products. If we develop an in-house marketing organization and sales force, we will require significant capital expenditures, management resources and time, and we will have to compete with other pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies to recruit, hire, train and retain marketing and sales personnel.

If we are unable or decide not to establish internal sales, marketing and distribution capabilities, we will pursue collaborative arrangements regarding the sales and marketing of our products; however, there can be no assurance that we will be able to establish or maintain such collaborative arrangements, or if we are able to do so, that they will have effective sales forces. Any revenue we receive will depend upon the efforts of such third parties, which may not be successful. We may have little or no control over the marketing and sales efforts of such third parties and our revenue from product sales may be lower than if we had commercialized our vaccine candidates ourselves. We also face competition in our search for third parties to assist us with the sales and marketing efforts of our vaccine candidates.

There can be no assurance that we will be able to develop in-house sales and distribution capabilities or establish or maintain relationships with third-party collaborators to commercialize any product that receives regulatory approval in the United States or overseas. If we are unable to develop in-house sales and distribution capabilities or enter into relationships with third-party collaborators on acceptable terms or at all, we may not be able to successfully commercialize our products. If we are not successful in commercializing our products or any future products, either on our own or through arrangements with one or more third parties, we may not be able to generate any future product revenue and we would incur significant additional losses.

A variety of risks associated with potentially conducting research and clinical trials abroad and marketing our vaccine candidates internationally could materially adversely affect our business.

As we pursue approval and commercialization for our vaccine candidates overseas and conduct CMC and other operations overseas, we will be subject to additional risks related to operating in foreign countries, including:

63

These and other risks associated with our international operations and our collaborations with Lonza, based in Switzerland, may materially adversely affect our ability to attain or maintain profitable operations.

We are highly dependent on our key personnel, and if we are not able to retain these members of our management team or recruit and retain highly qualified personnel, we may not be able to successfully implement our business strategy.

Our ability to compete in the highly competitive biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries depends upon our ability to attract and retain highly qualified managerial, scientific and medical personnel. We are highly dependent on our management, scientific and medical personnel, including our Chief Executive Officer, our President and Chief Financial Officer, our Vice President of Research and our Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer. The loss of the services of any of our executive officers, other key employees and other scientific and medical advisors, and our inability to find suitable replacements, could result in delays in product development and harm our business.

We conduct substantially all of our operations at our facilities in the San Francisco Bay Area. This region is headquarters to many other biopharmaceutical companies and many academic and research institutions. Competition for skilled personnel in our market is intense and may limit our ability to hire and retain highly qualified personnel on acceptable terms or at all.

To induce valuable employees to remain at our company, in addition to salary and cash incentives, we have provided stock options and restricted stock units, or RSUs, that vest over time. The value to employees of stock options and RSUs that vest over time may be significantly affected by movements in our stock price that are beyond our control and may at any time be insufficient to counteract more lucrative offers from other companies. Despite our efforts to retain valuable employees, members of our management and scientific and development teams may terminate their employment with us on short notice. Although we have employment agreements with our key employees, these employment agreements provide for at-will employment, which means that any of our employees could leave our employment at any time, with or without notice. We do not maintain “key person” insurance policies on the lives of these individuals or the lives of any of our other employees. Our success also depends on our ability to continue to attract, retain and motivate highly skilled junior, mid-level and senior managers as well as junior, mid-level and senior scientific and medical personnel.

64

We have grown rapidly and will need to continue to grow the size of our organization, and we may experience difficulties in managing this growth.

As our discovery, development and commercialization plans and strategies develop, we have rapidly expanded our employee base and expect to continue to add managerial, operational, sales, research and development, marketing, financial and other personnel. Current and future growth imposes significant added responsibilities on members of management, including:

Our future financial performance and our ability to commercialize our vaccine candidates will depend, in part, on our ability to effectively manage our growth. Our management may also have to divert a disproportionate amount of its attention away from day-to-day activities in order to devote a substantial amount of time to managing these growth activities.

If we are not able to effectively expand our organization by hiring new employees and expanding our groups of consultants and contractors, we may not be able to successfully implement the tasks necessary to further develop and commercialize our vaccine candidates and, accordingly, may not achieve our research, development and commercialization goals.

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

Obtaining and maintaining regulatory approval of our vaccine candidates in one jurisdiction does not guarantee that we will be able to obtain or maintain regulatory approval in any other jurisdiction, while a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one jurisdiction may have a negative effect on the regulatory approval process in others. For example, even if the FDA grants marketing approval of a vaccine candidate, comparable regulatory authorities in foreign jurisdictions must also approve the manufacturing, marketing and promotion of the vaccine candidate in those countries. Approval procedures vary among jurisdictions and can involve requirements and administrative review periods different from, and greater than, those in the United States, including additional preclinical studies or clinical trials as clinical studies conducted in one jurisdiction may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions. In many jurisdictions outside the United States, a vaccine candidate must be approved for reimbursement before it can be approved for sale in that jurisdiction. In some cases, the price that we intend to charge for our products is also subject to approval.

We may also submit marketing applications in other countries. Regulatory authorities in jurisdictions outside of the United States have requirements for approval of vaccine candidates with which we must comply prior to marketing in those jurisdictions. Obtaining foreign regulatory approvals and compliance with foreign regulatory requirements could result in significant delays, difficulties and costs for us and could delay or prevent the introduction of our products in certain countries. If we fail to comply with the regulatory requirements in international markets and/or receive applicable marketing approvals, our target market will be reduced and our ability to realize the full market potential of our vaccine candidates will be harmed.

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

We may form or seek strategic alliances, create joint ventures or collaborations or enter into additional licensing arrangements with third parties that we believe will complement or augment our discovery, development and commercialization efforts with respect to our vaccine candidates and any future vaccine candidates that we may seek to develop. Any of these relationships may require us to incur non-recurring and other charges, increase our

65

near and long-term expenditures, issue securities that dilute our existing stockholders or disrupt our management and business. In addition, we face significant competition in seeking appropriate strategic partners, and the negotiation process is time-consuming and complex. Moreover, we may not be successful in our efforts to establish a strategic partnership or other alternative arrangements for our vaccine candidates because they may be deemed to be at too early of a stage of development for collaborative effort, and third parties may not view our vaccine candidates as having the requisite potential to demonstrate safety and efficacy. Any delays in entering into new strategic partnership agreements related to our vaccine candidates could delay the development and commercialization of our vaccine candidates in certain geographies for certain indications, which would harm our business prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

If we license products or businesses, we may not be able to realize the benefit of such transactions if we are unable to successfully integrate them with our existing operations and company culture. We cannot be certain that, following a strategic transaction or license, we will achieve the results, revenue or specific net income that justifies such transaction.

Revenue from any “catch up” opportunity may decline over time as more of the patient population is vaccinated.

We intend to initially seek approval of our VAX-24 vaccine candidate in adults. If approved, we believe it may have the potential to serve as a “catch up” or booster to those adults who have previously received PPSV23 or a lower-valent PCV. Previous vaccines with a “catch up” opportunity have seen a high initial capture rate, but sales may decline over time as the number of individuals who remain unvaccinated with the new vaccine, and eligible for “catch up” opportunities, declines. Such decline could adversely affect our revenue over time.

If our security measures, or those maintained on our behalf by CROs, service providers or other third parties, are compromised now, or in the future, or the security, confidentiality, integrity or availability of our information technology, software, services, networks, communications or data is compromised, limited or fails, this could result in significant fines or other liability, interrupt our development programs, harm our reputation, or otherwise adversely affect our business.

In the ordinary course of our business, we collect, use, retain, safeguard, disclose, share, transfer or otherwise process proprietary, confidential and sensitive information, including personal data (including, key-coded data, health information, data we collect about trial participants in connection with clinical trials and other special categories of personal data), intellectual property, trade secrets, and proprietary business information owned or controlled by ourselves or other parties, and other sensitive third-party data (collectively, “Sensitive Information”).

We may use third-party service providers and subprocessors, including our CROs, to help us operate our business and engage in processing on our behalf in a variety of contexts, . including, without limitation, cloud-based infrastructure, data center facilities, encryption and authentication technology, employee email and other functions. We may also share Sensitive Information with our partners or other third parties in connection with our business. Our ability to monitor these third parties’ cybersecurity practices is limited, and these third parties may not have adequate information security measures in place. If our third-party service providers experience a security incident or other interruption, we could experience adverse consequences. While we may be entitled to damages if our third-party service providers fail to satisfy their privacy or security-related obligations to us, any award may be insufficient to cover our damages, or we may be unable to recover such award.

Cyberattacks, malicious internet-based activity and online and offline fraud are prevalent and continue to increase. In addition to traditional computer “hackers”; threat actors; software bugs; malicious code (such as viruses and worms); employee error, theft or misuse; denial-of-service attacks (such as credential stuffing); advanced persistent threat intrusions; natural disasters; terrorism; war; telecommunication and electrical failures; and ransomware attacks, sophisticated nation-state and nation-state supported actors are threats to our information technology assets and data. Ransomware attacks, including those perpetrated by organized criminal threat actors, nation-states, and nation-state-supported actors, are becoming increasingly prevalent and severe and can lead to significant interruptions in our operations, loss of data and income, reputational harm and diversion of funds. Extortion payments may alleviate the negative impact of a ransomware attack, but we may be unwilling or unable to make such payments due to, for example, applicable laws or regulations prohibiting such payments. We may also be the subject of server malfunction, software or hardware failures, supply-chain cyberattacks, loss of data or other

66

computer assets and other similar issues. Remote and hybrid work has become more common and has increased risks to our information technology systems and data, as more of our employees utilize network connections, computers and devices outside our premises or network, including working at home, while in transit and in public locations. Any of the previously identified or similar threats could cause a security incident or other interruption. A security incident or other interruption could result in unauthorized, unlawful, or accidental acquisition, modification, destruction, loss, alteration, encryption, disclosure of, or access to data and could disrupt our ability (and that of third parties upon whom we rely) to provide our products or operate our business.

While we have implemented security measures designed to protect against security incidents, there can be no assurance that these measures will be effective. While we take steps to detect and remediate vulnerabilities, we may be unable in the future to detect vulnerabilities in our information technology systems because such threats and techniques change frequently, are often sophisticated in nature and may not be detected until after a security incident has occurred. Despite our efforts to identify and remediate vulnerabilities, if any, in our information technology systems, our efforts may not be successful. Further, we may experience delays in developing and deploying remedial measures designed to address any such identified vulnerabilities. These vulnerabilities pose material risks to our business.

We may be required to expend significant resources, fundamentally change our business activities and practices, or modify our operations, including our clinical trial activities, or information technology in an effort to protect against security breaches and to mitigate, detect and remediate actual or potential vulnerabilities. Certain data privacy and security obligations may require us to implement and maintain specific security measures or industry-standard or reasonable security measures to protect our information technology systems and Sensitive Information. While we have not experienced any such material system failure or security breach to date, if we (or a third party upon whom we rely) experience a security incident or are perceived to have experienced a security incident, we may experience adverse consequences, including interruptions in our operations, which could result in a material disruption of our development programs and our business operations. For example, the loss of clinical trial data from clinical trials could result in delays in our regulatory approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data. To the extent that any disruption or security breach were to result in a loss of, or damage to, our data or applications, or inappropriate disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, we could incur liability and the further development and commercialization of our vaccine candidates could be delayed. Furthermore, consequences from an actual or perceived security breach may include: government enforcement actions (for example, investigations, fines, penalties, audits, and inspections); additional reporting requirements and/or oversight; restrictions on processing data (including personal data); litigation (including class claims); indemnification obligations; negative publicity; reputational harm; monetary fund diversions; interruptions in our operations (including availability of data); financial loss; and other similar harms. Security incidents and attendant consequences may cause customers to stop using our platform/products/services, deter new customers from using our products, and negatively impact our ability to grow and operate our business.

Additionally, applicable data protection requirements, including, without limitation, laws, regulations, guidance as well as our internal and external policies and our contractual obligations, may require us to notify relevant stakeholders of security breaches, including affected individuals, partners, collaborators, regulators, law enforcement agencies, credit reporting agencies and others. Such disclosures are costly, and the disclosure or the failure to comply with such requirements could lead to litigation or other liability, fines, harm to our reputation, significant costs, or other materially adverse effects. There can be no assurance that any limitations or exclusions of liability in our contracts would be enforceable or adequate or protect us from liability or damages.

We cannot be sure that our insurance coverage, if any, will be adequate or otherwise protect us from or adequately mitigate liabilities or damages with respect to claims, costs, expenses, litigation, fines, penalties, business loss, data loss, regulatory actions or other materially adverse impacts arising out of our processing activities, privacy and security practices, or security breaches we may experience. The successful assertion of one or more large claims against use that exceeds our available insurance coverage, or results in changes to our insurance policies (including premium increases or the imposition of large excess or deductible or co-insurance requirements), could result in substantial cost increase or prevent us from obtaining insurance on acceptable terms. Additionally, our contracts may not contain limitations of liability, and even where they do, there can be no assurance that limitations of liability in our contracts are sufficient to protect us from liabilities, damages, or claims related to our data privacy and security obligations.

67

Business disruptions could seriously harm our future revenue and financial condition and increase our costs and expenses.

Our operations, and those of our CMOs, CROs and other contractors and consultants, could be subject to earthquakes, power shortages, telecommunications failures, water shortages, floods, hurricanes, typhoons, fires, extreme weather conditions, medical epidemics and other natural or man-made disasters or business interruptions, for which we are predominantly self-insured. The impact of climate change may increase these risks due to changes in weather patterns, such as increases in storm intensity, sea-level rise, melting of permafrost and temperature extremes on facilities or operations. The occurrence of any of these business disruptions could seriously harm our operations and financial condition and increase our costs and expenses.

Our ability to manufacture our vaccine candidates could be disrupted if our operations or those of our suppliers are affected by a man-made or natural disaster or other business interruption, including the COVID-19 pandemic. Our corporate headquarters are located in California near major earthquake faults and fire zones. The ultimate impact on us, our significant suppliers and our general infrastructure of being located near major earthquake faults and fire zones and being consolidated in certain geographical areas is unknown, but our operations and financial condition could suffer in the event of a major earthquake, fire or other natural disaster.

Health epidemics, including the effects of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, have impacted and could continue to impact our business, including in regions where we or third parties on which we rely have significant manufacturing facilities, concentrations of potential clinical trial sites or other business operations.

Health epidemics could adversely impact our business, including in regions where we have concentrations of potential clinical trial sites or other business operations, and cause significant disruption in the operations of our contract manufacturer and other third parties upon whom we rely. For example, the COVID-19 pandemic has presented a substantial public health and economic challenge around the world and has affected and could continue to affect employees, patients, communities and business operations, as well as the U.S. economy and financial markets. Our headquarters is located in the San Francisco Bay Area, and our contract manufacturer, Lonza, is located in Switzerland. Many geographic regions imposed and in the future may impose, “shelter-in-place” orders, quarantines or similar orders or restrictions to control the spread of COVID-19. The effects of these orders and our work-from-home policies may negatively impact productivity, disrupt our business and delay our clinical programs and timelines, the magnitude of which will depend, in part, on the length and severity of the restrictions and other limitations on our ability to conduct our business in the ordinary course. In connection with these measures, we may be subject to claims based upon, arising out of or related to COVID-19 and our actions and responses thereto, including any determinations that we may make to continue to operate or to re-open our facilities where permitted by applicable law. These and similar, and perhaps more severe, disruptions in our operations could negatively impact our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects.

Moreover, we rely on third parties to supply raw materials and manufacture our preclinical and clinical product supplies of our vaccine candidates, and we cannot guarantee that they will continue to perform their contractual duties in a timely and satisfactory manner as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, public health guidelines could impact personnel at third-party manufacturing facilities in the United States and other countries, or the availability or cost of materials, which would disrupt our supply chain. For example, the COVID-19 pandemic slowed raw material supply chains and travel restrictions delayed the qualification of key analytical equipment used in manufacturing and curtailed in-person CMO oversight of manufacturing.

Some of our suppliers of certain materials used in the production of our vaccine candidates are located in Europe. Any manufacturing supply interruption at Lonza’s facilities in Switzerland could adversely affect our ability to produce our vaccine candidates for use in the conduct of our preclinical studies or clinical trials. In any event, if the COVID-19 pandemic continues and persists for an extended period of time or more acutely impacts geographies with particular impact on our business, we could experience significant disruptions to our preclinical and clinical development timelines, which would adversely affect our b