UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 20-F

(Mark One)

OR

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017

OR

OR

Date of event requiring this shell company report                     

For the transition period from                      to                     

Commission file number 001-36891

CELLECTIS S.A.

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)

(Translation of Registrant’s name into English)

France

(Jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)

Cellectis S.A.

8, rue de la Croix Jarry

75013 Paris, France

(Address of principal executive office)

Marie-Bleuenn Terrier

General Counsel

Cellectis S.A.

8, rue de la Croix Jarry

75013 Paris, France

Tel: +33 (0)1 81 69 16 00, Fax: +33 (0)1 81 69 16 06

(Name, Telephone, E-mail and/or Facsimile number and Address of Company Contact Person)

Securities registered or to be registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act.

Securities registered or to be registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act.

None

Securities for which there is a reporting obligation pursuant to Section 15(d) of the Act.

None

Indicate the number of outstanding shares of each of the issuer’s class of capital or common stock as of the close of the period

covered by the annual report.

Ordinary shares, nominal value €0.05 per share: 35,959,462 as of December 31, 2017

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

If this report is an annual or transition report, indicate by check mark, if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.    Yes  ☐    No  ☒

Note – Checking the box above will not relieve any registrant required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 from their obligations under those Sections.

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 and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).    Yes ☒    No ☐

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

Large accelerated filer  ☒    Accelerated filer   ☐    Non-accelerated filer  ☐    Emerging Growth Company  ☐

If an emerging growth company that prepares its financial statements in accordance with U.S. GAAP, 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.  ☐

† The term “new or revised financial accounting standard” refers to any update issued by the Financial Accounting Standards Board to its Accounting Standards Codification after April 5, 2012.

Indicate by check mark which basis of accounting the registrant has used to prepare the financial statements included in this filing:

If “Other” has been checked in response to the previous question, indicate by check mark which financial statement item the registrant has elected to follow:    Item 17 ☐    Item 18  ☐

If this is an annual report, indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).    Yes ☐    No  ☒

(APPLICABLE ONLY TO ISSUERS INVOLVED IN BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS DURING THE PAST FIVE YEARS)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed all documents and reports required to be filed by Sections 12, 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 subsequent to the distribution of securities under a plan confirmed by a court.  ☐  Yes    ☐  No

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

Unless otherwise indicated or the context otherwise requires, references in this Annual Report to, “Cellectis,” the “Company,” “we,” “us” and “our” refer to Cellectis S.A. and its consolidated subsidiaries. References to “Calyxt” refer to our majority-owned subsidiary Calyxt, Inc.

We own various trademark registrations and applications, and unregistered trademarks and service marks, including “Cellectis^®”, “TALEN^®” and our corporate logos, and all such trademarks and service marks appearing in this Annual Report are the property of Cellectis. The trademark “Calyxt™” is owned by Calyxt. All other trade names, trademarks and service marks of other companies appearing in this Annual Report are the property of their respective holders. Solely for convenience, the trademarks and trade names in this Annual Report may be referred to without the ^® and ™ symbols, but such references, or the failure of such symbols to appear, should not be construed as any indication that their respective owners will not assert, to the fullest extent under applicable law, their rights thereto. We do not intend to use or display other companies’ trademarks and trade names to imply a relationship with, or endorsement or sponsorship of us by, any other companies.

Our audited consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards, or IFRS, as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board, or IASB. Our consolidated financial statements are presented in euros.

All references in this Annual Report to “$,” “US$,” “U.S.$,” “U.S. dollars,” “dollars” and “USD” mean U.S. dollars and all references to “€” and “euros,” mean euros, unless otherwise noted. Throughout this Annual Report, references to ADSs mean ADSs or ordinary shares represented by ADSs, as the case may be.

Note Regarding Use of Non-GAAP Financial Measures

Cellectis S.A. presents Adjusted Net Income (Loss) attributable to shareholders of Cellectis in this Annual Report on Form 20-F. Adjusted Net Income (Loss) attributable to shareholders of Cellectis is not a measure calculated in accordance with IFRS. We have included in this Annual Report on Form 20-F a reconciliation of this figure to Net Income (Loss) attributable to shareholders of Cellectis, the most directly comparable financial measure calculated in accordance with IFRS. Because Adjusted Net Income (Loss) attributable to shareholders of Cellectis excludes Non-cash stock-based compensation expense—a non-cash expense, we believe that this financial measure, when considered together with our IFRS financial statements, can enhance an overall understanding of Cellectis’ financial performance. Moreover, our management views the Company’s operations, and manages its business, based, in part, on this financial measure. In particular, we believe that the elimination of Non-cash stock-based expenses from Net Income (Loss) attributable to shareholders of Cellectis can provide a useful measure for period-to-period comparisons of our core businesses. Our use of Adjusted Net Income (Loss) attributable to shareholders of Cellectis has limitations as an analytical tool, and you should not consider it in isolation or as a substitute for analysis of our financial results as reported under IFRS. Some of these limitations are: (a) other companies, including companies in our industries which have similar stock-based compensations, may address the impact of Non-cash stock-based compensation expense differently; and (b) other companies may report Adjusted Net Income (Loss) attributable to shareholders or similarly titled measures but calculate them differently, which reduces their usefulness as a comparative measure. Because of these and other limitations, you should consider Adjusted Net Income (Loss) attributable to shareholders of Cellectis alongside our other IFRS financial results, including Net Income (Loss) attributable to shareholders of Cellectis.

SPECIAL NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Annual Report contains “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of applicable federal securities laws, including the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. All statements other than present

i

and historical facts and conditions contained in this Annual Report, including statements regarding our future results of operations and financial position, business strategy, plans and our objectives for future operations, are forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements are subject to numerous risks and uncertainties and are made in light of information currently available to us. Many important factors, in addition to the factors described in this Annual Report, may adversely affect such forward-looking statements. When used in this Annual Report, the words “anticipate,” “believe,” “can,” “could,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “is designed to,” “may,” “might,” “plan,” “potential,” “predict,” “objective,” “should,” or the negative of these and similar expressions identify forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements about:

ii

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

This Annual Report contains market data and industry forecasts that were obtained from industry publications. These data and forecasts involve a number of assumptions and limitations, and you are cautioned not to give undue weight to such estimates. While we believe the market position, market opportunity and market size information included in this Annual Report is generally reliable, such information is inherently imprecise.

iii

PART I

Not applicable.

Not applicable.

The following selected consolidated statements of operations data for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2016 and 2017 and the selected consolidated statement of financial position data as of December 31, 2016 and 2017 have been derived from our audited consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this Annual Report. The selected consolidated statements of operations data for the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2014 and the selected consolidated statement of financial position data as of December 31, 2013, 2014 and 2015 have been derived from our audited consolidated financial statements not included in this Annual Report. Our audited consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards, or IFRS, as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board, or IASB.

The audited consolidated financial statements for the years, and as of, December 31, 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 are presented in U.S. dollars, which differs from the functional currency of Cellectis S.A., which is the Euro. We decided to change the reporting currency from Euro to U.S. dollars in the third quarter of 2017, using the retrospective method. We believe that this change will enhance comparability with peers, which primarily present their financial statements in U.S. dollars.

The following selected consolidated financial data for the periods and as of the dates indicated are qualified by reference to and should be read in conjunction with our consolidated financial statements and related notes beginning on page F-1 of this Annual Report, as well as the sections titled “Operating And Financial Review And Prospects” and “Foreign Currency Exchange Rates” included elsewhere in this Annual Report.

Our historical results for any prior period do not necessarily indicate our results to be expected for any future period.

1

2

Consolidated Statement of Financial Position

Reconciliation of Adjusted Net Income (Loss) attributable to shareholders of Cellectis to Net Income (Loss) attributable to shareholders of Cellectis

Exchange Rate Information

The following table sets forth, for each period indicated, the low and high exchange rates for euros expressed in U.S. dollars, the exchange rate at the end of such period and the average of such exchange rates on the last day of each month during such period, based on the ECB’s reference U.S. Dollar exchange rate for Euro, as published by Banque de France. The exchange rates set forth below are provided for reference only and to

3

demonstrate trends in exchange rates. They should not be relied upon, and the actual exchange rates used throughout this Annual Report may vary.

The following table sets forth, for each of the periods indicated, the low and high exchange rates for euros expressed in U.S. dollars and the exchange rate at the end of the periods indicated based on the ECB’s reference U.S. Dollar exchange rate for Euro, as published by Banque de France.

On March 12, 2018, the ECB’s reference U.S. Dollar exchange rate for the Euro, as published by the Banque de France, was €1.00 = $1.2302.

Information presented on a constant currency basis in this Annual Report is calculated by translating current year results at prior year average exchange rates. Management reviews and analyzes business results excluding the effect of foreign currency translation because they believe this better represents our underlying business trends.

In various places throughout this Annual Report we show financial amounts in both U.S. dollars and euros. Unless otherwise stated, these translations, which are provided solely for convenience, are made at the exchange rate of €1.00 = $1.1993, the ECB’s daily reference exchange rate on December 31, 2017, as published by Banque de France.

Not applicable.

Not applicable.

Our business and our industry are subject to significant risks. You should carefully consider all of the information set forth in this Annual Report, including the following risk factors. Our business, financial condition or results of operations could be materially adversely affected by any of these risks.

Risks Related to Our Business and Industry

We and Calyxt have limited operating histories, which makes it difficult to evaluate our current business and future prospects and may increase the risk of your investment.

We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company and, as of February 28, 2018, we own 79.3% of Calyxt, Inc., a U.S. agricultural biotechnology company, both with a limited operating history. Investment in biopharmaceutical and agricultural biotechnology product development is a highly speculative endeavor. Biopharmaceutical and agricultural biotechnology product development entails substantial upfront capital

4

expenditures and there is significant risk that any potential product candidate will fail to demonstrate adequate efficacy or an acceptable safety profile, to gain regulatory approval or to become commercially viable. In our therapeutics business, we are focused on developing products using our gene-editing platform to develop genetically modified T-cells that express a CAR and are designed to target and kill cancer cells. While there have been significant advances in cell-based immunotherapy, our gene-editing platform and T-cell and CAR technologies are new and unproven. Most of the product candidates that we are developing or co-developing are in pre-clinical stages. We are sponsoring two clinical studies in the United States, for one of our product candidates, UCART123 – one targeting acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and the other targeting blastic plasmacytoid dendritic cell neoplasm (BPDCN). In addition, UCART19, which we exclusively license to Les Laboratories Servier S.A.S., or Servier, is currently the subject of clinical development through two clinical studies being sponsored by Servier. We have not yet generated any revenue from product sales to date. In our agricultural biotechnology business, we are exploring the use of our gene-editing technologies to develop healthier food products for a growing population. Our plant products are in various stages of development, and we have not yet generated any revenues from sales of these plant products.

Our limited operating history may make it difficult to evaluate our current business and our future prospects. We have encountered, and will continue to encounter, risks and difficulties frequently experienced by growing companies in rapidly developing and changing industries, such as the biopharmaceutical and agricultural biotechnology industries, including challenges in forecasting accuracy, determining appropriate investments of our limited resources, gaining market acceptance of the products created using our gene-editing platform, managing a complex regulatory landscape and developing new product candidates. Our current operating model may require changes in order for us to scale our operations efficiently. You should consider our business and prospects in light of the risks and difficulties we face as an early-stage company focused on developing products in the fields of immunotherapy and agricultural biotechnology.

We have incurred significant losses since our inception, have no commercial products and anticipate that we will continue to incur significant losses for the foreseeable future.

We devote most of our financial resources to research and development relating to our CAR T-cell immunotherapy product candidates. We finance our current immuno-oncology operations through strategic alliances with pharmaceutical companies, including Servier and Pfizer Inc., or Pfizer, as well as through the sale of equity securities and, to a lesser extent, obtaining public funding in support of innovation, reimbursements of research tax credit claims, and royalties on our licensed technology. In March 2015, Cellectis S.A. completed its U.S. Initial Public Offering of 5,500,000 American Depositary Shares on the Nasdaq Global Market for gross proceeds of $228.3 million. On July 25, 2017, Calyxt completed an initial public offering of its common stock on the Nasdaq, selling an aggregate of 8,050,000 shares of common stock at a price of $8.00 per share (including 1,050,000 shares of common stock pursuant to the exercise by the underwriters of their option to purchase additional shares). Calyxt received net proceeds of approximately $58.0 million, after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and offering expenses. As part of the IPO, Cellectis purchased 2,500,000 shares of common stock for a value of $20.0 million, which is included in the net proceeds that Calyxt received. Then, the net proceeds amounted to $38 million at the Group level. In 2016 and 2017, we received respectively $27.3 million and $8.1 million in payments pursuant to the Pfizer and Servier collaborations. Our research and development expenses for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2017 were $78.5 million and $79.2 million, respectively. Our net loss for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2017 was $67.3 million and $103.7 million, respectively.

We currently have no commercial products. The UCART19 Clinical Studies (as defined in Item 4.B. Business Overview below) commenced in June 2016 and we obtained FDA approval of an IND for the two Phase I UCART123 Clinical Studies (as defined in Item 4.B. Business Overview below) in February 2017. Notwithstanding the commencement of the UCART19 Clinical Studies and the UCART123 Clinical Studies, it will be several years, if ever, before we obtain regulatory approval for, and are ready for commercialization of, a product candidate. Even if we or our collaborators successfully commence and complete clinical studies and

5

obtain regulatory approval to market a product candidate, any future revenues will depend upon the size of any markets in which the product candidates are approved for sale as well as the market share captured by such product candidates, market acceptance of such product candidates and levels of reimbursement from third-party payors.

We expect to continue to incur significant expenses and operating losses for the foreseeable future. We expect our losses and our cash utilization to increase in the near term as we conduct the UCART123 Clinical Studies, file additional IND and/or foreign equivalent filings for other of our product candidates and conduct research and development for product candidates. In addition, we anticipate that such expenses will increase further and such increases may be substantial if and as we:

The net losses we incur may fluctuate significantly from year-to-year and quarter-to-quarter, such that a period-to-period comparison of our results of operations may not be a good indication of our future performance. In any particular period or periods, our operating result could be below the expectations of securities analysts or investors which could cause the price of our ADSs to decline.

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

We are currently sponsoring two UCART123 Clinical Studies. In addition, we are preparing to file additional IND and/or foreign equivalent filings with respect to new clinical studies for certain of our product candidates, and we are advancing our product candidates to and through pre-clinical testing. The process of developing CAR T-cell product candidates and conducting clinical studies is expensive, lengthy and risky, and we expect our research and development expenses to increase substantially in connection with our ongoing activities, particularly as we conduct the UCART123 Clinical Studies, file additional IND and/or foreign

6

equivalent filings for our product candidates, and conduct research and development for our other product candidates. In addition, subject to obtaining regulatory approval of any product candidates, we expect to incur significant commercialization expenses.

As of December 31, 2017, we had cash and cash equivalents and current financial assets of approximately $297 million. We believe our cash and cash equivalents and our cash flow from operations (including payments we expect to receive pursuant to our collaboration agreements) and government funding of research programs will be sufficient to fund our operations through 2020. However, in order to complete the development process, obtain regulatory approval and commercialize, if approved, any of our product candidates, we may require additional funding. Also, our operating plan, including our product development plans, may change as a result of many factors currently unknown to us, and we may need to seek additional funds sooner than planned, through public or private equity or debt financings, government or other third-party funding, marketing and distribution arrangements and other collaborations, strategic alliances and licensing arrangements, or a combination of these approaches. To commercialize our products, if approved, we will require significant working capital to operate our business and maintain our operations.

In addition, our ability to raise additional capital in equity offerings will be significantly limited, as described under “—We are limited in our ability to raise additional share capital, which may make it difficult for us to raise capital to fund our operations.” To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of additional equity or convertible securities, current ownership interests may be diluted and the terms of these securities may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect stockholders’ rights. Debt financing, if available, would result in increased fixed payment obligations and a portion of our operating cash flows, if any, being dedicated to the payment of principal and interest on such indebtedness. In addition, debt financing may involve agreements that include restrictive covenants that impose operating restrictions, such as restrictions on the incurrence of additional debt, the making of certain capital expenditures or the declaration of dividends. To the extent we raise additional funds through arrangements with collaborators or otherwise, we may be required to relinquish some of our technologies, product candidates or revenue streams, license our technologies or product candidates on unfavorable terms, or otherwise agree to terms unfavorable to us.

Any additional fundraising efforts may divert our management from their day-to-day activities, which may adversely affect our ability to develop and commercialize our product candidates. In addition, we cannot guarantee that future financing will be available in sufficient amounts or on terms acceptable to us, if at all. Even if we believe we have sufficient funds for our current or future operating plans, we may seek additional capital if market conditions are favorable or in light of specific strategic considerations.

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

We are limited in our ability to raise additional share capital, which may make it difficult for us to raise capital to fund our operations.

Under French law, our share capital generally may be increased with the approval of a two-thirds majority vote of the shareholders present, represented by proxy, or voting by mail obtained at an extraordinary general shareholders’ meeting following the recommendation of our board of directors. The shareholders may delegate to our board of directors either the authority (délégation de compétence) or the power (délégation de pouvoir) to carry out any increase in the share capital. Accordingly, our board of directors may be precluded from issuing additional share capital if the prior approval of the shareholders is not duly obtained.

7

Risks Related to the Discovery, Development and Commercialization of Our Therapeutic Product Candidates

Our therapeutic product candidate development programs are in the discovery, pre-clinical proof-of-concept or clinical phase and may be unsuccessful.

Among our product candidates, the product candidates we develop which have been approved for clinical studies are only UCART19, which has been exclusively licensed to Servier, and UCART123, which we control for use in clinical studies. UCART19 is being tested in clinical studies in the United Kingdom, the United States, Belgium and France and UCART123 is being tested in clinical studies in the United States. Our other product candidates are still in discovery or pre-clinical proof of concept and have only undergone limited testing in animals. In February 2017, we received FDA approval under an IND to commence the UCART123 Clinical Studies and commenced those clinical studies in 2017. Following a clinical hold initiated by the FDA in September 2017, the FDA permitted the UCART123 Clinical Studies to restart in November 2017, according to revised protocols. Early clinical results on UCART123, which have been disclosed by Cellectis, preliminary results on UCART19, which were announced by Servier during the American Society for Hematology Conference in December 2017, and the results from animal studies are not necessarily predictive of results in current or future clinical studies. Even if certain of our product candidates progress through clinical studies, these product candidates may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy in clinical development despite demonstrating positive preliminary clinical data and/or results in animal studies. For example, while our animal studies of product candidates may result in evidence of tumor cell elimination, there can be no assurance that the success we achieve in such animal studies for these product candidates will result in success in any clinical studies.

Because our current product candidates are still in the early stages of development, with the majority of our product candidates in the discovery or pre-clinical proof-of-concept phase, there can be no assurance that our research and development activities will result in product candidates we can advance through clinical development. Although Servier commenced the UCART19 Clinical Studies in June 2016 and we commenced our UCART123 Clinical Studies in February 2017, the results of such clinical studies are subject to a variety of factors and considerations and we cannot assure you that we or our collaborators will achieve the applicable targets in these studies. Our other product candidates are in various stages of discovery or pre-clinical development and we have limited data evaluating many of these product candidates. Because of the early stage of development of our product candidates, we have not yet demonstrated the safety, specificity and clinical benefits of our product candidates in humans, and we cannot assure you that the results of any human trials will demonstrate the value and efficacy of our platform. Moreover, there are a number of regulatory requirements that we must satisfy before additional clinical studies may be commenced in the United States and the European Union, with respect to our product candidates. Satisfaction of these requirements will entail substantial time, effort and financial resources. We may never satisfy these requirements. Any time, effort and financial resources we expend on our other early-stage product candidate development programs may adversely affect our ability to continue development and commercialization of our more advanced product candidates and we may never commence additional clinical studies despite expending significant resources in pursuit of their development. Further, our UCART123 Clinical Studies or other clinical studies, if any, that we conduct may not be successful and such product candidates may never be approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, the European Medicines Agency, or EMA, or any other regulatory agency.

Early data from compassionate use treatment and from clinical trials are not predictive of success in later clinical trials.

In December 2016, during a meeting with the National Institutes of Health’s Office of Biotechnology Activities’ Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee, or the RAC, Pfizer and Servier presented preliminary clinical data for UCART19, including data from UCART19 Clinical Studies and from three clinical uses of UCART19 on a compassionate basis. These three compassionate use patients have been treated under U.K. “specials” licenses from the Medicines & Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) to administer the UCART19 product candidate

8

to a patient on compassionate use base. Compassionate use refers to the use of an investigational drug outside of a clinical trial to treat a patient with a serious or immediately life-threatening disease or condition who has no comparable or satisfactory alternative treatment options. More recently, in December 2017, during the American Society of Hematology (ASH) Conference, Servier presented intermediate results from its current pediatric and adult clinical studies on UCART19 in the United Kingdom, the United States, Belgium and France. Results from the pediatric and adult UCART19 Clinical Studies, which showed 83% complete remission rate across the two studies: five out of seven patients achieving MRD negativity in the adult study (CALM study) at Day 28 and all five children achieving MRD negativity in the pediatric study (PALL study) at Day 28.

We cannot assure you that the administration of UCART19 to other patients will have results that are similar to those reported by Pfizer and Servier. Such results are preliminary in nature, do not bear statistical significance and should not be viewed as predictive of ultimate success. It is possible that such results will not continue or may not be repeated in other potential compassionate uses or in ongoing or future clinical trials on UCART19 or other UCART product candidates.

We have limited experience in conducting or managing clinical trials for potential therapeutic products.

Following FDA and IRB approval in February 2017, we commenced the UCART123 Clinical Studies in two sites in the United States. We have limited experience in conducting or managing the clinical trials necessary to obtain regulatory approvals for any product candidate. We rely on a clinical research organization, or CRO, and to medical institution and clinical investigators to conduct the UCART123 Clinical Studies. Our reliance on third parties for clinical development activities reduces our control over these activities. Third-party contractors may not complete activities on schedule, or may not conduct clinical trials in accordance with regulatory requirements or our trial design. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or meet required performance standards or expected deadlines, we might be required to replace them or the data that they provide could be rejected by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory bodies, all of which may result in a delay of the affected trial and additional program costs.

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

Pre-clinical testing of most of our product candidates is still ongoing. Pre-clinical testing and clinical trials, such as our UCART123 Clinical Studies, are long, expensive and unpredictable processes that can be subject to extensive delays.

In September 2017, a clinical hold was placed on our UCART123 Clinical Studies in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and in blastic plasmacytoid dendritic cell neoplasm (BPDCN). The FDA permitted the UCART123 Clinical Studies to restart in November 2017 according to revised protocols.

We cannot guarantee that any pre-clinical studies or clinical trials will be conducted as planned or completed on schedule, if at all. It may take several years to complete the pre-clinical testing and clinical development necessary to commercialize a product candidate, and delays or failure can occur at any stage. Interim results of clinical trials do not necessarily predict final results, and success in pre-clinical testing and early clinical trials does not ensure that later clinical trials will be successful. A number of companies in the pharmaceutical, biopharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have suffered significant setbacks in advanced clinical trials even after promising results in earlier trials, including a number of patient deaths in CAR-T trials conducted in the United States, and we cannot be certain that our product candidates will not face similar setbacks. In addition, the design of a clinical trial can determine whether its results will support approval of a product and flaws in the design of a clinical trial may not become apparent until the clinical trial is well advanced. An unfavorable outcome in one or more clinical trials would be a major setback for our product

9

candidates and for us and may require us or our collaborators to delay, reduce or re-define the scope of, or eliminate one or more product candidate development programs, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and prospects.

In connection with clinical testing and trials on product candidates we develop for ourselves or on behalf of our collaborators, we may face a number of risks, including:

In addition, a number of events, including any of the following, could delay the completion of our future clinical trials (including the UCART123 Clinical Studies) or those of our collaborators (including the UCART19 Clinical Studies) and negatively impact the ability to obtain regulatory approval for, and to market and sell, a particular product candidate:

Data obtained from pre-clinical and clinical activities are subject to varying interpretations, which may delay, limit or prevent regulatory approval. In addition, we cannot assure you that, in the course of clinical trials, some drawbacks would not appear that reveal that it is not possible or practical to continue development efforts for the subject product candidates.

Clinical trials may also be delayed or terminated as a result of ambiguous or negative interim results. In addition, a clinical trial may be suspended or terminated by us or our collaborators, the FDA, the IRBs at the sites where the IRBs are overseeing a trial, or a data safety monitoring board, or DSMB, overseeing the clinical trial at issue, or other regulatory authorities due to a number of factors, including:

10

In addition, changes in regulatory requirements and guidance may occur and we or our collaborators may need to amend clinical trial protocols to reflect these changes. Amendments may require us or our collaborators to resubmit our clinical trial protocols to IRBs for reexamination, which may impact the cost, timing or successful completion of a clinical trial.

Even if a product candidate successfully completes clinical trials, those results are not necessarily predictive of results of additional trials that may be needed before regulatory approval may be obtained. Although there are a large number of drugs and biologics in development globally, only a small percentage obtain regulatory approval, even fewer are approved for commercialization, and only a small number achieve widespread physician and consumer acceptance.

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

Our product candidates are based on a novel technology, which makes it difficult to predict the time and cost of product candidate development and obtaining regulatory approval. Currently, only a very limited number of gene therapy products have been approved in the United States or Europe.

We have concentrated our research and development efforts on our CAR T-cell immunotherapy product development, including our gene-editing technologies, and our future success depends on the successful

11

development of this therapeutic approach. We are in the early stages of developing our UCART product candidates’ platform and there can be no assurance that any development problems we experience in the future related to our gene-editing technologies will not cause significant delays or unanticipated costs, or that such development problems can be overcome. We may also experience delays in developing a sustainable, reproducible and scalable manufacturing process or transferring that process to commercial partners, which may prevent us from completing our clinical studies or commercializing our products on a timely or profitable basis, if at all.

In addition, the clinical study requirements of the FDA, EMA and other regulatory agencies and the criteria these regulators use to determine the safety and efficacy of a product candidate are determined according to the type, complexity, novelty and intended use and market of the potential products. The regulatory approval process for novel product candidates such as ours can be more complex and consequently more expensive and take longer than for other, better known or extensively studied pharmaceutical or other product candidates. In August 2017, Novartis AG obtained approval from the FDA to commercialize the first CAR T-cell therapy, for children and young adults with relapsed or refractory, or r/r, B-cell ALL, and has recently been granted FDA priority review for adults with r/r diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). In October 2017, Kite Pharma (acquired by Gilead) obtained approval from the FDA to commercialize the first CAR T-cell therapy for the treatment of adult patients with r/r large B-cell lymphoma. Approvals by the EMA and FDA for existing gene therapy products may not be indicative of what these regulators may require for approval of further gene therapy products. 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 product candidates.

The regulatory landscape that will govern our product candidates is uncertain; regulations relating to more established gene therapy and cell therapy products are still developing, and changes in regulatory requirements could result in delays or discontinuation of development of our product candidates or unexpected costs in obtaining regulatory approval.

Because we are developing novel CAR T-cell immunotherapy product candidates that are unique biological entities, the regulatory requirements that we will be subject to are not entirely clear. Even with respect to more established products that fit into the categories of gene therapies or cell therapies, the regulatory landscape is still developing. For example, regulatory requirements governing gene therapy products and cell therapy products have changed frequently and may continue to change in the future. Moreover, there is substantial, and sometimes uncoordinated, overlap in those responsible for regulation of existing gene therapy products and cell therapy products. For example, in the United States, the FDA has established the Office of Tissues and Advanced Therapies (OTAT, formerly known as the Office of Cellular, Tissue and Gene Therapies, or OCTGT) within its Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, or CBER, to consolidate the review of gene therapy and related products, and the Cellular, Tissue and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee to advise CBER on its review. Gene therapy clinical trials are also subject to review and oversight by an institutional biosafety committee, or IBC, a local institutional committee that reviews and oversees basic and clinical research conducted at the institution participating in the clinical trial. Gene therapy clinical studies conducted at institutions that receive funding for recombinant DNA research from the U.S. National Institutes of Health, or the NIH, are also subject to review by the NIH Office of Biotechnology Activities’ Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee, or the RAC. Although the FDA decides whether individual gene therapy protocols may proceed, review process and determinations of other reviewing bodies can impede or delay the initiation of a clinical study, even if the FDA has reviewed the study and approved its initiation. Conversely, the FDA can place an IND application on clinical hold even if such other entities have provided a favorable review. Furthermore, each clinical trial must be reviewed and approved by an independent institutional review board, or IRB, at or servicing each institution at which a clinical trial will be conducted. In addition, adverse developments in clinical trials of gene therapy products conducted by others may cause the FDA or other regulatory bodies to change the requirements for approval of any of our product candidates.

12

Complex regulatory environments exist in other jurisdictions in which we might consider seeking regulatory approvals for our product candidates, further complicating the regulatory landscape. For example, in the EU a special committee called the Committee for Advanced Therapies (CAT) was established within the EMA in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007 on advanced-therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) to assess the quality, safety and efficacy of ATMPs, and to follow scientific developments in the field. ATMPs include gene therapy products as well as somatic cell therapy products and tissue engineered products. In this regard, on May 28, 2014, the EMA issued a recommendation that Cellectis’ UCART19 be considered a gene therapy product under Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007 on ATMPs. We believe this recommendation is likely to be applicable to our UCART product candidates; however, this recommendation is not definitive until such products obtain regulatory approval for commercialization.

These various regulatory review committees and advisory groups and new or revised guidelines that they promulgate from time to time may lengthen the regulatory review process, require us to perform additional studies, increase our development costs, lead to changes in regulatory positions and interpretations, delay or prevent approval and commercialization of our product candidates or lead to significant post-approval limitations or restrictions. Because the regulatory landscape for our CAR T-cell immunotherapy product candidates is new, we may face even more cumbersome and complex regulations than those emerging for gene therapy products and cell therapy products. Furthermore, even if our product candidates obtain required regulatory approvals, such approvals may later be withdrawn as a result of changes in regulations or the interpretation of regulations by applicable regulatory agencies.

As we or our collaborators advance our product candidates, we and they will be required to consult with these regulatory and advisory groups and comply with all applicable guidelines, rules and regulations. Because the UCART19 Clinical Studies are being sponsored by Servier in collaboration with Pfizer, they are directly interacting with the relevant regulatory agencies and we are not able to direct such interactions. Some of the discussions among our commercial collaborators and relevant regulatory agencies could generate additional unexpected requirements from regulatory agencies that would apply to our wholly-controlled UCART product candidates, including UCART123, and could lead to potential delays or additional requirements. For example, as a result of such interactions, regulators may require that we implement additional studies or testing with respect to our product candidates or modify our clinical studies, including the UCART123 Clinical Studies. If we fail to do so, we may be required to delay or discontinue development of our product candidates.

Delay or failure to obtain, or unexpected costs in obtaining, the regulatory approval necessary to bring a potential product to market could decrease our ability to generate sufficient product revenue to maintain our business.

Our gene-editing technology is relatively new, and if we are unable to use this technology in all of our intended applications, our revenue opportunities will be limited.

Our technology involves a relatively new approach to gene editing, using sequence-specific DNA-cutting enzymes, or nucleases, to perform precise and stable modifications in the DNA of living-cells and organisms. Although we have generated nucleases for many specific gene sequences, we have not created nucleases for all gene sequences that we may seek to target, and we may not be able do so, which could limit the usefulness of our technology.

The expected value and utility of our nucleases is, in part, based on our belief that the targeted modification of genes or specific regulation of gene expression may enable us to develop a new therapeutic approach. There is only a limited understanding of the role of specific genes in these applications. Life sciences companies have only been able to successfully develop or commercialize a few products in this biopharmaceutical space based on results from genome research or the ability to regulate gene expression. We or our collaborators may not be able to use our technology to develop commercial products.

13

In addition, the industry is rapidly developing, and our competitors may introduce new technologies that render our technology obsolete or less attractive. New technology could emerge at any point in the development cycle of our product candidates. As competitors use or develop new technologies, we may be placed at a competitive disadvantage, and competitive pressures may force us to implement new technologies at a substantial cost. In addition, our competitors have greater financial, technical and personnel resources that allow them to enjoy technological advantages and may in the future allow them to implement new technologies before we can. We cannot be certain that we will be able to implement technologies on a timely basis or at a cost that is acceptable to us. If we are unable to maintain technological advancements consistent with industry standards, our operations and financial condition may be adversely affected.

We depend almost entirely on the successful development of our product candidates. We cannot be certain that we or our collaborators will be able to obtain regulatory approval for, or successfully commercialize, these products.

Currently, UCART123 is our only fully-controlled product candidate which is subject to Phase I clinical studies in the United States. In addition, UCART19, which is exclusively licensed to Servier, is the subject of two Phase I clinical studies in the United Kingdom, Belgium and France, each sponsored by Servier, and one Phase I clinical study in the United States, conducted in collaboration with Pfizer. Notwithstanding the foregoing, we may never be able to develop products that will be approved or commercialized. Our business depends primarily on the successful clinical development, regulatory approval and commercialization of our CAR T-cell immunotherapy product candidates. We are also studying in pre-clinical studies, on our own or through our collaborators, other product candidates based on gene-edited CAR T-cells for cancer immunotherapy.

Our therapeutic product candidates will require substantial additional clinical development, testing, and regulatory approval before we are permitted to commence their commercialization. The clinical trials of our product candidates are, and the manufacturing and marketing of our product candidates will be, subject to extensive and rigorous review and regulation by numerous government authorities in the United States and in other countries where we intend to test and, if approved, market any product candidate. Before obtaining regulatory approvals for the commercial sale of any product candidate, we must demonstrate, with substantial evidence gathered in well-controlled clinical trials, and, with respect to approval in the United States, to the satisfaction of the FDA or, with respect to approval in other countries, similar regulatory authorities in those countries, that the product candidate is safe and effective for use in each target indication. In the United States, we expect that the requisite regulatory submission to seek marketing approval for our gene therapy products will be a Biologic License Application, or BLA, and the competent regulatory authority is the FDA. In the EU, the requisite approval is a Marketing Authorization, or MA, which for products developed by the means of recombinant DNA technology, gene or cell therapy products as well as tissue engineered products, is issued through a centralized procedure involving the EMA. Satisfaction of these and other regulatory requirements is costly, time consuming, uncertain and subject to unanticipated delays. Despite our efforts, our product candidates may not:

This process can take many years and may include post-marketing studies and surveillance, which will require the expenditure of substantial resources beyond our existing cash on hand. Of the large number of drugs in development globally, only a small percentage successfully completes the regulatory approval process and even fewer are commercialized. Furthermore, we have not marketed, distributed or sold any products. Our success will, in addition to the factors discussed above, depend on the successful commercialization of the product candidates we develop on our own or on behalf of our collaborators, which may require:

14

Many of these factors are beyond our control. We do not expect any of the product candidates we develop on our own and those we develop on behalf of our collaborators to be commercially available for many years and some or all may never become commercially available. We may never generate revenues through the sale of products.

Accordingly, even if we are able to obtain the requisite financing to continue to fund our development and clinical programs, we cannot assure you that our product candidates will be successfully developed or commercialized.

We face substantial competition from companies, including biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, many of which have considerably more resources and experience than we have, which may result in others discovering, developing, receiving approval for, or commercializing products before or more successfully than us.

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by intense competition and rapid innovation, and many companies put significant resources toward developing novel and proprietary therapies for the treatment of cancer, which often incorporate novel technologies and valuable intellectual property. We compete with companies in the immunotherapy space, as well as companies developing novel targeted therapies for cancer. In addition, our product candidates, if approved, will compete with existing standards of care for the diseases that our product candidates target as well as new compounds, drugs or therapies, some of which may achieve better results than our product candidates. We anticipate that we will face intense and increasing competition from many different sources, including new and established biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, academic research institutions, governmental agencies and public and private research institutions.

Our competitors include:

We also face competition from non-cell based treatments offered by companies such as Amgen Inc., AstraZeneca plc, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Incyte Corporation, Merck & Co., Inc., and F. Hoffman-La Roche AG. Immunotherapy is further being pursued by several biotech companies as well as by large-cap pharmaceutical companies. Many of our competitors, either alone or with their collaboration partners, have substantially greater financial, technical and other resources, such as larger research and development staff and/or greater expertise in research and development, manufacturing, pre-clinical testing and conducting clinical trials. In addition, smaller or early-stage companies may compete with us through collaborative arrangements with more established companies. Competition may increase further as a result of advances in the commercial applicability of technologies and greater availability of capital for investment in these enterprises. Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical, biotechnology and gene therapy industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors. Our competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel and establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs.

15

Competition may increase further as a result of advances in the commercial applicability of technologies and greater availability of capital for investment in these industries. Our competitors, either alone or with collaborators, may succeed in developing, acquiring or licensing on an exclusive basis drug or biologic products that are more effective, safer, more easily commercialized, or less costly than our product candidates or may develop proprietary technologies or secure patent protection that we may need for the development of our technologies and products.

Even if we obtain regulatory approval of our product candidates, we may not be the first to market and that may affect the price or demand for our product candidates. Additionally, the availability and price of our competitors’ products could limit the demand and the price we are able to charge for our product candidates. We may not be able to implement our business plan if the acceptance of our product candidates is inhibited by price competition or the reluctance of physicians to switch from existing methods of treatment to our product candidates, or if physicians switch to other new drug or biologic products or choose to reserve our product candidates for use in limited circumstances. A competitor could obtain orphan product exclusivity from the FDA with respect to such competitor’s product. If such competitor product is determined to be the same product as one of the product candidates we develop, that may prevent us or our collaborators from obtaining approval from the FDA for such product candidate for the same indication for seven years, except in limited circumstances.

The regulatory approval processes of the FDA and comparable foreign authorities are lengthy, time consuming and inherently unpredictable, and if we are ultimately unable to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates, our business will be substantially harmed.

The time required to obtain approval by the FDA and comparable foreign authorities is inherently unpredictable but typically takes many years following the commencement of clinical trials and depends upon numerous factors, including the substantial discretion of the regulatory authorities. In addition, approval policies, regulations, or the type and amount of clinical data necessary to gain approval may change during the course of a product candidate’s clinical development and may vary among jurisdictions. We have not obtained regulatory approval for the commercialization of any product candidate and it is possible that none of our existing product candidates or any product candidates we may seek to develop in the future will ever obtain regulatory such approval.

The FDA or other regulatory authority, as applicable, may delay, limit or deny approval of our product candidates for many reasons, including the following:

16

This lengthy approval process as well as the unpredictability of future clinical trial results may result in our failing to obtain regulatory approval to market the product candidates we develop, which would significantly harm our business, results of operations and prospects. In addition, even if we or our collaborators were able to obtain approval, regulatory authorities may approve any of our product candidates for fewer or more limited indications than we request, may not approve the price we intend to charge for our products, may grant approval contingent on the performance of costly post-marketing clinical trials, or may approve a drug candidate with a label that does not include the labeling claims necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of that product candidate. Any of the foregoing scenarios could materially harm the commercial prospects for the product candidates we develop.

We expect several of the product candidates we develop will initially be available as treatment for patients with advanced disease, or with a rare disease with no other treatment option, which could limit the size of the market for these product candidates.

We expect that, if approved, several of the product candidates we develop will initially receive regulatory approval as treatment for advanced or rare diseases. This could limit the initial size of the market for these product candidates, and we cannot predict when, if ever, such product candidates would receive regulatory approval for indications treating a more expansive patient population.

The manufacturing process for the product candidates we develop is highly complex. Any issues that arise in the manufacturing process could have an adverse effect on our business, financial position or prospects.

The product candidates we develop undergo a complex, highly-regulated manufacturing process that is subject to multiple risks. As a result of the complexities of this process, the cost to manufacture our CAR T-cell immunotherapy products is generally higher than traditional small molecule chemical compounds, and the manufacturing process requires very minimal batch-to-batch variability, which is expensive to ensure. Our manufacturing process is susceptible to product loss or failure due to issues associated with the collection of white blood cells, or starting material, from healthy third-party donors, shipping such material to the

17

manufacturing site, ensuring standardized production batch-to-batch in the context of mass production, freezing the manufactured product, shipping the final product globally, and infusing patients with the product. In addition, we may face manufacturing issues associated with interruptions in the manufacturing process, contamination, equipment or reagent failure, shortage of raw material and other procurement issues, changes in regulation, improper installation or operation of equipment, vendor or operator error, inconsistency in cell growth, and variability in product characteristics. Even minor deviations from normal manufacturing processes could result in reduced production yields, product defects, and other supply disruptions. If microbial, viral, or other contaminations are discovered in our product candidates or in the manufacturing facilities in which our product candidates are made, such manufacturing facilities may need to be closed for an extended period of time to investigate and remedy the contamination. Further, as our product candidates are developed through pre-clinical to late stage clinical trials towards approval and commercialization, it is common that various aspects of the development program, such as manufacturing methods, are altered along the way in an effort to optimize processes and results or adapt to the regulatory agencies’ requirements. Such changes carry the risk that they will not achieve these intended objectives, and any of these changes could cause our product candidates to perform differently and affect the results of planned clinical trials or other future clinical trials.

Currently, the product candidates we develop are manufactured using processes intended for pre-clinical and clinical stage production by third-party contract manufacturing organizations, or CMOs. Although we work with CMOs to ensure that commercially viable processes will be available for mass production, there are risks associated with scaling to the level required for advanced clinical trials or commercialization, including, among others, cost overruns, potential problems with process scale-up and/or scale-out, process reproducibility, stability issues, lot consistency, and timely availability of reagents or raw materials. We may ultimately be unable to reduce the cost of goods for the product candidates to levels that will allow for an attractive return on investment if and when those product candidates are commercialized.

We expect our manufacturing strategy for the product candidates we develop will continue to involve the use of one or more CMOs as well as potentially establishing our own capabilities and infrastructure, including a manufacturing facility. However, we have no experience as a company in developing a manufacturing facility complying with all standards applicable to the manufacturing of a product to be used by or administered to patients, and may never be successful in developing such a manufacturing facility or capability. We may engage additional CMOs or establish multiple manufacturing facilities as we expand our commercial footprint to multiple geographies, which may lead to regulatory delays or prove costly. Even if we successfully develop our own manufacturing facility, our manufacturing capabilities could be affected by cost-overruns, unexpected delays, equipment failures, labor shortages, natural disasters, power failures, regulatory issues and numerous other factors that could prevent us from realizing the intended benefits of our manufacturing strategy and have a material adverse effect on our business.

In addition, the manufacturing process for any products that we may develop is subject to FDA and foreign regulatory authority approval processes for the jurisdictions in which we or our collaborators will seek marketing approval for commercialization, and we will need to contract with manufacturers who can meet all applicable FDA and foreign regulatory authority requirements on an ongoing basis. If the manufacturing process is changed during the course of product development, FDA or foreign regulatory authorities could require us to repeat some or all previously conducted trials or conduct additional bridging trials, which could delay or impede our ability to obtain marketing approval. If we or our CMOs are unable to reliably produce product candidates or products to specifications acceptable to the FDA or other regulatory authorities, such as the FDA’s cGMP standards compliance, we may not obtain or maintain the approvals we need to further develop, conduct clinical trials for, and commercialize such products in the relevant territories. Even if we obtain regulatory approval for any of our product candidates, there is no assurance that either we or our CMOs will be able to manufacture the approved product according to specifications acceptable to the FDA or other regulatory authorities, to produce it in sufficient quantities to meet the requirements for the potential launch of the product, or to meet potential future demand or need. Any of these challenges could delay completion of clinical trials, require bridging clinical trials or the repetition of one or more clinical trials, increase clinical trial costs, delay approval of our product

18

candidate, impair commercialization efforts, increase our cost of goods, and have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects.

Negative public opinion and increased regulatory scrutiny of genetic research and therapies involving gene editing may damage public perception of our product candidates or adversely affect our ability to conduct our business or obtain regulatory approvals for our product candidates.

Our gene-editing technologies are novel. Public perception may be influenced by claims that gene editing is unsafe, and products incorporating gene editing may not gain the acceptance of the public or the medical community. In particular, our success will depend upon physicians specializing in our targeted diseases prescribing our product candidates as treatments in lieu of, or in addition to, existing, more familiar, treatments for which greater clinical data may be available. Any increase in negative perceptions of gene editing may result in fewer physicians prescribing our treatments or may reduce the willingness of patients to utilize our treatments or participate in clinical trials for our product candidates. Increased negative public opinion or more restrictive government regulations in response thereto, would have a negative effect on our business or financial condition and may delay or impair the development and commercialization of our product candidates or demand for such product candidates. For example, in 2003, 20 subjects treated for X-linked severe combined immunodeficiency in two gene therapy studies using a murine gamma-retroviral vector, a viral delivery system, showed correction of the disease, but the studies were terminated after five subjects developed leukemia. Although none of our current product candidates utilize these gamma-retroviruses, our product candidates use a viral delivery system. Additionally, there have been patient deaths in recent CAR-T trials conducted in the United States by our competitors as well as in our UCART123 Clinical Studies, which have led to clinical trial holds. Adverse events in clinical studies for the product candidates we develop or those of our competitors, even if not ultimately attributable to our or their product candidates, respectively (such as the many adverse events that typically arise from the transplant process), and any resulting publicity could result in increased governmental regulation, unfavorable public perception, potential regulatory delays in the testing or approval of our product candidates, stronger labeling for those product candidates that are approved and a decrease in demand for any such product candidates.

We or our collaborators may find it difficult to enroll patients in clinical studies on the product candidates we develop, which could delay or prevent clinical studies of the product candidates.

Identifying and qualifying patients to participate in clinical studies of the product candidates we develop is critical to our success. The timing of these clinical studies will depend, in part, on the speed of recruitment of patients to participate in testing such product candidates as well as completion of required follow-up periods. We or our collaborators may not be able to identify, recruit and enroll a sufficient number of patients, or those with required or desired characteristics to achieve diversity in a study, to complete the clinical studies for our product candidates in a timely manner. If patients are unwilling to participate in such studies because of negative publicity from adverse events in the biotechnology or gene or cell therapy industries or for other reasons, the timeline for recruiting patients, conducting studies and obtaining regulatory approval of potential products may be delayed. These delays could result in increased costs, delays in advancing our product candidates, delays in testing the effectiveness of our technology or termination of the clinical studies altogether.

In addition, clinical trials for the product candidates we develop will compete with other clinical trials for product candidates that are in the same therapeutic areas as our product candidates, and this competition may reduce the number and types of patients available to us, because some patients who might have opted to enroll in our trials may instead opt to enroll in a trial being conducted by one of our competitors. Because the number of qualified clinical investigators is limited, we expect to conduct some of the clinical trials at the same clinical trial sites that some of our competitors use, which may reduce the number of patients who are available for our clinical trials at such clinical trial sites. Certain of our competitors may have greater success than us in enrolling patients as a result of a variety of factors. Moreover, because the product candidates we develop represent a departure from more commonly used methods for cancer treatment, potential patients and their doctors may be

19

inclined to use conventional therapies, such as chemotherapy and stem cell transplants, rather than enroll patients in our future clinical trial or clinical trial of our collaborators.

Patient enrollment is affected by a variety of factors, including:

Our competitors in the immuno-oncology space are developing products that similarly use CAR T-cells to seek out and destroy cancer cells. In addition to the factors identified above, patient enrollment in any clinical trials we may conduct may be adversely impacted by any negative outcomes our competitors may experience, including adverse side effects (including fatalities), clinical data showing inadequate efficacy or failures to obtain regulatory approval.

If we or our collaborators have difficulty enrolling a sufficient number of patients to conduct clinical studies as planned, we or our collaborators may need to delay, limit or terminate ongoing or planned clinical studies, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition. Even if we are able to enroll a sufficient number of patients in our clinical trials, delays in patient enrollment may result in increased costs or may affect the timing or outcome of the planned clinical trials, which could prevent completion of these trials and adversely affect our ability to advance the development of the product candidates we develop.

Our product candidates may fail safety studies in clinical trials or may cause undesirable side effects that could delay or prevent their regulatory approval, limit the commercial profile of an approved label, or result in significant negative consequences following marketing approval, if any.

Our gene-editing technologies may not be sufficiently specific for their target sites, or they may not target unique sites within the genome of interest, which may result in random DNA recombination events. For example, off-target cleavage may lead to the production of double-strand breaks that overwhelm the cell’s repair machinery and, as a consequence, yield chromosomal rearrangements and/or cell death. Off-target cleavage events also may result in random integration of donor DNA. As a result, off-target cleavage in T-cells may lead to undesirable side effects for patients, and consequently could cause delays, interruptions or suspensions of clinical trials and delays or denial of regulatory approval by the FDA or other regulatory authorities. Because the products we develop have had only very limited clinical application, we do not yet have sufficient information to know whether any of our product candidates will cause undesirable side effects.

Any undesirable side effects could cause us, our collaborators 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

20

FDA or other regulatory authorities. Further, if the product candidates we develop receive marketing approval and we or others identify undesirable side effects caused by the products or any other similar products after the approval, a number of potentially significant negative consequences could result, including:

Any of these events could prevent the affected products from reaching the milestones triggering payment to Cellectis or achieving or maintaining market acceptance and could substantially increase the costs of commercializing such products and significantly impact the ability of such products to generate revenues.

If the product candidates we develop do not achieve projected development and commercialization in the announced or expected timeframes, the further development or commercialization of our product candidates may be delayed, and our business will be harmed.

We sometimes estimate, or may in the future estimate, for planning purposes, the timing of the accomplishment of various scientific, clinical, manufacturing, regulatory and other product development objectives. These milestones may include our expectations regarding the commencement or completion of scientific studies, clinical trials, the submission of regulatory filings, the receipt of marketing approval or commercialization objectives. The achievement of many of these milestones may be outside of our control. All of these milestones are based on a variety of assumptions including, assumptions regarding capital resources and constraints, progress of development activities, and the receipt of key regulatory approvals or actions, any of which may cause the timing of achievement of the milestones to vary considerably from our estimates.

If we or our collaborators fail to achieve announced milestones in the expected timeframes, the commercialization of the product candidates may be delayed, our credibility may be undermined, and our business and results of operations may be harmed.

Further development and commercialization of our product candidates will depend, in part, on strategic alliances with our collaborators. If our collaborators do not diligently pursue product development efforts, our progress may be delayed and our revenues may be deferred.

We expect to rely, to some extent, on our collaborators to provide funding in support of our own independent research and pre-clinical and clinical testing. Our technology is broad based, and we do not currently possess the financial resources necessary to fully develop and commercialize potential products that may result from our technologies or the resources or capabilities to complete the lengthy marketing approval processes that may be required for the products. Therefore, we plan to rely on strategic alliances to financially help us develop and commercialize our own biopharmaceutical products. As a result, our success depends, in part, on our ability

21

to collect milestone and royalty payments from our collaborators. To the extent our collaborators do not aggressively pursue product candidates for which we are entitled to such payments or pursue such product candidates ineffectively, we will fail to realize these significant revenue streams, which could have an adverse effect on our business and future prospects. For example, since Servier has obtained exclusive rights on UCART19, it controls this product candidate and its future development (including the UCART19 Clinical Studies) and commercialization. We will receive royalties on sales of the product, but will have no control over such further development and commercialization.

If collaborators with whom we currently have alliances, such as Pfizer and Servier, or future collaborators with whom we may engage, are unable or unwilling to advance our programs, or if they do not diligently pursue product development and product approval, this may slow our progress and defer or negatively impact our revenues. Such failures would have an adverse effect on our ability to collect key revenue streams and, for this reason, would adversely impact our business, financial position and prospects. Our collaborators may assign, sublicense or abandon product candidates or we may have disagreements with our collaborators, which would cause associated product development to slow or cease. There can be no assurance that our current strategic alliances will continue or be successful, and we may require significant time to secure new strategic alliances because we need to effectively market the benefits of our technology to these future alliance partners, which may direct the attention and resources of our research and development personnel and management away from our primary business operations. Further, each strategic alliance arrangement will involve the negotiation of terms that may be unique to each collaborator. These business development efforts may not result in a strategic alliance or may result in unfavorable arrangements.

The loss of existing or future collaboration agreements would not only delay or potentially terminate the possible development or commercialization of products we may derive from our technologies, but it may also delay or terminate our ability to test target candidates for specific genes. If any collaborator fails to conduct the collaborative activities successfully and in a timely manner, the pre-clinical or clinical development or commercialization of the affected target candidates or research programs would be delayed or could be terminated.

Under typical collaboration agreements, we would expect to receive revenue for the research and development of a CAR T-cell immunotherapy product based on achievement of specific milestones, as well as royalties based on a percentage of sales of the commercialized products. Achieving these milestones will depend, in part, on the efforts of our partner as well as, in most cases and for a limited period of time, our own. If we, or any alliance partner, fail to meet specific milestones, then the strategic alliance may be terminated, which could reduce our revenues.

Under our collaboration agreement with Pfizer, at any time after the first anniversary of the effective date of the agreement, Pfizer will have the right to terminate the agreement at will upon 60 days’ prior written notice, either in its entirety or on a target-by-target basis. Either party may terminate the agreement in its entirety upon written notice, if the other party commits a material breach that fundamentally frustrates the objectives or transactions contemplated by the agreement or affects substantially all of the research program and such breach remains uncured for 90 days from the date such written notice is provided. Either party may terminate the agreement on a target-by-target basis upon written notice, if the other party commits a material breach that relates to such target and such breach remains uncured for 90 days from the date such written notice is provided. The agreement may also be terminated upon written notice by Pfizer at any time in the event that we become bankrupt or insolvent. Further, the agreement provides Pfizer with a right to terminate any specific research project or research program under the agreement if we undergo a change of control.

Under our collaboration agreement with Servier, either party may terminate the agreement in its entirety in the event of the other party’s material breach, which continues or remains uncured for 90 days after written notice is provided to the breaching party, or 30 days after written notice is provided with respect to a payment obligation breach. The parties may also terminate the agreement by mutual written consent. Servier has the right,

22

at its sole discretion, to terminate the agreement in its entirety or with respect to specific products or product candidates, upon three months’ prior written notice to us. Servier may also terminate the agreement at any time for product-related safety reasons. Either party may terminate the agreement in the event of the other party’s bankruptcy or insolvency. Further, the agreement provides Servier with buy-out rights with respect to our interest in products and product candidates under the agreement if we undergo a change of control.

Even if we or our collaborators successfully complete clinical trials of our product candidates, those candidates may not be commercialized successfully for other reasons.

Even if we or our collaborators successfully complete clinical trials for one or more of the product candidates, those candidates may not be commercialized for other reasons, including:

In addition, for any product candidates we develop through our strategic alliances, we will depend entirely upon the other party for marketing and sales of that product. These partners may not devote sufficient time or resources to the marketing and commercialization, or may determine not to pursue marketing and commercialization at all. Our business and results of operations will be negatively impacted by any failure of our collaborators to effectively market and commercialize an approved product.

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

Even if we obtain regulatory approval in a jurisdiction for the product candidates we develop, they will be subject to ongoing regulatory requirements for manufacturing, labeling, packaging, storage, advertising, promotion, sampling, record-keeping, and submission of safety and other post-market information. Any regulatory approvals received for the product candidates may also be subject to limitations on the approved indicated uses for which the product may be marketed or to the conditions of approval, or contain requirements for potentially costly post-marketing testing, including Phase 4 clinical trials, and surveillance to monitor the safety and efficacy of the product. For example, the holder of an approved BLA in the United States is obligated to monitor and report adverse events and any failure of a product to meet the specifications in the BLA. FDA guidance advises that patients treated with some types of gene therapy undergo follow-up observations for potential adverse events for as long as 15 years. Similarly, in the EU, pharmacovigilance obligations are applicable to all medicinal products. In addition to those, holders of a marketing authorization for gene or cell therapy products must detail, in their application, the measures they envisage to ensure follow-up of the efficacy and safety of these products. In cases of particular concern, marketing authorization holders for gene or cell therapy products in the EU may be required to design a risk management system with a view to identifying, preventing or minimizing risks, and may be obliged to carry out post-marketing studies. In the United States, the holder of an approved BLA must also submit new or supplemental applications and obtain FDA approval for certain changes to the approved product, product labeling or manufacturing process. Similar provisions apply in the EU. Advertising and promotional materials must comply with FDA rules and are subject to FDA review, in addition to other potentially applicable federal and state laws. Similarly, in the EU any promotion of medicinal products is highly regulated and, depending on the specific jurisdiction involved, may require prior vetting by the competent national regulatory authority.

23

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

If we or our collaborators fail to comply with applicable regulatory requirements following approval of any of the product candidates we develop, national competent authorities may:

Any government investigation of alleged violations of law could require us to expend significant time and resources in response and could generate negative publicity. The occurrence of any event or penalty described above may inhibit ability to commercialize products and generate revenues. In addition, the FDA’s policies, and policies of foreign regulatory agencies, may change and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of our product candidates. We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action, either in the United States or abroad. If we or our collaborators are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we or our collaborators are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, marketing approval that has been obtained may be lost and we may not achieve or sustain profitability, which would adversely affect our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

We expect the product candidates we develop will be regulated as biological products, or biologics, and therefore they may be subject to competition sooner than anticipated.

The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, or BPCIA, was enacted as part of the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, or collectively, the ACA, to establish an abbreviated pathway for the approval of biosimilar and interchangeable biological products. The regulatory pathway establishes legal authority for the FDA to review and approve biosimilar biologics, including the possible designation of a biosimilar as “interchangeable” based on its similarity to an approved biologic. Under the BPCIA, an application for a biosimilar product cannot be approved by the FDA until 12 years after the reference product was approved under a BLA. The law is complex and is still being interpreted and implemented by the FDA. As a result, its ultimate impact, implementation, and meaning are subject to uncertainty. While it is uncertain when such processes intended to implement BPCIA may be fully adopted by the FDA, any such processes could have a material adverse effect on the future commercial prospects for our biological products.

24

We believe that any of the product candidates we develop that is approved in the United States as a biological product under a BLA should qualify for the 12-year period of exclusivity. However, there is a risk that this exclusivity could be shortened due to congressional action or otherwise, or that the FDA will not consider the subject product candidates to be reference products for competing products, potentially creating the opportunity for generic competition sooner than anticipated. Moreover, the extent to which a biosimilar, once approved, will be substituted for any one of the reference products in a way that is similar to traditional generic substitution for non-biological products is not yet clear, and will depend on a number of marketplace and regulatory factors that are still developing.

Even if we or our collaborators obtain and maintain approval for product candidates in the United States or another jurisdiction, we or our collaborators may never obtain approval for the same product candidates in other jurisdictions, which would limit market opportunities and adversely affect our business.

Approval of a product candidate in the United States by the FDA or by the requisite regulatory agencies in any other jurisdiction does not ensure approval of such product candidate by regulatory authorities in other countries or jurisdictions, and approval by one foreign regulatory authority does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other foreign countries or by the FDA. The approval process varies among countries and may limit our or our collaborators’ ability to develop, manufacture, promote and sell our product candidates internationally. Failure to obtain marketing approval in international jurisdictions would prevent the product candidates from being marketed outside of the jurisdictions in which regulatory approvals have been received. In order to market and sell the product candidates in the EU and many other jurisdictions, we and our collaborators must obtain separate marketing approvals and comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements. The approval procedure varies among countries and may involve additional pre-clinical studies or clinical trials both before and post approval. In many countries, a product candidate must be approved for reimbursement before it can be approved for sale in that country. In some cases, the intended price for the product is also subject to approval. Further, while regulatory approval of a product candidate in one country does not ensure approval in any other country, a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one country may have a negative effect on the regulatory approval process in others. If we or our collaborators fail to comply with the regulatory requirements in international markets and/or receive applicable marketing approvals, the target market will be reduced and the ability to realize the full market potential of the subject product candidates will be harmed and our business will be adversely affected.

Depending on the results of clinical trials and the process for obtaining regulatory approvals in other countries, we or our collaborators may decide to first seek regulatory approvals of a product candidate in countries other than the United States, or we or our collaborators may simultaneously seek regulatory approvals in the United States and other countries, in which case we or our collaborators will be subject to the regulatory requirements of health authorities in each country in which we seek approvals. Obtaining regulatory approvals from health authorities in countries outside the United States is likely to subject us or our collaborators to all of the risks associated with obtaining approval in the United States or the EU described herein.

We plan to seek orphan drug status for some or all of our product candidates, but we may be unable to obtain such designations or to maintain the benefits associated with orphan drug status, including market exclusivity, which may cause our revenue, if any, to be reduced.

We plan to seek orphan drug designation for some or all of our product candidates in specific orphan indications in which there is a medically plausible basis for the use of these products. Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan designation to a drug or biologic intended to treat a rare disease or condition, defined as a disease or condition with a patient population of fewer than 200,000 in the United States, or a patient population greater than 200,000 in the United States when there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making available the drug or biologic in the United States will be recovered from sales in the United States for that drug or biologic. Orphan drug designation must be requested before submitting a BLA. In the United States, orphan drug designation entitles a party to financial incentives such as opportunities for grant

25

funding towards clinical trial costs, tax advantages, and user-fee waivers. After the FDA grants orphan drug designation, the generic identity of the drug and its potential orphan use are disclosed publicly by the FDA. Orphan drug designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process. Although we intend to seek orphan product designation for some or all of our product candidates, we may never receive such designations.

If a product that has orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for a particular active ingredient for the disease for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan product exclusivity, which means that the FDA may not approve any other applications, including a BLA, to market the same biologic for the same indication for seven years, except in limited circumstances such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan product exclusivity or if FDA finds that the holder of the orphan drug exclusivity has not shown that it can assure the availability of sufficient quantities of the orphan drug to meet the needs of patients with the disease or condition for which the drug was designated. Even if we obtain orphan drug designation for a product candidate, we may not be the first to obtain marketing approval for any particular orphan indication due to the uncertainties associated with developing pharmaceutical products. Exclusive marketing rights in the United States may be limited if we seek approval for an indication broader than the orphan designated indication and may be lost if the FDA later determines that the request for designation was materially defective, the disease or condition exceeded the population threshold, or if the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient quantities of the product to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition. Further, even if we obtain orphan drug exclusivity for a product, that exclusivity may not effectively protect the product from competition because different drugs with different active moieties can be approved for the same condition. Even after an orphan drug is approved, the FDA can subsequently approve the same drug with the same active moiety for the same condition if the FDA concludes that the later drug is safer, more effective, or makes a major contribution to patient care. Furthermore, the FDA can waive orphan exclusivity if we are unable to manufacture sufficient supply of our product.

Similarly, in Europe, a medicinal product may receive orphan designation under Article 3 of Regulation (EC) 141/2000. This applies to products that are intended for a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition and either (a) such condition affects no more than five in 10,000 persons in the EU when the application is made, or (b) the product, without the benefits derived from orphan status, would unlikely generate sufficient return in the EU to justify the necessary investment. Moreover, in order to obtain orphan designation in the EU it is necessary to demonstrate that there exists no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment of such condition authorized for marketing in the EU, or if such a method exists, the product will be of significant benefit to those affected by the condition.

In the EU, orphan medicinal products are eligible for financial incentives such as reduction of fees or fee waivers and applicants can benefit from specific regulatory assistance and scientific advice. Products receiving orphan designation in the EU can receive ten years of market exclusivity, during which time no similar medicinal product for the same indication may be placed on the market. An orphan product can also obtain an additional two years of market exclusivity in the EU for pediatric studies (Article 37, Regulation 1901/2006). However, the 10-year market exclusivity may be reduced to six years if, at the end of the fifth year, it is established that the product no longer meets the criteria for orphan designation—for example, if the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity. Additionally, marketing authorization may be granted to a similar product for the same indication at any time if:

26

We may seek fast-track designation for some or all of our product candidates. There is no assurance that the FDA will grant such designation and, even if it does grant fast track designation to any of our product candidates, that designation may not actually lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process and it does not increase the likelihood that our product candidates will receive marketing approval in the United States.

We may seek fast-track designation and review for some or all of our other product candidates. If a drug is intended for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening condition or disease, the drug sponsor may apply for FDA fast track designation. The FDA has broad discretion whether or not to grant this designation. Thus, even if we believe a particular product candidate is eligible for this designation, we cannot assure that the FDA would decide to grant it. Moreover, even if we do receive fast track designation, we may not experience a faster development process, review or approval compared to conventional FDA procedures. In addition, the FDA may withdraw fast track designation if it believes that the designation is no longer supported by data from our clinical development program.

We may seek a regenerative advanced therapy (RAT) designation and/or a breakthrough therapy designation for our product candidates. Even if we achieve a RAT designation or a breakthrough designation from the FDA for the product candidates we develop, or, if applicable, by other national or international regulatory agencies, such designation may not lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process, and it does not increase the likelihood that our product candidates will receive marketing approval.

We may seek a RAT designation or a breakthrough therapy designation for our product candidates in the future.

A drug is eligible for RAT designation if, (i) the drug is a regenerative medicine therapy, which is defined as a cell therapy, therapeutic tissue engineering product, human cell and tissue product, or any combination product using such therapies or products, except for those regulated solely under Section 361 of the Public Health Service Act and part 1271 of Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations; (ii) the drug is intended to treat, modify, reverse, or cure a serious or life-threatening disease or condition; and (iii) preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug has the potential to address unmet medical needs for such disease or condition.

A breakthrough therapy is defined as a product that is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints.

For product candidates that have been designated as a RAT or a breakthrough therapy, 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. Designation as a RAT or breakthrough therapy is within the discretion of the FDA. Accordingly, even if we believe that our product candidates meet the criteria for designation as a RAT or a breakthrough therapy, the FDA may disagree and instead determine not to make such designation. In any event, the receipt of a RAT designation or a breakthrough therapy designation for a product candidate may not result in a faster development process, review or approval compared to products considered for approval under conventional FDA procedures and does not assure ultimate approval by the FDA. In addition, even if one or more of our product candidates qualify as RAT or a breakthrough therapy, the FDA may later decide that such product no longer meet the conditions for qualification.

Even if any of our product candidates are commercialized, they may not be accepted by physicians, patients, or the medical community in general, and may also become subject to market conditions that could harm our business.

Even if any of our product candidates receive marketing approval, the medical community may not accept such products as adequately safe and efficacious for their indicated use. Moreover, physicians may choose to

27

restrict the use of the product, if, based on experience, clinical data, side-effect profiles and other factors, they are not convinced that the product is preferable to existing drugs or treatments. We cannot predict the degree of market acceptance of any product candidate that receives marketing approval, which will depend on a number of factors, including, but not limited to:

Product liability lawsuits could divert our resources, result in substantial liabilities and reduce the commercial potential of our product candidates.

The risk that we may be sued on product liability claims is inherent in the development and commercialization of biopharmaceutical products. Side effects of, or manufacturing defects in, products that we develop could result in the deterioration of a patient’s condition, injury or even death. For example, our liability could be sought by patients participating in the clinical trials for our product candidates as a result of unexpected side effects resulting from the administration of these products. Once a product is approved for sale and commercialized, the likelihood of product liability lawsuits increases. Criminal or civil proceedings might be filed against us by patients, regulatory authorities, our collaborators, biopharmaceutical companies and any other third party using or marketing our products. These actions could include claims resulting from acts by our partners, licensees and subcontractors, over which we have little or no control. These lawsuits may divert our management from pursuing our business strategy and may be costly to defend. In addition, if we are held liable in any of these lawsuits, we may incur substantial liabilities and may be forced to limit or forgo further commercialization of the affected products.

In addition, regardless of merit or eventual outcome, product liability claims may result in: impairment of our business reputation; withdrawal of clinical trial participants; initiation of investigations by regulators; costs due to related litigation; distraction of management’s attention from our primary business; substantial monetary awards to trial participants, patients or other claimants; loss of revenue; exhaustion of any available insurance and our capital resources; the inability by us and our collaborators to commercialize our product candidates; and decreased demand for our product candidates, if approved for commercial sale.

We maintain product liability insurance coverage for damages caused by our product candidates, including clinical trial insurance coverage, with coverage limits that we believe are customary for companies in our industry. This coverage may be insufficient to reimburse us for any expenses or losses we may suffer. In addition, in the future, we may not be able to obtain or maintain sufficient insurance coverage at an acceptable cost or to otherwise protect against potential product or other legal or administrative liability claims by us or our partners, licensees or subcontractors, which could prevent or inhibit the commercial production and sale of any of our product candidates that receive regulatory approval, which could adversely affect our business.

Coverage and reimbursement may be limited or unavailable in certain market segments for our product candidates, which could make it difficult for us to sell our product candidates profitably.

Successful sales of our product candidates, if approved, depend, in part, on the availability of adequate coverage and reimbursement from third-party payors.

28

Patients who are provided medical treatment for their conditions generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the costs associated with their treatment. Adequate coverage and reimbursement from governmental healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid in the United States, and commercial payors are critical to new product acceptance.

Government authorities and third-party payors, such as private health insurers and health maintenance organizations, decide which drugs and treatments they will cover and the amount of reimbursement. Coverage and reimbursement by a third-party payor may depend upon a number of factors, including the third-party payor’s determination that use of a product is:

Policies for coverage and reimbursement for products vary among third-party payors. As a result, obtaining coverage and reimbursement approval of a product from a government or other third-party payor is a time-consuming and costly process that could require us or our collaborators to provide to each payor supporting scientific, clinical and cost-effectiveness data for the use of our products on a payor-by-payor basis, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be obtained. Even if we obtain coverage for a given product, the resulting reimbursement payment rates might not be adequate for us to achieve or sustain profitability or may require co-payments that patients find unacceptably high. Additionally, third-party payors may not cover, or provide adequate reimbursement for, long-term follow-up evaluations required following the use of our product candidates.

Patients are unlikely to use our product candidates unless coverage is provided and reimbursement is adequate to cover a significant portion of the cost of our product candidates. Because our product candidates represent new approaches to the treatment of cancer and accordingly, may have a higher cost than conventional therapies and may require long-term follow up evaluations, the risk that coverage and reimbursement rates may be inadequate for us to achieve profitability may be elevated.

Government restrictions on pricing and reimbursement, as well as other healthcare payor cost-containment initiatives, may negatively impact our ability to generate revenues if we obtain regulatory approval for any of our product candidates.

Third-party payors, whether domestic or foreign, or governmental or commercial, are developing increasingly sophisticated methods of controlling healthcare costs. The continuing efforts of various governments, insurance companies, managed care organizations and other payors to contain or reduce healthcare costs may adversely affect one or more of the following:

In both the United States and certain foreign jurisdictions, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory changes to the health care system that could impact our or our collaborators’ ability to sell our

29

products profitably. By way of example, in the United States, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (collectively, the ACA) was enacted in March 2010. The ACA has been expected to have a significant impact on the provision of, and payment for, health care in the United States. The ACA was intended to broaden access to health insurance, reduce or constrain the growth of healthcare spending, enhance remedies against fraud and abuse, add new transparency requirements for the healthcare and health insurance industries, impose new taxes and fees on the health industry and impose additional health policy reforms.

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

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted. These changes include aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect in April 2013 and will remain in effect through 2024 unless additional Congressional action is taken. In January 2013, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was signed into law which, among other things, further reduced Medicare payments to several providers and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. Further, in January 2017, President Trump signed an Executive Order directing federal agencies with authorities and responsibilities under the ACA to waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation of any provisions of the ACA that would impose a fiscal or regulatory burden on states, individuals, healthcare providers, health insurers, or manufacturer of pharmaceutical products. Congress may also consider subsequent legislation to replace elements of the ACA that are repealed. As a result, the full impact of the ACA, any law repealing and/or replacing elements of it, and the political uncertainty surrounding any repeal or replacement legislation remains unclear.

This legislative uncertainty could harm our or our collaborators’ ability to market any products and generate revenues. Cost containment measures that healthcare payors and providers are instituting and the effect of further healthcare reform could significantly reduce potential revenues from the sale of any of our product candidates approved in the future, and could cause an increase in our compliance, manufacturing, or other operating expenses.

30

In some countries, the proposed pricing for a biopharmaceutical product must be approved before it may be lawfully marketed. In addition, in certain foreign markets, the pricing of biopharmaceutical product is subject to government control and reimbursement may in some cases be unavailable. The requirements governing drug pricing vary widely from country to country. For example, the EU provides options for its Member States to restrict the range of medicinal products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices of medicinal products for human use. An EU Member State may approve a specific price for the medicinal product or it may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the medicinal product on the market. There can be no assurance that any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for biopharmaceutical products will allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements for any of our products. Historically, biopharmaceutical products launched in the EU do not follow price structures of the United States and generally tend to have significantly lower prices.

We believe that pricing pressures will continue and may increase, which may make it difficult for us to sell our potential products that may be approved in the future at a price acceptable to us or any of our future collaborators.

Our future profitability, if any, depends, in part, on our ability to penetrate global markets, where we would be subject to additional regulatory burdens and other risks and uncertainties.

Our future profitability, if any, will depend, in part, on our ability and the ability of our collaborators to commercialize the product candidates we develop in markets throughout the world. Commercialization of our product candidates in various markets could subject us to risks and uncertainties, including:

Sales of the products could also be adversely affected by the imposition of governmental controls, political and economic instability, trade restrictions and changes in tariffs.

We are subject to healthcare laws and regulations, which could expose us to the potential for criminal sanctions, civil penalties, exclusion from government healthcare programs, contractual damages, reputational harm and diminished profits and future earnings.

Healthcare providers, physicians and others will play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of our products, if approved. Our arrangements with such persons and third-party payors must be structured in

31

accordance with the broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations that may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we research, market, sell and distribute our products, if we obtain marketing approval. Restrictions under applicable federal, state and foreign healthcare laws and regulations include but are not limited to the following:

Ensuring that our business arrangements with third parties comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations could be costly. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices do not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If our operations were found to be in violation of any of any laws or any other governmental regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal and

32

administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, individual imprisonment and exclusion from government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, any of which could substantially disrupt our operations. If the physicians or other providers or entities with whom we expect to do business are found not to be in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government funded healthcare programs.

Risks Related to Our Reliance on Third Parties

We expect to continue to rely on third parties to conduct some or all aspects of our product manufacturing, quality control, protocol development, material supply, research and pre-clinical development, clinical testing and distribution, and these third parties may not perform satisfactorily.

We do not, and do not expect in the future to, independently conduct all aspects of our product manufacturing, quality control, protocol development, material supply, research and pre-clinical development and clinical testing as well as distribution and rely, and will continue to rely, on third parties for some of these activities. Under certain circumstances, these third parties may be entitled to terminate their engagements with us. If we need to enter into alternative arrangements, it could delay our product development activities.

In addition, in connection with our engagement of third parties, we control only certain aspects of their activities. Our reliance on these third parties for product manufacturing, quality control, protocol development, material supply, research and pre-clinical development and clinical testing and distribution activities reduces our control over these activities but does not relieve us of our responsibility to ensure compliance with all required regulations and study and trial protocols. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties, meet expected deadlines or conduct our studies in accordance with regulatory requirements or our stated study and trial plans and protocols, or if there are disagreements between us and these third parties, we may not be able to complete, or may be delayed in completing, the pre-clinical studies and clinical trials required to support future regulatory submissions and approval of the product candidates we develop. In some such cases we may need to locate an appropriate replacement third-party relationship, which may not be readily available or on acceptable terms, which would cause additional delay with respect to the approval of our product candidates and would thereby have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

In addition, reliance on third-party manufacturers, suppliers, research organizations and/or distributors entails risks to which we would not be subject if we conducted the above-mentioned activities ourselves, including:

33

Any of these events could lead to manufacturing, supply and/or clinical study delays or failure to obtain regulatory approval, or impact our ability to successfully commercialize future products.

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

All entities involved in the preparation of products for clinical studies or commercial sale, including our existing contract manufacturers for our product candidates, are subject to extensive regulations. For example, in the United States, components of a finished CAR T-cell immunotherapy product approved for commercial sale or used in clinical studies must be manufactured in accordance with the current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP) requirements. Similarly, all investigational medicinal products in the EU must be manufactured in compliance with Good Manufacturing Practices, or GMP. The FDA’s cGMP regulations and comparable regulations in other jurisdictions govern manufacturing processes and procedures (including record keeping) and the implementation and operation of quality systems to control and assure the quality of investigational products and products approved for sale. Poor control of production processes can lead to the introduction of adventitious agents or other contaminants, or to inadvertent changes in the properties or stability of the product candidates we develop that may not be detectable in final product testing. In the United States, we or our contract manufacturers must supply all necessary documentation in support of a BLA on a timely basis and must adhere to the FDA’s cGMP requirements enforced by the FDA through its facilities inspection program. Our facilities and quality systems and the facilities and quality systems of some or all of our third-party contractors must pass a pre-approval inspection for compliance with the applicable regulations as a condition of regulatory approval of our product candidates. In addition, the regulatory authorities may, at any time, inspect a manufacturing facility involved with the preparation and/or control of our product candidates, including starting and raw material, excipients, equipment and consumables, as well as the associated quality systems for compliance with the regulations applicable to the activities being conducted. If these facilities do not pass a pre-approval inspection, FDA approval of the products will not be granted.

Similarly, in the EU, Directive 2003/94/EC lays down the principles and guidelines of GMP in respect of medicinal products and investigational medicinal products and requires that products are consistently produced and controlled in accordance with the applicable quality standards. It also requires that medicinal products and investigational medicinal products that are imported from third countries are manufactured in accordance with standards at least equivalent to the GMP standards laid down in the EU. Directive 2003/94/EC, together with the detailed EU Guidelines on GMP, govern the quality management, personnel, premises, documentation, production operations, quality control, outsources activities, complaints and product recall and self-inspection. GMP inspections are performed by the competent authorities of the EU Member States, and are coordinated by the EMA in the case of medicinal products that are authorized through the EU centralized procedure.

If any of our third-party manufacturers, directly or indirectly (due to failure of their own sub-contractors), fail to maintain regulatory compliance, the regulator can impose regulatory sanctions including, among other things, refusal to approve a pending application for a new product, revocation or non-renewal of a pre-existing approval, refusal to accept some non-clinical and/or clinical data generated with material for which that third-

34

party was responsible, or imposition of a hold on or refusal to commence, clinical investigations. As a result, our business, financial condition and results of operations may be materially harmed.

In addition, if supply from one approved manufacturer or supplier is interrupted, there could be a significant disruption in commercial and/or clinical supply of our products. Identifying and engaging an alternative manufacturer or supplier that complies with applicable regulatory requirements could result in further delay. Applicable regulatory agencies may also require additional studies if a new manufacturer or supplier is relied upon in connection with commercial production. Switching manufacturers or suppliers may involve substantial costs and is likely to result in a delay in our desired clinical and commercial timelines.

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

Access to raw materials and products necessary for the conduct of clinical trials and manufacturing of our product candidates is not guaranteed.

We are dependent on third parties for the supply of various biological materials—such as cells, cell culture media, cytokines, vectors, nucleic acids or antibodies—that are necessary to produce our product candidates. The supply of these materials could be reduced or interrupted at any time. In such case, we may not be able to find other acceptable suppliers or on acceptable terms. If key suppliers or manufacturers are lost or the supply of the materials is diminished or discontinued, we may not be able to develop, manufacture, and market our product candidates in a timely and competitive manner. In addition, these materials are subject to stringent manufacturing process and rigorous testing. Delays in the completion and validation of facilities and manufacturing processes of these materials could adversely affect the ability to complete trials and commercialize our products candidates. In addition, our suppliers or manufacturers may, from time to time, change their internal manufacturing or testing processes and procedures. Such changes may require us to perform or have performed studies to demonstrate equivalence of the materials produced or tested under such new procedures. Such equivalence testing may impose significant delays in the development of our product candidates. Furthermore, our suppliers may face quality issues or findings from regulatory authorities’ inspections that could lead to delays or interruption of the supply of our product candidates.

We or our collaborators rely on third parties to conduct, supervise and monitor our or their clinical studies, and if these third parties perform in an unsatisfactory manner, it may harm our business.

We or our collaborators rely on medical institutions, clinical investigators, contract research organizations, or CROs, contract laboratories, and collaborators to carry out or otherwise assist us in connection with our or their clinical trials and to perform data collection and analysis. While we will have agreements governing their activities, we will have limited influence over their actual performance and will control only certain aspects of such third parties’ activities. Nevertheless, we will be responsible for ensuring that each of our clinical trials is conducted in accordance with the applicable protocol, legal, regulatory, ethical and scientific standards, and our reliance on the third party does not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities.

We and our CROs are required to comply with the FDA’s and other regulatory authorities’ good clinical practices, or GCP, cGMP, good laboratory practices, or GLP, and other applicable requirements for conducting, recording and reporting the results of our pre-clinical studies and clinical trials to assure that the data and reported results are credible and accurate and that the rights, integrity and confidentiality of clinical trial participants are protected. Regulatory authorities around the world, including the FDA and European authorities, enforce these requirements through periodic inspections of study sponsors, CROs, principal investigators and clinical trial sites. If we, our CROs, our investigators or trial sites fail to comply with applicable GCP, GLP, GMP or other applicable

35

regulatory requirements, the clinical data generated in our future clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA, EMA or other regulatory authorities around the world may require us to perform additional clinical trials before issuing any marketing authorizations for our product candidates. Upon inspection, the FDA or EMA may determine that our clinical trials did not comply with GCP, GLP and GMP requirements, which may render the data generated in those trials unreliable or otherwise not usable for the purpose of supporting the marketing authorization applications for our products. In addition, our future clinical trials will require a sufficient number of study subjects to evaluate the safety and efficacy of our product candidates. Accordingly, if, for example, our CROs fail to comply with these regulations or if trial sites fail to recruit a sufficient number of patients, we may be required to repeat such clinical trials, or anyway incur delays in the performance of such trials, which would delay the regulatory approval process for the approval of our product candidates.

Clinical trials conducted in reliance on third parties may be delayed, suspended, or terminated if:

Third party performance failures may increase our costs, delay our ability to obtain regulatory approval, and delay or prevent starting or completion of clinical trials and delay or prevent commercialization of our product candidates. While we believe that there are numerous alternative sources to provide these services, in the event that we seek such alternative sources, we may not be able to enter into replacement arrangements without incurring delays or additional costs.

We may enter into agreements with third parties to sell, distribute and/or market any of the products candidates we develop on our own and for which we obtain regulatory approval, which may affect the sales of our own products and our ability to generate revenues.

Given our early development stage, we have no experience in sales, marketing and distribution of biopharmaceutical products. However, if any of our product candidates obtain marketing approval, we intend to develop sales and marketing capacity, either alone or with partners, by contracting with, or licensing, them to market any of our own products. Outsourcing sales, distribution and marketing in this manner may subject us to a variety of risks, including:

If we are unable to partner with a third party that has adequate sales, marketing, and distribution capabilities, we may have difficulty commercializing our product candidates, which would adversely affect our business, financial condition, and ability to generate product revenues.

36

Our reliance on third parties and our collaborations require us to share our trade secrets, which increases the possibility that a competitor will discover them or that our trade secrets will be misappropriated or disclosed.

Because we rely on third parties for the advancement of our products platform, pre-clinical testing, quality control, clinical trials, and manufacturing activities, we must, at times, share trade secrets with them. Our collaborations with Servier and Pfizer, and any collaborations we may enter into in the future, may also lead to share certain of our trade secrets with our collaborators. We seek to protect our proprietary technology in part by entering into confidentiality agreements and, if applicable, material transfer agreements, collaborative research agreements, consulting agreements or other similar agreements with our collaborators, advisors, employees and consultants prior to beginning research or disclosing proprietary information. These agreements typically limit the rights of the third parties to use or disclose our confidential information, such as trade secrets. Despite the contractual provisions employed when working with third parties, the need to share trade secrets and other confidential information increases the risk that such trade secrets become known by our competitors, are inadvertently incorporated into the technology of others, or are disclosed or used in violation of these agreements. Given that our proprietary position is based, in part, on our know-how and trade secrets, a competitor’s discovery of our trade secrets or other unauthorized use or disclosure would impair our competitive position and may have a material adverse effect on our business. In addition, agreements with third parties typically restrict the ability of such third parties to publish data potentially relating to our trade secrets. Our academic collaborators typically have rights to publish data, provided that we are notified in advance and may delay publication for a specified time in order to secure our intellectual property rights arising from the strategic alliance. In other cases, publication rights are controlled exclusively by us, although in some cases we may share these rights with other parties. We also conduct joint research and product development that may require us to share trade secrets under the terms of our research and development partnerships or similar agreements.

Despite our efforts to protect our trade secrets, our competitors may discover our trade secrets, either through breach of these agreements, independent development or publication of information including our trade secrets in cases where we do not have proprietary or otherwise protected rights at the time of publication. A competitor’s discovery of our trade secrets would impair our competitive position and have an adverse impact on our business.

Risks Related to Our Plant Products Business

Our plant product development efforts use complex integrated technology platforms and require substantial time and resources; these efforts may not be successful, or the rate of product improvement may be slower than expected.

Development of successful agricultural products using complex technology platforms such as gene-editing technologies requires significant levels of investment in research and development, including laboratory, greenhouse and field testing, to demonstrate their effectiveness and can take several years or more. For the three years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, we incurred $6.1 million, $4.1 million and $2.9 million, respectively, on plant sciences research and development expenses. Our investment in plant sciences research and development may not result in significant product revenue over the next several years, if ever. Moreover, the successful application of gene-editing technologies can be unpredictable, and may prove to be unsuccessful when attempting to achieve desired traits in different crops and plants. For example, our gene-editing techniques may prove to be unsuccessful very early on during the discovery phase of new crop development based on technology limitations. Alternatively, even though we successfully implemented gene edits during the discovery phase, that trait may not ultimately appear in crops during field testing or crops may also exhibit other undesirable traits that adversely affect their commercial value.

Development of new or improved agricultural products involves risks of failure inherent in the development of products based on innovative and complex technologies. These risks include the possibility that:

37

Lastly, the field of gene editing, particularly in the area of plants, is still in its infancy, and no products using this technology have reached the market. Negative developments in the field of gene editing, including with respect to adverse side effects, could harm the reputation of the industry and negatively impact our business.

Calyxt has never commercialized an agricultural product candidate and may lack the necessary expertise, personnel and resources to successfully commercialize any such product candidates.

Calyxt has never commercialized an agricultural product candidate. Our plant products are still in development, and there is no established market for them. Completion of product development could be protracted, and, although Calyxt expects to commercialize a first agricultural product candidate by the end of 2018, there can be no assurance that it will be able to successfully commercialize this product candidate. Any products may not be ready for commercial launch for several years, if ever. If we are not able to commercialize our existing or future agricultural product candidates on a significant scale, then we may not be successful in building a sustainable or profitable business at Calyxt. Moreover, we expect to price our plant products based on our assessment of the value that we believe they will provide to food manufacturers or farmers, rather than on the cost of production. If food manufacturers or farmers attribute a lower value to our products than we do, they may not be willing to pay the premium prices that we expect to charge. Pricing levels may also be negatively affected if our plant products are unsuccessful in producing the yields or traits we expect. Food manufacturers or farmers may also be cautious in their adoption of new plant products and technologies, with conservative initial purchases and proof of product required prior to widespread deployment. It may take several growing seasons for food manufacturers or farmers to adopt our plant products on a large scale.

To achieve commercial success of our agricultural product candidates, we will have to develop our own sales, marketing and supply capabilities by outsourcing these activities to third parties. Factors that may affect our ability to commercialize our agricultural product candidates on our own include recruiting and retaining adequate numbers of effective sales and marketing personnel, obtaining access to or persuading adequate numbers of food manufacturers or farmers to purchase and use our agricultural product candidates and other unforeseen costs associated with creating an independent sales and marketing organization. Developing and maintaining a sales and marketing organization requires significant investment, is time-consuming and could

38

delay the launch of our agricultural product candidates. We may not be able to build or maintain an effective sales and marketing organization for our plant products in North America or other key global markets. If we are unable to find suitable partners for the commercialization of our product candidates, we may have difficulties generating revenue from them.

We rely on third parties to conduct, monitor, support, and oversee field trials and other research services for plant product candidates in development, and any performance issues by third parties, or our inability to engage third parties on acceptable terms, may impact our ability to successfully commercialize such product candidates.

Prior to commercializing any agricultural product candidate, it is necessary to conduct large scale field trials to validate the desired plant product trait. These field trials can take one to two years to complete. We currently conduct field trials, and plan to conduct further field trials, of our agricultural product candidates in various geographies. We currently rely on third parties to conduct, monitor, support, and oversee these field trials. In some cases, these field trials are conducted outside of the United States, making it difficult for us to monitor the daily activity of the work being conducted by the third parties that we engage. Although we provide our third-party contractors with extensive protocols regarding the establishment, management, harvest, transportation and storage of our agricultural product candidates, we have limited control over the execution of field trials. Consequently, the success of these field trials depends upon the ability of these third parties to correctly follow our suggested protocols. However, there is no guarantee that third parties will devote adequate time and resources to our field trials or conduct the field trials in accordance with our protocols, including maintenance of all required field trial information. Any such failures may result in delays in the development of our agricultural product candidates or the incurrence of additional costs. Even if our third-party contractors adhere to our suggested protocols, field trials may fail to succeed for a variety of other reasons, including weather, disease or pests, improper timing of planting our seeds, or incorrect fertilizer use. Ultimately, we remain responsible for ensuring that each of our field trials is conducted in accordance with the applicable protocol, legal, regulatory and scientific standards, and our reliance on third parties does not relieve us of our responsibilities.

Additionally, if we are unable to maintain or enter into agreements with third-party contractors on acceptable terms, or if any such engagement is terminated prematurely, we may be unable to conduct or complete our field trials in the manner we anticipate. If our relationship with any of these third-party contractors is terminated, we may be unable to enter into arrangements with alternative contractors on commercially reasonable terms, or at all. Switching or adding third party contractors can involve substantial cost and require extensive management time and focus. In addition, there is a natural transition period when any new third party commences field trial work. As a result, delays may occur, which could materially impact our ability to meet our desired development timelines.

We will rely on contractual counterparties and they may fail to perform adequately.

The commercial strategy for our plant business depends on our ability to contract with counterparties that provide, and in the future may provide, a variety of seed production companies, farmers, crushers, refiners, millers, transportation and logistics companies and lab equipment service providers. We plan to rely on these third parties to provide services along our supply chain and in our research and development functions. The failure of these counterparties to fulfill the terms of our agreements could cause disruptions in our supply chains, research efforts, commercialization efforts, and otherwise inhibit our ability to bring our products to market at the times and in the quantities as planned. For example, if our crushers and refiners fail to process our crops at the times and at the quantities as agreed, we may be unable to meet the demands of food manufacturers who we have contracted with to purchase our products, leading to lower sales and potential reputational damage and contractual liabilities. While we may have certain indemnification rights in our contracts with such counterparties, there is no assurance that such indemnification rights will be sufficient to cover any damage to us that would result from a failure of such a counterparty in their contractual arrangements with us.

39

Our crops are new, and if farmers and food processors are unable to work effectively with our crops, our various relationships, the reputation of our Calyxt business and the results of operations of Calyxt will be harmed.

We plan to provide farmers with information and protocols regarding the establishment, management, harvest, transportation and storage of our crops. These crop management recommendations may include equipment selection, planting and harvest timing, application of crop protection chemicals or herbicides and storage systems and protocols. Our general or specific protocols may not apply in all circumstances, may be improperly implemented, may not be sufficient, or may be incorrect, leading to reduced yields, crop failures or other production problems or losses. If farmers that are producing crops for our food ingredients experience these failures, we may be unable to provide plant product ingredients to food manufacturers on a timely basis or at all. If we are unable to deliver plant products in a timely basis or at all, or if farmers that are purchasing our seed in an effort to meet their yields experience these failures, or if our food processors are unable to process our crops effectively and efficiently, we will experience damage to our relationships, the reputation of our Calyxt business and the ability to successfully market our plant products. Further, the use of our seeds may require a change in current planting, rotation or agronomic practices, which may be difficult to implement or may discourage the use of our plant products by agricultural producers.

There are various reasons why our crops, once available, may fail to succeed, including weather, disease or pests, improper timing of planting our seeds, or incorrect fertilizer use. In addition, cross contamination of our plant products can happen in any step of the supply chain. Statements by potential customers about negative experiences with our plant products could harm our reputation, and the decision by these parties not to proceed with large-scale seed purchases could harm our business, revenue and the ability to achieve profitability.

The successful commercialization of our plant products depends on our ability to produce high-quality plants and seeds cost-effectively on a large scale and to accurately forecast demand for our plant products and we may be unable to do so.

The production of commercial-scale quantities of seeds requires the multiplication of the plants or seeds through a succession of plantings and seed harvests. The cost-effective production of high-quality, high-volume quantities of any agricultural product candidate we successfully develop depends on our ability to scale our production processes to produce plants and seeds in sufficient quantity to meet demand. For example, food ingredients such as soybean oil and wheat flour, will require optimized production and commercialization of the underlying plant and seed harvests. We cannot assure that our existing or future seed production techniques will enable us to meet our large-scale production goals cost-effectively for the plant products in our pipeline. Even if we are successful in developing ways to increase yields and enhance quality, we may not be able to do so cost-effectively or on a timely basis, which could adversely affect our ability to achieve profitability. If we are unable to maintain or enhance the quality of our plants and seeds as we increase our production capacity, including through the expected use of third parties, we may experience reductions in food manufacturer or farmer demand, higher costs and increased inventory write-offs.

In addition, because of the length of time it takes to produce commercial quantities of marketable plants and seeds, we will need to make seed production decisions well in advance of plant product sales. Our ability to accurately forecast demand can be adversely affected by a number of factors outside of our control, including changes in market conditions, environmental factors, such as pests and diseases, and adverse weather conditions. A shortfall in the supply of our products may reduce product sales revenue, damage our reputation in the market and adversely affect relationships. Any surplus in the amount of plant products we have on hand may negatively impact cash flows, reduce the quality of our inventory and ultimately result in write-offs of inventory. Additionally, we will take financial risk in our plant product inventory given that we will have to keep the inventory marked to market. Any failure on our part to produce sufficient inventory, or overproduction of a particular product, could harm our business, results of operations and financial condition. In addition, food manufacturers or farmers may cancel orders or request a decrease in quantity at any time prior to delivery of the plants or seeds, which may lead to a surplus of our plant products.

40

In addition, while we estimate that the potential size of our target markets for our plant products is significant, that estimate has not been independently verified and is based on certain assumptions that may not prove to be accurate. As a result, these estimates could differ materially from actual market sizes, which could result in decreased demand for our plant products and therefore adversely impact our future business prospects, results of operation and financial condition.

We face significant competition and many of our competitors have substantially greater financial, technical and other resources than we do.

The market for agricultural biotechnology products is highly competitive, and we face significant direct and indirect competition in several aspects of our business. Competition for improving plant genetics comes from conventional and advanced plant breeding techniques, as well as from the development of advanced biotechnology traits. Other potentially competitive sources of improvement in crop yields include improvements in crop protection chemicals, fertilizer formulations, farm mechanization, other biotechnology, and information management. Programs to improve genetics and crop protection chemicals are generally concentrated within a relatively small number of large companies, while non-genetic approaches are underway with broader set of companies. Mergers and acquisitions in the plant science, specialty food ingredient and agricultural biotechnology, seed and chemical industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors. Additionally, competition for providing more nutritious ingredients for food companies come from chemical-based ingredients, additives and substitutes, which are developed by various companies. The majority of these competitors have substantially greater financial, technical, marketing, sales, distribution and other resources than we do, such as larger research and development staff, more experienced marketing and manufacturing organizations and more well-established sales forces. As a result, we may be unable to compete successfully against our current or future competitors, which may result in price reductions, reduced margins and the inability to achieve market acceptance for our plant products. We expect to continue to face significant competition in the markets in which we intend to commercialize our plant products.

Many of our competitors engage in ongoing research and development, and technological developments by our competitors could render our plant products less competitive, resulting in reduced sales compared to our expectations. Our ability to compete effectively and to achieve commercial success depends, in part, on our ability to: control manufacturing and marketing costs; effectively price and market our plant products; successfully develop an effective marketing program and an efficient supply chain; develop new plant products with properties attractive to food manufacturers or farmers; and commercialize our plant products quickly without incurring major regulatory costs. We may not be successful in achieving these factors and any such failure may adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

From time to time, certain seed and chemical companies that are potential competitors of Calyxt may seek new traits or trait development technologies and may seek to license our technology. We have, in the past, entered into such licensing arrangements and may continue to enter into such arrangements in the future. Some of these companies may have significantly greater financial resources and may even compete with Calyxt’s business. In determining whether to license traits and/or trait development technologies to a potential competitor, we evaluate the potential financial benefits to Calyxt in addition to the focus of such companies’ trait pipelines and the likelihood that their plant product candidate programs could compete with Calyxt’s own plant product candidate pipeline. Although we do not believe that any of our existing licenses poses a competitive threat to Calyxt’s business model or existing plant product candidate pipeline, in such circumstances, competitors could use our technologies to develop their own products that would compete with Calyxt’s product candidates.

We also anticipate increased competition in the future as new companies enter the market and new technologies become available, particularly in the area of gene editing. Our technology may be rendered obsolete or uneconomical by technological advances or entirely different approaches developed by one or more of our competitors, which will prevent or limit our ability to generate revenue from the commercialization of our plant products. At the same time, the expiration of patents covering existing plant products reduces the barriers to entry for competitors.

41

The commercial success of our consumer-centric plant products is reliant on the needs of food manufacturers and the recognition of shifting consumer preferences.

The commercial success of our consumer-centric plant products will depend in part on the success of the food manufacturer’s products that our plant products are included in. We will not control the marketing, distribution, labeling or any other aspects of the sale and commercialization of the food manufacturers’ food products in which our plant products are an ingredient. Consumer preferences may be a significant driver in the success of our food manufacturer customers in their efforts to sell foods products including our plant products. While current trends indicate that consumer preferences may be moving towards “healthier” options, we cannot predict whether such trends will continue or which types of food products will be demanded by consumers in the future. Additionally, as health and nutritional science continues to progress, consumer perception of what foods, nutrients and ingredients are considered “healthy” may shift. We and our food manufacturer customers may not be dynamic enough in responding to consumer trends and creating products that will be demanded by consumers in the future. Failure by our food manufacturer customers to successfully recognize consumer trends and commercialize and sell their products which contain our ingredients could lower demand for our products and harm our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Farmers may not recognize the value in our farmer-centric products.

The commercial success of our farmer-centric plant products will rely on convincing farmers of the benefits to yield and natural resource usage. Farmers may not recognize the value of our farmer-centric plant products and may opt to use other seed products in the market with different varieties. The margins in the farmer-centric seed industry have historically been very narrow, so we may not be able to produce farmer-centric seed products at costs that would be competitive for our farmer customers, which may lead to a reduction in demand for our plant products.

Adverse weather conditions, natural disasters, crop disease, pests and other natural conditions can impose significant costs and losses on our plant sciences business.

The ability to grow our plant products is vulnerable to adverse weather conditions, including windstorms, floods, drought and temperature extremes, which are quite common but difficult to predict, the effects of which may be influenced and intensified by ongoing global climate change. Unfavorable growing conditions can reduce both crop size and crop quality. This risk is particularly acute with respect to regions or countries in which we plan to source a significant percentage of our plant products. In extreme cases, entire harvests may be lost in some geographic areas. Such adverse conditions can increase costs, decrease revenues and lead to additional charges to earnings, which may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position and results of operations.

The ability to grow our plant products is also vulnerable to crop disease and to pests, which may vary in severity and effect, depending on the stage of production at the time of infection or infestation, the type of treatment applied, climatic conditions and the risks associated with ongoing global climate change. The costs to control disease and other infestations vary depending on the severity of the damage and the extent of the plantings affected. Moreover, there can be no assurance that available technologies to control such infestations will continue to be effective. These infestations can also increase costs, decrease revenues and lead to additional charges to earnings, which may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position and results of operations.

We expect our plant sciences business will be highly seasonal and subject to weather conditions and other factors beyond our control, which may cause our sales and operating results to fluctuate significantly.

The sale of plant products is dependent upon planting and growing seasons, which vary from year to year, and are expected to result in both highly seasonal patterns and substantial fluctuations in quarterly sales and profitability. As we have not yet made any sales of our plant products, we have not yet experienced the full nature or extent to which this business may be seasonal. Furthermore, significant fluctuations in market prices for

42

agricultural inputs and crops could also have an adverse effect on the value of our plant products. Weather conditions and natural disasters, such as heavy rains, hurricanes, hail, floods, tornadoes, freezing conditions, drought or fire, also affect decisions by food manufacturers or farmers about the types and amounts of seeds to plant and the timing of harvesting and planting such seeds, as well as adversely impact the agricultural industry as a whole in various regions. Disruptions that cause delays by food manufacturers or farmers in harvesting or planting can result in the movement of orders to a future quarter. Disruptions that cause delays by our farmers in harvesting could create us to be delayed, or to fail entirely in delivering food ingredients to food manufacturers. Any of those delays or failures would negatively affect the quarter in which they occur and cause fluctuations in our operating results.

The successful commercialization of our plant products may face challenges from public perceptions of genetically engineered products and ethical, legal, environmental, health and social concerns.

The successful commercialization of our agricultural product candidates depends, in part, on public acceptance of genetically engineered agricultural products. Any increase in negative perceptions of gene editing or more restrictive government regulations in response thereto, would have a negative effect on our business and may delay or impair the development and commercialization of our plant products.

The commercial success of our plant products may be adversely affected by claims that biotechnology plant products are unsafe for consumption or use, pose risks of damage to the environment, or create legal, social and ethical dilemmas.

If we are not able to overcome these concerns, our plant products may not achieve market acceptance. Any of the risks discussed below could result in expenses, delays or other impediments to our development programs or the market acceptance and commercialization of our plant products:

Any future labeling requirements could heighten these concerns and make consumers less likely to purchase food products containing gene-edited ingredients.

The regulatory environment in the United States for genetically engineered plant products is uncertain and evolving. Changes in the current application of these laws and regulations would have a significant adverse impact on our ability to develop and commercialize our plant products.

Changes in applicable regulatory requirements could result in a substantial increase in the time and costs associated with developing our plant products and negatively impact our operating results. In the United States, the United States Department of Agriculture, or USDA, regulates, among other things, the introduction (including the importation, interstate movement, or release into the environment such as field testing) of organisms and products altered or produced through genetic engineering that are plant pests or that there is reason to believe are plant pests. Such organisms and products are considered “regulated articles.” However, a petitioner may submit a request for a determination by the USDA of “nonregulated status” for a particular article. A petition for determination of nonregulated status must include detailed information, including relevant experimental data and publications, and a description of the genotypic differences between the regulated article and the nonmodified recipient organism, among other things. We previously submitted a request for a determination of “nonregulated status” to the USDA for our potato product candidates, our high oleic and low

43

linolenic soybean product candidates, our improved quality alfalfa product candidate and our powdery mildew-resistant wheat product candidate. The USDA confirmed in writing that each of these agricultural product candidates is not deemed to be a “regulated article” under the Plant Protection Act because it does not contain genetic material from plant pests. In the event any of our agricultural product candidates are found to contain inserted genetic material or otherwise differ from the descriptions we have provided to the USDA, the USDA could determine that such agricultural product candidates are regulated articles, which would require us to comply with the permit and notification requirements of the Plant Protection Act. While we believe that the USDA’s reasoning will continue to extend to our other agricultural product candidates, we have not obtained a determination from the USDA that any of our other agricultural product candidates are not “regulated articles” under these regulations. USDA’s regulations also require that companies obtain a permit or file a notification before engaging in the introduction (including the importation, interstate movement, or release into the environment such as field testing) of “regulated articles.” We cannot predict whether advocacy groups will challenge existing regulations and USDA determinations or whether the USDA will alter the manner in which it interprets its own regulations or institutes new regulations, or otherwise modifies regulations in a way that will subject our plant products to more burdensome standards, thereby substantially increasing the time and costs associated with developing our agricultural product candidates. Moreover, we cannot assure you that the USDA will apply this same analysis to any of our other agricultural product candidates in development. Complying with USDA’s plant pest regulations, including permitting requirements, is a costly, time-consuming process and could substantially delay or prevent the commercialization of our plant products.

Our plant products may also be subject to extensive FDA food product regulations. Under sections 201(s) and 409 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or FDCA, any substance that is reasonably expected to become a component of food added to food is a food additive, and is therefore subject to FDA premarket review and approval, unless the substance is generally recognized, among qualified experts, as having been adequately shown to be safe under the conditions of its intended use (generally recognized as safe, or GRAS), or unless the use of the substance is otherwise excluded from the definition of a food additive, and any food that contains an unsafe food additive is considered adulterated under section 402(a)(2)(C) of the FDCA. The FDA may classify some or all of our agricultural product candidates as containing a food additive that is not GRAS or otherwise determine that our plant products contain significant compositional differences from existing plant products that require further review. Such classification would cause these agricultural product candidates to require pre-market approval, which could delay the commercialization of these plant products. In addition, the FDA is currently evaluating its approach to the regulation of gene-edited plants. For example, on January 18, 2017, the FDA announced a Request for Comments, or RFC, seeking public input to help inform its regulatory approach to human and animal foods derived from plants produced using gene editing. Among other things, the RFC asks for data and information in response to questions about the safety of foods from gene-edited plants, such as whether categories of gene-edited plants present food safety risks different from other plants produced through traditional plant breeding. If the FDA enacts new regulations or policies with respect to gene-edited plants, such policies could result in additional compliance costs and/or delay the commercialization of our agricultural product candidates, which could negatively affect our profitability. Any delay in the regulatory consultation process, or a determination that our plant products do not meet regulatory requirements, by the FDA could cause a delay in the commercialization of our plant products, which may lead to reduced acceptance by food manufacturers, farmers or the public and an increase in competitor products that may directly compete with ours.

The regulatory environment outside the United States varies greatly from region to region and is less developed than in the United States.

The regulatory environment around gene editing in plants for food ingredients is greatly uncertain outside of the United States and varies greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Each jurisdiction may have its own regulatory framework regarding genetically modified foods, which may include restrictions and regulations on planting and growing genetically modified plants and in the consumption and labeling of genetically modified foods, and which may encapsulate our plant products. The two leading jurisdictions, the United States and the European Union, or the EU, do, and may continue to in the future, have distinctly different regulatory regimes

44

with different rules and requirements. We cannot predict how the global regulatory landscape regarding gene editing in plants for food ingredients will evolve and may incur increased regulatory costs as regulations in the jurisdictions in which we operate change.

In the EU, genetically modified foods can only be allowed on the market once they have been authorized subject to rigorous safety assessments. The procedures for evaluation and authorization of genetically modified foods are governed by Regulation (EC) 1829/2003 on genetically modified food and feed and Directive 2001/18/EC on the release of genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, into the environment. If the GMO is not to be used in food or feed, then an application must be made under Directive 2001/18/EC. If the GMO is to be used in food or feed (but it is not grown in the EU) then a single application for both food and feed purposes under Regulation 1829/2003 should be made. If the GMO is used in feed or food and it is also grown in the EU, an application for both cultivation and food/feed purposes needs to be carried out under Regulation (EC) 1829/2003. A different EU regulation, Regulation (EC) 1830/2003, regulates the labeling of products that contain GMOs that are placed on the EU market. There are currently legislative proposals in the EU that would allow EU Member States to restrict or prohibit growing GMOs in their territory, on a range of environmental grounds, even if such crops were previously authorized at EU level. Should these proposals become law, growing GMOs may become more difficult in individual EU Member States.

We cannot predict whether or when any jurisdiction will change its regulations with respect to our plant products. Advocacy groups have engaged in publicity campaigns and filed lawsuits in various countries against companies and regulatory authorities, seeking to halt regulatory approval activities or influence public opinion against genetically engineered and/or gene-edited plant products. In addition, governmental reaction to negative publicity concerning our plant products could result in greater regulation of genetic research and derivative products or regulatory costs that render our plant products cost prohibitive.

The scale of the commodity food industry may make it difficult to monitor and control the distribution of our plant products. As a result, our plant products may be sold inadvertently within jurisdictions where they are not approved for distribution. Such sales may lead to regulatory challenges or lawsuits against us, which could result in significant expenses and management attention.

If we are sued for defective plant products and if such lawsuits were determined adversely, we could be subject to substantial damages, for which insurance coverage is not available.

We may be held liable if any plant product we develop, or any product that uses or incorporates, any of our technologies, causes injury or is found otherwise unsuitable during marketing, sale or consumption. For example, the detection of unintended trait in a commercial seed variety or the crops and products produced may result in physical injury to consumers resulting in potential liability for us as the seed producer or technology provider. If this were to occur, we could be subject to claims by multiple parties based not only on the cost of our plant products but also on their lost profits and business opportunities, including but not limited to trade disruption. Courts could levy substantial damages against us in connection with claims for injuries allegedly caused by use of our plant products. We do not currently have insurance coverage for such claims. In addition, the detection of unintended traits in our seeds could result in governmental actions such as mandated crop destruction, product recalls or environmental cleanup or monitoring. Concerns about seed quality could also lead to additional regulations being imposed on our business, such as regulations related to testing procedures, mandatory governmental reviews of biotechnology advances, or the integrity of the food supply chain from the farm to the finished plant product.

Our plant sciences activities are currently conducted at a limited number of locations, which makes us susceptible to damage or business disruptions caused by natural disasters or acts of vandalism.

Calyxt’s current headquarters and certain research and development operations are located in New Brighton, Minnesota and Calyxt’s new headquarters and research facilities are located in Roseville, Minnesota. The greenhouse for the new headquarters is operational and the remainder of the new facility which includes an office, labs and demonstration kitchen are expected to be operational in the first half of 2018. Our seed

45

production takes place primarily in the United States and Argentina. Warehousing for seed storage, which is conducted by a third-party contractor, is located primarily in Minnesota and Wisconsin. We may use a limited number of processing partners which may be located in concentrated areas. We take precautions to safeguard our facilities, including insurance, health and safety protocols, and off-site storage of critical research results and computer data. However, a natural disaster, such as a hurricane, drought, fire, flood, tornado, earthquake, or acts of vandalism, could cause substantial delays in our operations, damage or destroy our equipment, inventory or development projects, and cause us to incur additional expenses.

Government policies and regulations, particularly those affecting the agricultural sector and related industries, could adversely affect our operations and profitability.

Agricultural production and trade flows are subject to government policies and regulations. Governmental policies and approvals of technologies affecting the agricultural industry, such as taxes, tariffs, duties, subsidies, incentives and import and export restrictions on agricultural commodities and commodity products can influence the planting of certain crops, the location and size of crop production, and the volume and types of imports and exports. Future government policies in the United States or in other countries may discourage food manufacturers or farmers from using our products or encourage the use of products more advantageous to our competitors, which would put us at a commercial disadvantage and could negatively impact our future revenues and results of operations.

The overall agricultural industry is susceptible to commodity price changes and we, along with our food manufacturing customers and farmer customers, are exposed to market risks from changes in commodity prices.

Changes in the prices of certain commodity products could result in higher overall cost along the agricultural supply chain, which may negatively affect our ability to commercialize our products. We will be susceptible to changes in costs in the agricultural industry as a result of factors beyond our control, such as general economic conditions, seasonal fluctuations, weather conditions, demand, food safety concerns, product recalls and government regulations. As a result, we may not be able to anticipate or react to changing costs by adjusting our practices, which could cause our operating results to deteriorate. We do not engage in hedging or speculative financial transactions nor do we hold or issue financial instruments for trading purposes.

Risks Related to Intellectual Property

Our ability to compete may decline if we do not adequately protect our proprietary rights.

Our commercial success depends, in part, on obtaining and maintaining proprietary rights to our and our licensors’ intellectual property estate, including with respect to our product candidates, as well as successfully defending these rights against third-party challenges. We will only be able to protect our product candidates from unauthorized use by third parties to the extent that valid and enforceable patents, or effectively protected trade secrets, cover them. Our ability to obtain patent protection for our product candidates is uncertain due to a number of factors, including:

46

Even if we own, obtain or in-license patents covering our product candidates or compositions, we may still be barred from making, using and selling our product candidates or technologies because of the patent rights or other intellectual property rights of others. Others may have filed, and in the future may file, patent applications covering compositions, products or methods that are similar or identical to ours, which could materially affect our ability to successfully develop and, if approved, commercialize our product candidates. In addition, because patent applications can take many years to issue, there may be currently pending applications unknown to us that may later result in issued patents that our product candidates or compositions may infringe. These patent applications may have priority over patent applications filed by us or our licensors.

Obtaining and maintaining a patent portfolio entails significant expense of resources. Part of such expense includes periodic maintenance fees, renewal fees, annuity fees and various other governmental fees on patents and/or applications due over the course of several stages of prosecuting patent applications, and over the lifetime of maintaining and enforcing issued patents. We or our licensors may or may not choose to pursue or maintain protection for particular intellectual property in our or our licensors portfolio. If we or our licensors choose to forgo patent protection or to allow a patent application or patent to lapse purposefully or inadvertently, our competitive position could suffer. In some cases, the prosecution and maintenance of our licensed patents is controlled by the applicable licensor. If such licensor fails to properly prosecute and maintain such patents, we could lose our rights to them, which could materially impair any competitive advantage afforded by such patents. Furthermore, we and our licensors employ reputable law firms and other professionals to help us comply with the various procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions we and they are subject to and, in many cases, an inadvertent lapse can be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules. There are situations, however, in which failure to make certain payments or noncompliance with certain requirements in the patent prosecution and maintenance process can result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. In such an event, our competitors might be able to enter the market, which would have a material adverse effect on our business.

Legal action that may be required to enforce our patent rights can be expensive and may involve the diversion of significant management time. In addition, these legal actions could be unsuccessful and could also result in the invalidation of our or our licensors’ patents or a finding that they are unenforceable. We or our licensors may or may not choose to pursue litigation or other actions against those that have infringed on our or their patents, or have used them without authorization, due to the associated expense and time commitment of monitoring these activities. In some cases, the enforcement and defense of patents we in-license is controlled by the applicable licensor. If such licensor fails to actively enforce and defend such patents, any competitive advantage afforded by such patents could be materially impaired. In addition, some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of such litigation or proceedings more effectively than we or our licensors can because of their greater financial resources and more mature and developed intellectual property portfolios. Accordingly, despite our efforts, we may not be able to prevent third parties from infringing upon or misappropriating or from successfully challenging our intellectual property rights. If we fail to protect or to enforce our intellectual property rights successfully, our competitive position could suffer, which could harm our results of operations.

47

Patents and patent applications involve highly complex legal and factual questions, which, if determined adversely to us, could negatively impact our competitive position.

The patent positions of biotechnology and biopharmaceutical companies and other actors in our fields of business can be highly uncertain and typically involve complex scientific, legal and factual analyses. In particular, the interpretation and breadth of claims allowed in some patents covering biological and biopharmaceutical compositions may be uncertain and difficult to determine, and are often affected materially by the facts and circumstances that pertain to the patented compositions and the related patent claims. The standards of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, and foreign patent offices are sometimes uncertain and could change in the future. Consequently, the issuance and scope of patents cannot be predicted with certainty. Patents, if issued, may be challenged, invalidated, narrowed or circumvented. U.S. patents and patent applications may also be subject to interference proceedings, and U.S. patents may be subject to reexamination proceedings, post-grant review, inter partes review, or other administrative proceedings in the USPTO. Foreign patents as well may be subject to opposition or comparable proceedings in the corresponding foreign patent offices. Challenges to our or our licensors’ patents and patent applications, if successful, may result in the denial of our or our licensors’ patent applications or the loss or reduction in their scope. In addition, such interference, reexamination, post-grant review, inter partes review, opposition proceedings and other administrative proceedings may be costly and involve the diversion of significant management time. Accordingly, rights under any of our or our licensors’ patents may not provide us with sufficient protection against competitive products or processes and any loss, denial or reduction in scope of any such patents and patent applications may have a material adverse effect on our business.

Furthermore, even if not challenged, our or our licensors’ patents and patent applications may not adequately protect our product candidates or technology or prevent others from designing their products or technology to avoid being covered by our or our licensors’ patent claims. If the breadth or strength of protection provided by the patents we own or license with respect to our product candidates is threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to develop, and could threaten our ability to successfully commercialize, our product candidates. Furthermore, for U.S. patent applications in which claims are entitled to a priority date before March 16, 2013, an interference proceeding can be provoked by a third party or instituted by the USPTO in order to determine who was the first to invent any of the subject matter covered by such patent claims.

In addition, changes in, or different interpretations of, patent laws in the United States and other countries may permit others to use our discoveries or to develop and commercialize our technology and products without providing any notice or compensation to us, or may limit the scope of patent protection that we or our licensors are able to obtain. The laws of some countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as U.S. laws and those countries may lack adequate rules and procedures for defending our intellectual property rights.

If we or our licensors fail to obtain and maintain patent protection and trade secret protection of our product candidates and technology, we could lose our competitive advantage and competition we face would increase, reducing any potential revenues and have a material adverse effect on our business.

The lives of our patents may not be sufficient to effectively protect our products and business.

Patents have a limited lifespan. In the United States, the natural expiration of a patent is generally 20 years after its first effective filing date. Although various extensions may be available, the life of a patent, and the protection it affords, is limited. Our or our licensors’ issued patents and pending patent applications will expire on dates ranging from 2019 to 2033, subject to any patent extensions that may be available for such patents. In addition, although upon issuance in the United States a patent’s life can be increased based on certain delays caused by the USPTO, this increase can be reduced or eliminated based on certain delays caused by the patent applicant during patent prosecution. If we or our licensors do not have sufficient patent life to protect our products, our business and results of operations will be adversely affected.

48

Developments in patent law could have a negative impact on our business.

From time to time, the United States Supreme Court, or the Supreme Court, other federal courts, the United States Congress, the USPTO and similar foreign authorities may change the standards of patentability and any such changes could have a negative impact on our business.

The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or the America Invents Act, which was signed into law in 2011, includes a number of significant changes to U.S. patent law. These changes include a transition from a “first-to-invent” system to a “first-to-file” system, changes to the way issued patents are challenged, and changes to the way patent applications are disputed during the examination process. As a result of these changes, the patent law in the United States may favor larger and more established companies that have greater resources to devote to patent application filing and prosecution. The USPTO has developed new and untested regulations and procedures to govern the full implementation of the America Invents Act, and many of the substantive changes to patent law associated with the America Invents Act, and, in particular, the first-to-file provisions became effective on March 16, 2013. Substantive changes to patent law associated with the America Invents Act may affect our ability to obtain patents, and if obtained, to enforce or defend them. Accordingly, it is not clear what, if any, impact the America Invents Act will have on the cost of prosecuting our or our licensors’ patent applications and the ability of us and our licensors’ to obtain patents and to enforce or defend any patents that may issue from such patent applications, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

In addition, recent Supreme Court rulings have narrowed the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances and weakened the rights of patent owners in certain situations. This combination of events has created uncertainty with respect to the validity and enforceability of patents, once obtained. Depending on future actions by the Supreme Court, the United States Congress, the federal courts, the USPTO and similar foreign authorities, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that could have a material adverse effect on our existing patent portfolio and our ability to protect and enforce our intellectual property in the future.

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

In addition to patent protection, because we operate in the highly technical field of development of therapies, we rely in part on trade secret protection in order to protect our proprietary technology and processes. However, trade secrets are difficult to protect. Monitoring unauthorized uses and disclosures is difficult, and we do not know whether the steps we have taken to protect our proprietary technologies will be effective. We cannot guarantee that our trade secrets and other proprietary and confidential information will not be disclosed or that competitors will not otherwise gain access to our trade secrets. Despite these efforts, any of these parties may breach the agreements and disclose our proprietary information, including our trade secrets, and we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for such breaches.

Because we rely on third parties for the advancement of our products platform, pre-clinical testing, quality control, clinical trials, and manufacturing activities, we must, at times, share trade secrets with them, and our collaborations with Servier and Pfizer, and any collaborations we may enter into in the future, may also lead to share certain of our trade secrets with our collaborators.

We seek to protect our proprietary technology in part by entering into confidentiality agreements and, if applicable, material transfer agreements, intellectual property assignment, collaborative research agreements, consulting agreements or other similar agreements with our employees, consultants, outside scientific collaborators, sponsored researchers, and other advisors. These agreements generally require that the other party keep confidential and not disclose to third parties all confidential information developed by the party or made known to the party by us during the course of the party’s relationship with us. These agreements also generally provide that inventions conceived by the party in the course of rendering services to us will be our exclusive property. However, these agreements may be breached or held unenforceable and may not effectively assign intellectual property rights to us.

49

In addition to contractual measures, we try to protect the confidential nature of our proprietary information using physical and technological security measures. Such measures may not provide adequate protection for our proprietary information. For example, our security measures may not prevent an employee or consultant with authorized access from misappropriating our trade secrets and providing them to a competitor, and the recourse we have available against such misconduct may not provide an adequate remedy to protect our interests fully. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret can be difficult, expensive and time consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, courts outside the United States may be less willing to protect trade secrets. Furthermore, our proprietary information may be independently developed by others in a manner that could prevent legal recourse by us. If any of our confidential or proprietary information, including our trade secrets, were to be disclosed or misappropriated, or if any such information was independently developed by a competitor, our competitive position could be harmed.

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

Filing, prosecuting and defending patents on our product candidates in all countries and jurisdictions throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and our intellectual property rights in some countries outside the United States could be less extensive than those in the United States, assuming that rights are obtained in the United States. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as federal and state laws in the United States. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in all countries outside the United States, or from selling or importing products made using our inventions in and into the United States or other jurisdictions.

Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we or our licensors do not pursue and obtain patent protection to develop their own products and further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we or our licensors have patent protection, but where the ability to enforce our or our licensors’ patent rights is not as strong as in the United States. These products may compete with our products and our intellectual property rights and such rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent such competition.

The laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States. Patent protection must be sought on a country-by-country basis, which is an expensive and time-consuming process with uncertain outcomes. Accordingly, we or our licensors may choose not to seek patent protection in certain countries, and we will not have the benefit of patent protection in such countries. In addition, the legal systems of some countries, particularly developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents and other intellectual property protection, especially those relating to biopharmaceuticals or biotechnologies, and the requirements for patentability differ, in varying degrees, from country to country, and the laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights, including trade secrets, to the same extent as federal and state laws of the United States. As a result, many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in certain foreign jurisdictions. Such issues may make it difficult for us to stop the infringement, misappropriation or other violation of our intellectual property rights. For example, many foreign countries, including the EU countries, have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner must grant licenses to third parties. In addition, many countries limit the enforceability of patents against third parties, including government agencies or government contractors. In these countries, patents may provide limited or no benefit. In those countries, we and our licensors may have limited remedies if patents are infringed or if we or our licensors are compelled to grant a license to a third party, which could materially diminish the value of those patents. This could limit our potential revenue opportunities. Accordingly, our and our licensors’ efforts to enforce intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we own or license. Similarly, if our trade secrets are disclosed in a foreign jurisdiction, competitors worldwide could have access to our proprietary information and we may be without satisfactory recourse. Such disclosure could have a material adverse effect on our business. Moreover, our ability to protect and enforce our intellectual property rights may be adversely affected by unforeseen changes in foreign intellectual property laws.

50

Furthermore, proceedings to enforce our and our licensors’ patent rights and other intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put our or our licensors’ patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly, could put our or our licensors’ patent applications at risk of not issuing and could provoke third parties to assert claims against us or our licensors. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate and the damages or other remedies awarded to us, if any, may not be commercially meaningful, while the damages and other remedies we may be ordered to pay such third parties may be significant. Accordingly, our or our licensors’ efforts to enforce our intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop or license.

Third parties may assert rights to inventions we develop or otherwise regard as our own.

Third parties may in the future make claims challenging the inventorship or ownership of our or our licensors’ intellectual property. We have written agreements with collaborators that provide for the ownership of intellectual property arising from our strategic alliances. These agreements provide that we must negotiate certain commercial rights with such collaborators with respect to joint inventions or inventions made by our collaborators that arise from the results of the strategic alliance. In some instances, there may not be adequate written provisions to address clearly the allocation of intellectual property rights that may arise from the respective alliance. If we cannot successfully negotiate sufficient ownership and commercial rights to the inventions that result from our use of a third-party collaborator’s materials when required, or if disputes otherwise arise with respect to the intellectual property developed through the use of a collaborator’s samples, we may be limited in our ability to capitalize on the full market potential of these inventions. In addition, we may face claims by third parties that our agreements with employees, contractors, or consultants obligating them to assign intellectual property to us are ineffective, or are in conflict with prior or competing contractual obligations of assignment, which could result in ownership disputes regarding intellectual property we have developed or will develop and could interfere with our ability to capture the full commercial value of such inventions. Litigation may be necessary to resolve an ownership dispute, and if we are not successful, we may be precluded from using certain intellectual property and associated products and technology, or may lose our rights in that intellectual property. Either outcome could have a material adverse effect on our business.

In addition, the research resulting in certain of our in-licensed patent rights and technology was funded in part by the United States government. As a result, the United States government has certain rights to such patent rights and technology, which include march-in rights. When new technologies are developed with government funding, the government generally obtains certain rights in any resulting patents, including a non-exclusive license authorizing the government to use the invention or to have others use the invention on its behalf. The government can exercise its march-in rights if it determines that action is necessary because we fail to achieve practical application of the government-funded technology, or because action is necessary to alleviate health or safety needs, to meet requirements of federal regulations, or to give preference to the United States industry. Any exercise by the government of any of the foregoing rights could have a material adverse effect on our business.

We may not identify relevant third party patents or may incorrectly interpret the relevance, scope or expiration of a third party patent which might adversely affect our ability to develop and market our products.

We cannot guarantee that any of our patent searches or analyses, including but not limited to the identification of relevant patents, the scope of patent claims or the expiration of relevant patents, are complete or thorough, nor can we be certain that we have identified each and every third party patent and pending application in the United States and abroad that is relevant to or necessary for the commercialization of our product candidates in any jurisdiction.

The scope of a patent claim is determined by an interpretation of the law, the written disclosure in a patent and the patent’s prosecution history. Our interpretation of the relevance or the scope of a patent or a pending application may be incorrect, which may negatively impact our ability to market our products. We may incorrectly determine that our products are not covered by a third party patent or may incorrectly predict whether

51

a third party’s pending application will issue with claims of relevant scope. Our determination of the expiration date of any patent in the United States or abroad that we consider relevant may be incorrect, which may negatively impact our ability to develop and market our product candidates. Our failure to identify and correctly interpret relevant patents may negatively impact our ability to develop and market our products.

Third parties may assert that our employees or consultants have wrongfully used or disclosed confidential information or misappropriated trade secrets.

We currently employ, and may in the future employ, individuals who were previously employed at universities or other biotechnology or biopharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. Although we try to ensure that our employees and consultants do not use the proprietary information or know-how of others in their work for us, we may be subject to claims that we or our employees, consultants or independent contractors have inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed intellectual property, including trade secrets or other proprietary information, of a former employer or other third parties. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management and other employees.

A dispute concerning the infringement or misappropriation of our proprietary rights or the proprietary rights of others could be time consuming and costly, and an unfavorable outcome could harm our business.

There is significant litigation in the biopharmaceutical industry regarding patent and other intellectual property rights. Although we are not currently subject to any material pending intellectual property litigation, and are not aware of any such threatened litigation, we may be exposed to future litigation by third parties based on claims that our product candidates, technologies or activities infringe the intellectual property rights of others. If our development activities are found to infringe any such patents, we may have to pay significant damages or seek licenses to such patents. A patentee could prevent us from using the patented drugs or compositions. We may need to resort to litigation to enforce a patent issued to us, to protect our trade secrets, or to determine the scope and validity of third-party proprietary rights.

From time to time, we may hire scientific personnel or consultants formerly employed by other companies involved in one or more areas similar to the activities conducted by us. Either we or these individuals may be subject to allegations of trade secret misappropriation or other similar claims as a result of prior affiliations. If we become involved in litigation, it could consume a substantial portion of our managerial and financial resources, regardless of whether we win or lose. We may not be able to afford the costs of litigation. Any adverse ruling or perception of an adverse ruling in defending ourselves against these claims could have a material adverse impact on our cash position. Any legal action against us or our collaborators could lead to:

Any infringement, misappropriation or other violation by us of intellectual property rights of others may prevent or delay our product development efforts and may prevent or increase the costs of our successfully commercializing our product candidates, if approved.

Our success will depend in part on our ability to operate without infringing, misappropriating or otherwise violating the intellectual property and proprietary rights of third parties. We cannot assure you that our business

52

operations, products, product candidates and methods and the business operations, products, product candidates and methods of our collaborators do not or will not infringe, misappropriate or otherwise violate the patents or other intellectual property rights of third parties.

The biotechnology and biopharmaceutical industry is characterized by extensive litigation regarding patents and other intellectual property rights. Other parties may allege that our products, product candidates or the use of our technologies infringe, misappropriate or otherwise violate patent claims or other intellectual property rights held by them or that we are employing their proprietary technology without authorization. Patent and other types of intellectual property litigation can involve complex factual and legal questions, and their outcome is uncertain. Any claim relating to intellectual property infringement that is successfully asserted against us may require us to pay substantial damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees if we or our collaborators are found to be willfully infringing another party’s patents, for past use of the asserted intellectual property and royalties and other consideration going forward if we are forced to take a license. Such a license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms, or at all. Even if we were able to obtain a license, it could be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors access to the same intellectual property rights or technologies licensed to us. In addition, if any such claim were successfully asserted against us and we could not obtain a license, we or our collaborators may be forced to stop or delay developing, manufacturing, selling or otherwise commercializing our products, product candidates or other infringing technology, or those we develop with our collaborators.

Even if we are successful in these proceedings, we may incur substantial costs and divert management time and attention pursuing these proceedings, which could have a material adverse effect on us. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation. In addition, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments and if securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a substantial adverse effect on the price of our common stock. Such litigation or proceedings could substantially increase our operating losses and reduce the resources available for development activities or any future sales, marketing or distribution activities If we are unable to avoid infringing the patent rights of others, we may be required to seek a license, defend an infringement action or challenge the validity of the patents in court, or redesign our products. Patent litigation is costly and time consuming. We may not have sufficient resources to bring these actions to a successful conclusion. In addition, intellectual property litigation or claims could force us to do one or more of the following:

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

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

If we or one of our licensing partners initiated legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent covering our product candidate, the defendant could counterclaim that the patent covering our product candidate is invalid and/or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity and/or unenforceability are commonplace. Furthermore, third parties may petition courts for

53

declarations of invalidity or unenforceability with respect to our patents or individual claims there. If successful, such claims could narrow the scope of protection afforded our product candidates and future products, if any. Grounds for a validity challenge include alleged failures to meet any of several statutory requirements, including lack of novelty, obviousness or non-enablement. Grounds for unenforceability assertions include allegations that someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld relevant information from the USPTO, or made a misleading statement, during prosecution. Third parties may also raise similar claims before administrative bodies in the United States or abroad, even outside the context of litigation. Such mechanisms include re-examination, post grant review and equivalent proceedings in foreign jurisdictions, e.g., opposition proceedings. Such proceedings could result in revocation or amendment of our patents in such a way that they no longer cover our product candidates or competitive products. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. With respect to validity, for example, we cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior art, of which we and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution. If a defendant were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity and/or unenforceability, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on our product candidates. Such a loss of patent protection would have a material adverse impact on our business.

We may be unsuccessful in licensing or acquiring intellectual property from third parties that may be required to develop and commercialize our product candidates.

We have rights, through licenses from third parties and under patents that we own, to the intellectual property to develop our product candidates. Because our programs may involve additional product candidates that may require the use of intellectual property or proprietary rights held by third parties, the growth of our business will likely depend in part on our ability to acquire, in-license or use these intellectual property and proprietary rights. In addition, our product candidates may require specific formulations to work effectively and efficiently, and these rights may be held by others. We may be unable to acquire or in-license any third-party intellectual property or proprietary rights. Even if we are able to acquire or in-license such rights, we may be unable to do so on commercially reasonable terms. The licensing and acquisition of third-party intellectual property and proprietary rights is a competitive area, and a number of more established companies are also pursuing strategies to license or acquire third-party intellectual property and proprietary rights that we may consider attractive or necessary. These established companies may have a competitive advantage over us due to their size and greater capital resources and development and commercialization capabilities.

For example, we sometimes collaborate with academic institutions to accelerate our research or development under written agreements with these institutions. Typically, these institutions provide us with an option to negotiate a license to any of the institution’s rights in technology resulting from the strategic alliance. Regardless of such option, we may be unable to negotiate a license within the specified time frame or under terms that are acceptable to us, and the institution may license such intellectual property rights to third parties, potentially blocking our ability to pursue our development and commercialization plans.

In addition, companies that perceive us to be a competitor may be unwilling to assign or license to us intellectual property and proprietary rights. We also may be unable to license or acquire third-party intellectual property and proprietary rights on terms that would allow us to make an appropriate return on our investment or at all. If we are unable to successfully acquire or in-license rights to required third-party intellectual property and proprietary rights or maintain the existing intellectual property and proprietary rights we have, we may have to cease development of the relevant program, product or product candidate, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

If we fail to comply with our obligations in the agreements under which we license intellectual property rights from third parties or otherwise experience disruptions to our business relationships with our licensors, we could lose license rights that are important to our business.

We are a party to a number of intellectual property license agreements that are important to our business and expect to enter into additional license agreements in the future. Our existing license agreements impose, and we

54

expect that future license agreements will impose, various diligence, milestone payment, royalty and other obligations on us. If we fail to comply with our obligations under these agreements, or we are subject to a bankruptcy, our licensors may have the right to terminate the license, in which event we would not be able to market products or product candidates covered by the license.

In addition, disputes may arise regarding the payment of the royalties or other consideration due to licensors in connection with our exploitation of the rights we license from them. Licensors may contest the basis of payments we retained and claim that we are obligated to make payments under a broader basis. In addition to the costs of any litigation we may face as a result, any legal action against us could increase our payment obligations under the respective agreement and require us to pay interest and potentially damages to such licensors.

In some cases, patent prosecution of our licensed technology is controlled solely by the licensor. If such licensor fails to obtain and maintain patent or other protection for the proprietary intellectual property we license from such licensor, we could lose our rights to such intellectual property or the exclusivity of such rights, and our competitors could market competing products using such intellectual property. In addition, these patents and applications may not be prosecuted and enforced in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business. In that event, we may be required to expend significant time and resources to develop or license replacement technology. If we are unable to do so, we may be unable to develop or commercialize the affected products and product candidates, which could harm our business significantly. In other cases, we control the prosecution of patents resulting from licensed technology. In the event we breach any of our obligations related to such prosecution, we may incur significant liability to our licensing partners. We may also require the cooperation of our licensors to enforce any licensed patent rights, and such cooperation may not be provided. Moreover, we have obligations under these license agreements, and any failure to satisfy those obligations could give our licensor the right to terminate the agreement. Termination of a necessary license agreement could have a material adverse impact on our business.

Under each of the material exclusive licenses granted to us, the licensor controls the prosecution of patents covered by the license. Under our collaboration agreement with Pfizer, we and Pfizer each generally control the prosecution of our respective owned patents, and Pfizer has the first right to elect to control the prosecution of certain jointly-developed intellectual property. Under our collaboration agreement with Servier, we and Servier each generally control the prosecution of our respective owned patents, and we generally control the prosecution of joint patents, unless Servier exercises its option under the agreement to obtain an exclusive license to further develop, manufacture and commercialize a product candidate, in which case Servier will control prosecution of the joint patents. In addition, Servier currently controls prosecution of those patent rights covering solely UCART19. Licensing of intellectual property is of critical importance to our business and involves complex legal, business and scientific issues and is complicated by the rapid pace of scientific discovery in our industry. Disputes may arise regarding intellectual property subject to a licensing agreement, including:

55

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

Risks Related to Our Organization, Structure and Operation

We will need to develop and expand our company, and we may encounter difficulties in managing this development and expansion, which could disrupt our operations.

As of December 31, 2017, we had 131 full-time employees and we expect to increase our number of employees and the scope and location of our operations. To manage our anticipated development and expansion, including the development and the commercialization of our product candidates, we must continue to implement and improve our managerial, operational and financial systems, expand our facilities and continue to recruit and train additional qualified personnel. Also, our management may need to divert a disproportionate amount of its attention away from its day-to-day activities and devote a substantial amount of time to managing these development activities. Due to our limited resources, we may not be able to effectively manage the expansion of our operations or recruit and train additional qualified personnel. This may result in weaknesses in our infrastructure, give rise to operational mistakes, loss of business opportunities, loss of employees and reduced productivity among remaining employees. The physical expansion of our operations may lead to significant costs and may divert financial resources from other projects, such as the development of our product candidates. If our management is unable to effectively manage our expected development and expansion, our expenses may increase more than expected, our ability to generate or increase our revenue could be reduced and we may not be able to implement our business strategy. Our future financial performance and our ability to commercialize our product candidates, if approved, and compete effectively will depend, in part, on our ability to effectively manage the future development and expansion of our company.

We depend on key management personnel and attracting and retaining other qualified personnel, and our business could be harmed if we lose key management personnel or cannot attract and retain other qualified personnel.

Our success depends to a significant degree upon the technical skills and continued service of certain members of our management team, including Dr. André Choulika, our co-founder and Chief Executive Officer; Dr. David Sourdive, our co-founder and Executive Vice President, Technical Operations; Eric Dutang, our Chief Financial Officer; and Dr. Philippe Duchateau, our Chief Scientific Officer. The loss of the services of these key executive officers could have a material adverse effect on us. Our success also will depend upon our ability to attract and retain additional qualified management, regulatory, medical, technical, and sales and marketing executives and personnel. The failure to attract, integrate, motivate, and retain additional skilled and qualified personnel could have a material adverse effect on our business.

We compete for such personnel against numerous companies, including larger, more established companies with significantly greater financial resources than we possess. In addition, failure to succeed in our product candidates’ development may make it more challenging to recruit and retain qualified personnel. There can be no assurance that we will be successful in attracting or retaining such personnel and the failure to do so could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

In order to induce valuable employees to remain at Cellectis, we have provided over the last years free shares and stock options to purchase ordinary shares that vest over time. The value to employees of free shares and stock options that vest over time may be significantly affected by movements in the price of our ordinary shares 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, scientific and development teams may terminate their employment with us. The loss of the services of any of our key executive officers or

56

other officers or senior employees within a short timeframe, and our inability to find suitable replacements could potentially harm our business, prospects, financial condition or results of operations. We do maintain “key man” insurance policies on the lives of our co-founders. 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.

The requirements of being a U.S. public company require significant resources and management attention and affect our ability to attract and retain executive management and qualified board members.

As a U.S. public company, we incur significant legal, accounting, and other expenses. We are subject to the Exchange Act, including the reporting requirements thereunder, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the Nasdaq listing requirements and other applicable securities rules and regulations. Compliance with these rules and regulations results in substantial legal and financial compliance costs and makes some activities more difficult, time-consuming or costly and increases demand on our systems and resources. These costs and other impacts would increase if we ceased to qualify as a foreign private issuer, in which case we would be required to comply with the enhanced reporting and governance requirements applicable to U.S. domestic reporting companies.

In addition, our subsidiary Calyxt is a U.S. public company, and is also subject to the Exchange Act, including the reporting requirements thereunder, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the Nasdaq listing requirements and other applicable securities rules and regulations. Having a U.S. public company subsidiary has impacted the disclosure of our financial information and has increased our legal and financial compliance costs.

Further, being a U.S. public company and a French public company has impacted the disclosure of information and required compliance with two sets of applicable rules. From time to time, this may result in uncertainty regarding compliance matters and has resulted in higher costs necessitated by legal analysis of dual legal regimes, ongoing revisions to disclosure and adherence to heightened governance practices. As a result of the enhanced disclosure requirements of the U.S. securities laws, business and financial information that we report is broadly disseminated and highly visible to investors, which we believe may increase the likelihood of threatened or actual litigation, including by competitors and other third parties, which could, even if unsuccessful, divert financial resources and the attention of our management from our operations.

We must maintain effective internal control over financial reporting, and if we are unable to do so, the accuracy and timeliness of our financial reporting may be adversely affected, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, investor confidence and market price.

We must maintain effective internal control over financial reporting in order to accurately and timely report our results of operations and financial condition. In addition, as a public company, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, or the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, requires, among other things, that we assess the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures and the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting at the end of each fiscal year. Pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, we are required to furnish a report by our management on our internal control over financial reporting, and we are required to include an attestation report on internal control over financial reporting issued by our independent registered public accounting firm. The rules governing the standards that must be met for our management to assess our internal control over financial reporting pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act are complex and require significant documentation, testing and possible remediation. These stringent standards require that our audit and finance committee be advised and regularly updated on management’s review of internal control over financial reporting.

Our compliance with applicable provisions of Section 404 requires that we incur substantial accounting expense and expend significant management attention and time on compliance-related issues as we implement additional corporate governance practices and comply with reporting requirements.

57

If we fail to staff our accounting and finance function adequately or maintain internal control over financial reporting adequate to meet the requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, our business and reputation may be harmed. Moreover, if we are not able to comply with the applicable requirements of Section 404 in a timely manner, we may be subject to sanctions or investigations by regulatory authorities, including the SEC and Nasdaq. Furthermore, if we are unable to conclude that our internal control over financial reporting is effective or if our independent registered public accounting firm identifies deficiencies in our internal control over financial reporting that are deemed to be material weaknesses, we could lose investor confidence in the accuracy and completeness of our financial reports, the market price of our stock could decline, and we could be subject to sanctions or investigations by the SEC, Nasdaq or other regulatory authorities. Failure to implement or maintain effective internal control systems required of public companies could also restrict our access to the capital markets. The occurrence of any of the foregoing would also require additional financial and management resources.

Our failure to maintain certain tax benefits applicable to French technology companies may adversely affect our results of operations.

As a French technology company, we have benefited from certain tax advantages, including, for example, the French research tax credit (Crédit d’Impôt Recherche), or CIR. The CIR is a French tax credit aimed at stimulating research and development. The CIR can be offset against French corporate income tax due and the portion in excess (if any) may be refunded at the end of a three fiscal-year period (or, sooner, for smaller companies such as ours). The CIR receivable of $8.2 million as of December 31, 2017, is calculated based on our claimed amount of eligible research and development expenditures in France. The French tax authority with the assistance of the Research and Technology Ministry may audit each research and development program in respect of which a CIR benefit has been claimed and assess whether such program qualifies in their view for the CIR benefit, in accordance with the French tax code (code général des impôts) and the relevent official guidelines. The French tax authorities may challenge our eligibility to, or our calculation of certain tax reductions and/or deductions in respect of our research and development activities and, should the French tax authorities be successful, we may be liable for additional corporate income tax, and penalties and interest related thereto, or we may not obtain the refunds for which we have applied, which could have a significant impact on our results of operations and future cash flows. Furthermore, if the French Parliament decides to eliminate, or reduce the scope or the rate of, the CIR benefit, either of which it could decide to do at any time, our results of operations could be adversely affected.

We may be exposed to significant foreign exchange risk, which may adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

We incur portions of our expenses and may in the future derive revenues in currencies other than the euro, in particular, the U.S. dollar. As a result, we are exposed to foreign currency exchange risk as our results of operations and cash flows are subject to fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates. While we are engaged in hedging transactions to minimize the impact of uncertainty in future exchange rates on cash flows, we may not hedge all of our foreign currency exchange rate risk. In addition, hedging transactions carry their own risks and costs, including the possibility of a default by the counterpart to the hedge transaction. We cannot predict the impact of foreign currency fluctuations, and foreign currency fluctuations in the future may adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

We may use hazardous chemicals and biological materials in our business. Any claims relating to improper handling, storage or disposal of these materials could be time consuming and costly.

We are subject to numerous environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, including those governing laboratory procedures and the handling, use, storage, treatment, manufacture and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes. Our research and development processes may involve the controlled use of hazardous materials, including chemicals and biological materials. We cannot eliminate the risk of accidental

58

contamination or discharge and any resultant injury from these materials. We may be sued for any injury or contamination that results from our use or the use by third parties of these materials, and our liability may exceed any insurance coverage and our total assets. Federal, state, local or foreign laws and regulations govern the use, manufacture, storage, handling and disposal of these hazardous materials and specified waste products, as well as the discharge of pollutants into the environment and human health and safety matters. Compliance with environmental laws and regulations may be expensive and may impair our research and development efforts. If we fail to comply with these requirements, we could incur delays, substantial costs, including civil or criminal fines and penalties, clean-up costs or capital expenditures for control equipment or operational changes necessary to achieve and maintain compliance. In addition, we cannot predict the impact on our business of new or amended environmental laws or regulations or any changes in the way existing and future laws and regulations are interpreted and enforced. These current or future laws and regulations may impair our research, development or production efforts.

Our internal computer systems, or those of our third-party contractors or consultants, may fail or suffer security breaches, which could result in a material disruption of our product development programs or loss of personal data.

Despite the implementation of security measures, our internal computer systems and those of our third-party contractors and consultants are vulnerable to damage from computer viruses, unauthorized access, natural disasters, terrorism, war and telecommunication and electrical failures. While we do not believe that we have experienced any such system failure, accident, or security breach to date, if such an event were to occur and cause interruptions in our operations, it could result in a material disruption of our programs. For example, the loss of clinical trial data for our product candidates 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 results in a loss of or damage to our data or applications or other data or applications relating to our technology or product candidates, or inappropriate disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, we could incur liabilities and the further development of our product candidates could be delayed.

We may acquire businesses or products, or form strategic alliances, in the future, and we may not realize the benefits of such acquisitions.

Our current strategy does not involve plans to acquire companies or technologies facilitating or enabling us to access to new medicines, new technologies, new research projects, or new geographical areas, or enabling us to express synergies with our existing operations. However, if such acquisitions were to become necessary or attractive in the future, we may not be able to identify appropriate targets or make acquisitions under satisfactory conditions, in particular, satisfactory price conditions. In addition, we may be unable to obtain the financing for these acquisitions under favorable conditions, and could be led to finance these acquisitions using cash that could be allocated to other purposes in the context of existing operations. If we acquire businesses with promising markets or technologies, we may not be able to realize the benefit of acquiring such businesses if we are unable to successfully integrate them with our existing operations and company culture. We may encounter numerous difficulties in developing, manufacturing and marketing any new products resulting from a strategic alliance or acquisition that delay or prevent us from realizing their expected benefits or enhancing our business. We cannot assure you that, following any such acquisition, we will achieve the expected synergies to justify the transaction, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial conditions, earnings and prospects.

Recently enacted U.S. federal income tax reform may adversely affect the operations of our U.S. subsidiaries.

On December 22, 2017, U.S. tax reform legislation known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the “Act”) was signed into law. The Act makes substantial changes to U.S. tax law, including a reduction in the corporate tax rate, a limitation on the use of new operating losses to offset future taxable, the modification or repeal of certain business deductions and credits, and new rules designed to prevent erosion of the U.S. income tax base such as a new minimum tax, called the Base Erosion and Anti-abuse Tax, applicable to certain U.S. corporations that make

59

certain payments to related foreign persons). Furthermore, the subject to the possibility of future legislation, provisions of the Act relating to certain agricultural cooperatives disadvantage independent companies such as Calyxt, which originate grain from farmers. We expect the TCJA to have significant effects on our U.S. subsidiaries, some of which may be adverse. The extent of the impact remains uncertain at this time and is subject to other regulatory or administrative developments, including any regulations or other guidance promulgated by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, or IRS.

Risks Related to Ownership of Our Ordinary Shares and ADSs

Although not free from doubt, we do not believe we were a “passive foreign investment company,” or PFIC, for U.S. federal income tax purposes for the 2017 taxable year and do not anticipate becoming a PFIC for the current or future taxable years. However, we cannot assure you that we will not be classified as a PFIC for the current or any future taxable year, which may result in adverse U.S. federal income tax consequences to U.S. holders (as defined in the section titled “Taxation—Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Considerations” in this Annual Report).

A non-U.S. corporation will be considered a PFIC for any taxable year if either (1) at least 75% of its gross income for such year is passive income or (2) at least 50% of the value of its assets (based on an average of the quarterly values of the assets during such year) is attributable to assets that produce or are held for the production of passive income. While we may have been a PFIC for previous taxable years and although the matter is not free from doubt, we do not believe that we were a PFIC for U.S. federal income tax purposes for the 2017 taxable year and at this time do not anticipate becoming a PFIC for the current or future taxable years. The determination of PFIC status is fact-specific, and a separate determination must be made each taxable year as to whether we are a PFIC (after the close of each such taxable year). It is possible that we could be classified as a PFIC for the current or future taxable years due to changes in the composition of our assets or income, as well as changes to our market capitalization. The market value of our assets may be determined in large part by reference to the market price of our stock, which has fluctuated and is likely to continue to fluctuate, substantially. If we are a PFIC for any taxable year during which a U.S. holder holds ADSs, the U.S. holder may be subject to adverse tax consequences, including (1) the treatment of all or a portion of any gain on disposition as ordinary income, (2) the application of an interest charge with respect to such gain and certain dividends and (3) compliance with certain reporting requirements. Each U.S. holder is strongly urged to consult its tax advisor regarding these issues and any available elections to mitigate such tax consequences. See the section titled “Taxation—Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Considerations” in this Annual Report.

The market price for our ADSs may be volatile or may decline regardless of our operating performance.

The trading price of the ADSs has fluctuated, and is likely to continue to fluctuate, substantially. The trading price of our ADSs depends on a number of factors, including those described in this “Risk Factors” section, many of which are beyond our control and may not be related to our operating performance.

Since the ADSs were sold in our initial public offering in March 2015 at a price of $41.50 per share, the price per ADS has ranged as low as $16.09 and as high as $50.00 through March 12, 2018. The market price of the ADSs may fluctuate significant in response to numerous factors, many of which are beyond our control, including:

60

These and other market and industry factors may cause the market price and demand for our ADSs to fluctuate substantially, regardless of our actual operating performance, which may limit or prevent holders from readily selling their ADSs and may otherwise negatively affect the liquidity of our capital shares. In addition, the stock market in general, and biopharmaceutical companies in particular, have experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have often been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of these companies.

Share ownership is concentrated in the hands of our principal shareholders and management, who will continue to be able to exercise a direct or indirect controlling influence on us.

Our executive officers, directors, current 5% or greater shareholders and affiliated entities beneficially own approximately 47.21% of our ordinary shares outstanding (including those underlying our ADSs) as of February 28, 2018. As a result, these shareholders, acting together, have significant influence over all matters that require approval by our shareholders, including the election of directors and approval of significant corporate transactions. Corporate action might be taken even if other shareholders oppose them. This concentration of ownership might also have the effect of delaying or preventing a change of control of our company that other shareholders may view as beneficial.

If securities or industry analysts do not publish research or publish inaccurate or unfavorable research about our business, the price of our ADSs and trading volume could decline.

The trading market for our ADSs depends in part on the research and reports that securities or industry analysts publish about us or our business. If few or no securities or industry analysts cover us, the trading price

61

for our ADSs would be negatively impacted. If one or more of the analysts who covers us downgrades our ADSs or publishes incorrect or unfavorable research about our business, the price of our ADSs would likely decline. If one or more of these analysts ceases coverage of our company or fails to publish reports on us regularly, or downgrades our ADSs, could also cause the price of our ADSs or trading volume to decline.

We do not currently intend to pay dividends on our securities. In addition, French law may limit the amount of dividends we are able to distribute.

We have never declared or paid any cash dividends on our share capital and do not currently intend to do so for the foreseeable future. We currently intend to invest our future earnings, if any, to fund our growth. Therefore, holders of our ordinary shares and ADSs are not likely to receive any dividends for the foreseeable future and any increase in value will depend solely upon any future appreciation. Consequently, holders of our equity securities may need to sell all or part of their holdings after price appreciation, which may never occur, as the only way to realize any future gains.

Further, under French law, the determination of whether we have been sufficiently profitable to pay dividends is made on the basis of our statutory financial statements prepared and presented in accordance with French generally accepted accounting principles called “Plan Comptable Général” defined by the regulation 99-03 from the Committee of the French Accountancy Regulation. In addition, payment of dividends may subject us to additional taxes under French law. Please see the section of this Annual Report titled “Memorandum and Articles of Association” for further details on the limitations on our ability to declare and pay dividends and the taxes that may become payable by us if we elect to pay a dividend. Therefore, we may be more restricted in our ability to declare dividends than companies not based in France.

In addition, exchange rate fluctuations may affect the amount of euros that we are able to distribute, and the amount in U.S. dollars that our shareholders receive upon the payment of cash dividends or other distributions we declare and pay in euros, if any. These factors could harm the value of our equity securities, and, in turn, the U.S. dollar proceeds that holders receive from the sale of ADSs.

Future sales of ordinary shares or ADSs by existing shareholders could depress the market price of the ADSs.

We believe that additional capital may be needed in the future to continue our planned operations, including conducting our planned clinical trials, manufacturing and commercialization efforts, expanded research and development activities and costs associated with operating as a public company. As of February 28, 2018, approximately 7,664,904 of our outstanding ordinary shares (excluding those underlying ADSs) are held by directors, executive officers and other affiliates and continue to be subject to resale limitations under Rule 144 under the Securities Act. If our existing shareholders sell, or indicate an intent to sell, substantial amounts of ordinary shares or ADSs in the public market, the trading price of our ordinary shares and/or ADSs could decline significantly. In addition, the sale of these securities could impair our ability to raise capital through the sale of additional securities.

Risks Related to Investing in a Foreign Private Issuer or French Company

Our By-laws and French corporate law contain provisions that may delay or discourage a takeover attempt.

Provisions contained in our By-laws and the corporate laws of France, the country in which we are incorporated, could make it more difficult for a third party to acquire us, even if doing so might be beneficial to our shareholders. In addition, provisions of French law and our By-laws impose various procedural and other requirements, which could make it more difficult for shareholders to effect certain corporate actions. These provisions include the following:

62

63

Holders of our ADSs do not directly hold our ordinary shares.

As an ADS holder, you are not treated as one of our shareholders and you do not have ordinary shareholder rights. French law governs shareholder rights. The depositary, Citibank, N.A., is the holder of the ordinary shares underlying your ADSs. As a holder of ADSs, you have ADS holder rights. The deposit agreement among us, the depositary and you, as an ADS holder, and all other persons directly and indirectly holding ADSs, sets out ADS holder rights, as well as the rights and obligations of the depositary.

Holders of our ADSs may not be able to exercise their right to vote the ordinary shares underlying such ADSs.

Holders of ADSs may exercise voting rights with respect to the ordinary shares represented by the ADSs only in accordance with the provisions of the deposit agreement and not as a direct shareholder. The deposit agreement provides that, upon receipt of notice of any meeting of holders of our ordinary shares, the depositary will fix a record date for the determination of ADS holders who shall be entitled to give instructions for the exercise of voting rights. Upon timely receipt of notice from us, if we so request, the depositary shall distribute to the holders as of the record date (1) the notice of the meeting or solicitation of consent or proxy sent by us and (2) a statement as to the manner in which instructions may be given by the holders.

Holders of ADSs may instruct the depositary of the ADSs to vote the ordinary shares underlying such ADSs. Otherwise, holders of our ADSs will not be able to exercise their right to vote, unless they withdraw the ordinary shares underlying such ADSs. However, holders of our ADSs may not know about the meeting far enough in advance to withdraw those ordinary shares. If we ask for instructions, the depositary, upon timely notice from us, will notify holders of our ADSs of the upcoming vote and arrange to deliver our voting materials to such holders. We cannot guarantee that holders of our ADSs will receive the voting materials in time to ensure that they can instruct the depositary to vote such ordinary shares or to withdraw such ordinary shares so as to vote them directly. If the depositary does not receive timely voting instructions from holders of our ADSs, it may give a proxy to a person designated by us to vote the ordinary shares underlying such ADSs in accordance with the recommendation of our board of directors. In addition, the depositary and its agents are not responsible for failing to carry out voting instructions or for the manner of carrying out voting instructions. This means that holders of our ADSs may not be able to exercise their right to vote, and there may be nothing such holders can do if the ordinary shares underlying such ADSs are not voted as requested.

The right of holders of our ADSs to participate in any future preferential subscription rights or to elect to receive dividends in shares may be limited, which may cause dilution to holders of ADSs.

According to French law, if we issue additional shares or securities for cash giving right, immediately or in the future, to new shares, current shareholders will have preferential subscription rights for these securities proportionally to their shareholding in our company unless they waive those rights at an extraordinary meeting of our shareholders (by a two-thirds majority vote) or individually by each shareholder. However, our ADS holders in the United States will not be entitled to exercise or sell such rights unless we register the rights and the securities to which the rights relate under the Securities Act or an exemption from the registration requirements is available. In addition, the deposit agreement for our ADSs provides that the depositary will not make rights available to holders of our ADSs unless the distribution to ADS holders of both the rights and any related securities are either registered under the Securities Act or exempted from registration under the Securities Act. Further, if we offer holders of our ordinary shares the option to receive dividends in either cash or shares, under the deposit agreement the depositary may require satisfactory assurances from us that extending the offer to holders of ADSs does not require registration of any securities under the Securities Act before making the option available to holders of ADSs. We are under no obligation to file a registration statement with respect to any such

64

rights or securities or to endeavor to cause such a registration statement to be declared effective. Moreover, we may not be able to establish an exemption from registration under the Securities Act. Accordingly, ADS holders may be unable to participate in our rights offerings or to elect to receive dividends in shares and may experience dilution in their holdings. In addition, if the depositary is unable to sell rights that are not exercised or not distributed or if the sale is not lawful or reasonably practicable, it will allow the rights to lapse, in which case holders of our ADSs will receive no value for these rights.

Holders of our ADSs may be subject to limitations on the transfer of such ADSs and the withdrawal of the underlying ordinary shares.

ADSs, which may be evidenced by American Depositary Receipts, or ADRs, are transferable on the books of the depositary. However, the depositary may close its books at any time or from time to time when it deems expedient in connection with the performance of its duties. The depositary may refuse to deliver, transfer or register transfers of ADSs generally when our books or the books of the depositary are closed, or at any time if we or the depositary think it is advisable to do so because of any requirement of law, government or governmental body, or under any provision of the deposit agreement, or for any other reason subject to an ADS holders’ right to cancel such ADSs and withdraw the underlying ordinary shares. Temporary delays in the cancellation of such ADSs and withdrawal of the underlying ordinary shares may arise because the depositary has closed its transfer books or we have closed our transfer books, the transfer of ordinary shares is blocked to permit voting at a shareholders’ meeting or we are paying a dividend on our ordinary shares. In addition, holders of our ADSs may not be able to cancel such ADSs and withdraw the underlying ordinary shares when such holders owe money for fees, taxes and similar charges and when it is necessary to prohibit withdrawals in order to comply with any laws or governmental regulations that apply to ADSs or to the withdrawal of ordinary shares or other deposited securities.

As a foreign private issuer, we are exempt from a number of rules under the U.S. securities laws and are permitted to file less information with the SEC than a U.S. company. This may limit the information available to holders of ADSs.

We are a “foreign private issuer,” as defined in the SEC’s rules and regulations and, consequently, we are not subject to all of the disclosure requirements applicable to public companies organized within the United States. For example, we are exempt from certain rules under the Exchange Act that regulate disclosure obligations and procedural requirements related to the solicitation of proxies, consents or authorizations applicable to a security registered under the Exchange Act, including the U.S. proxy rules under Section 14 of the Exchange Act. In addition, our officers and directors are exempt from the reporting and “short-swing” profit recovery provisions of Section 16 of the Exchange Act and related rules with respect to their purchases and sales of our securities. Moreover, while we currently make annual and quarterly filings with the SEC, we are not required to file periodic reports and financial statements with the SEC as frequently or as promptly as U.S. domestic public companies and are not required to file quarterly reports on Form 10-Q or current reports on Form 8-K under the Exchange Act. Accordingly, there may be less publicly available information concerning our company than there would be if we were a U.S. domestic issuer.

As a foreign private issuer, we follow certain home country practices in relation to corporate governance matters that differ significantly from Nasdaq corporate governance standards. These practices may afford less protection to shareholders than they would enjoy if we complied fully with Nasdaq’s corporate governance standards.

As a foreign private issuer listed on the Nasdaq Global Market, we are subject to corporate governance standards. However, Nasdaq’s rules permit a foreign private issuer like us to follow the corporate governance practices of its home country. Certain corporate governance practices in France, which is our home country, may differ significantly from corporate governance standards of the Nasdaq. For example, neither the corporate laws of France nor our By-laws require a majority of our directors to be independent and our independent directors are

65

not required to hold regularly scheduled meetings at which only independent directors are present. In addition, home country practice in France does not require us to maintain a nominating and corporate governance committee or to maintain a compensation committee composed entirely of independent directors. Currently, we follow home country practice in certain key respects. Therefore, our shareholders may be afforded less protection than they otherwise would have under corporate governance listing standards applicable to U.S. domestic issuers. A discussion of our corporate governance practices is set forth in the section titled “Management—Corporate Governance Practices.”

We may lose our foreign private issuer status in the future, which could result in significant additional cost and expense.

While we currently qualify as a foreign private issuer, the determination of foreign private issuer status is made annually on the last business day of our most recently completed second fiscal quarter and, accordingly, the next determination will be made with respect to us on June 30, 2018.

In the future, we would lose our foreign private issuer status if we to fail to meet the requirements necessary to maintain our foreign private issuer status as of the relevant determination date. For example, if more than 50% of our securities are held by U.S. residents and more than 50% of our executive officers or members of our board of directors are residents or citizens of the United States, we could lose our foreign private issuer status.

The regulatory and compliance costs to us under U.S. securities laws as a U.S. domestic public company would be significantly more than costs we currently incur as a foreign private issuer. If we lost our foreign private issuer status, we would be required to file periodic reports on Form 10-Q and current reports on Form 8-K, to file periodic reports and registration statements on U.S. domestic issuer forms with the SEC, which are more detailed and extensive in certain respects than the forms available to a foreign private issuer. We would be required under current SEC rules to prepare our financial statements in accordance with U.S. GAAP, rather than IFRS, in U.S. dollars rather than euros. Such conversion of our financial statements to U.S. GAAP would involve significant time and cost. In addition, we would lose our ability to rely upon exemptions from certain corporate governance requirements of the Nasdaq that are available to foreign private issuers, such as the ones described above, and we would be required to modify certain of our policies to comply with corporate governance practices associated with U.S. domestic issuers. Moreover, we would lose our ability to rely upon exemptions from procedural requirements related to the solicitation of proxies.

It may be difficult to enforce civil liabilities against our company and directors and senior management and the experts named in this Annual Report.

Certain members of our board of directors and senior management and those of our subsidiaries, are non-residents of the United States, and all or a substantial portion of our assets and the assets of such persons are located outside the United States. As a result, it may not be possible to serve process on such persons or us in the United States or to enforce judgments obtained in U.S. courts against them or us based on civil liability provisions of the securities laws of the United States. Additionally, it may be difficult to assert U.S. securities law claims in actions originally instituted outside of the United States. Foreign courts may refuse to hear a U.S. securities law claim because foreign courts may not be the most appropriate forums in which to bring such a claim. Even if a foreign court agrees to hear a claim, it may determine that the law of the jurisdiction in which the foreign court resides, and not U.S. law, is applicable to the claim. Further, if U.S. law is found to be applicable, the content of applicable U.S. law must be proved as a fact, which can be a time-consuming and costly process, and certain matters of procedure would still be governed by the law of the jurisdiction in which the foreign court resides. In particular, there is some doubt as to whether French courts would recognize and enforce certain civil liabilities under U.S. securities laws in original actions or judgments of U.S. courts based upon these civil liability provisions. In addition, awards of punitive damages in actions brought in the United States or elsewhere may be unenforceable in France. An award for monetary damages under the U.S. securities laws would be considered punitive if it does not seek to compensate the claimant for loss or damage suffered but is intended to

66

punish the defendant. French law provides that a shareholder, or a group of shareholders, may initiate a legal action to seek indemnification from the directors of a corporation in the corporation’s interest if it fails to bring such legal action itself. If so, any damages awarded by the court are paid to the corporation and any legal fees relating to such action are borne by the relevant shareholder or the group of shareholders.

The enforceability of any judgment in France will depend on the particular facts of the case as well as the laws and treaties in effect at the time. The United States and France do not currently have a treaty providing for recognition and enforcement of judgments (other than arbitration awards) in civil and commercial matters.

Provisions in our collaboration agreement with Servier may prevent or delay a change in control.

Our collaboration agreement with Servier provides that if any third party begins to control us, directly or indirectly, by any means, or in the event that we engage in a change of control transaction, including, but not limited to, the sale of all or substantially all of our assets or all or substantially all of our assets that are material to the performance of our obligations under the collaboration agreement, then Servier has the right to buy-out our interest in the pre-candidate products, product candidates, and products as described under the collaboration agreement. We refer to this right to acquire such interest as the buy-out. In the event we fail to agree with Servier on the amount of payment for our interest in the pre-candidate products, product candidates or products within twenty days following Servier’s provision of a buy-out notice, then the buy-out payment would be determined by-third party valuators.

The buy-out may have the effect of delaying or preventing a change in control transaction involving us, or may reduce the number of companies interested in acquiring us. If Servier were to exercise the buy-out, it would gain exclusive development and marketing rights to the pre-candidate products, product candidates and products developed under the collaboration agreement. Were this to happen, our successor would not receive milestone payments or royalty payments on net sales of any of the products sold to Servier in connection with the buy-out. These provisions could have the effect of delaying or preventing a change in control transaction involving Cellectis, or could reduce the number of companies interested in acquiring us.

The rights of shareholders in companies subject to French corporate law differ in material respects from the rights of shareholders of corporations incorporated in the United States.

We are a French company with limited liability. Our corporate affairs are governed by our By-laws and by the laws governing companies incorporated in France. The rights of shareholders and the responsibilities of members of our board of directors are in many ways different from the rights and obligations of shareholders in companies governed by the laws of U.S. jurisdictions. For example, in the performance of its duties, our board of directors is required by French law to consider the interests of our company, its shareholders, its employees and other stakeholders, rather than solely our shareholders and/or creditors. It is possible that some of these parties will have interests that are different from, or in addition to, the interests of our shareholders. See the sections of this Annual Report titled “Memorandum and Articles of Association” and “Corporate Governance.”

Our legal and commercial name is Cellectis S.A. We were incorporated as a société anonyme, or S.A., under the laws of the French Republic on January 4, 2000 for a period of 99 years. We are registered at the Paris Registre du Commerce et des Sociétés under the number 428 859 052. Our principal executive offices are located at 8, rue de la Croix Jarry, 75013 Paris, France, and our telephone number is +33 1 81 69 16 00. Our agent for service of process in the United States is Cellectis, Inc. located at 430 East 29^th Street, New York, New York 10016. We also maintain a website at www.cellectis.com. The reference to our website is an inactive textual reference only and the information contained in, or that can be accessed through, our website is not a part of this Annual Report.

67

Our actual capital expenditures and additions to intangible assets for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2016 and 2017 together amounted to $4.4million, $14.6 million and $2.6 million, respectively. These expenditures primarily consisted of the acquisitions of industrial and laboratory equipment and fittings required to conduct our research programs. We expect our capital expenditures to increase in absolute terms in the near term as we continue to advance our research and development programs and grow our operations. We anticipate our capital expenditure in 2018 to be financed from our cash and cash equivalents on hand. Primarily, these capital expenditures will be made both in France and in the United States, where our research and development facilities are currently located.

On January 21, 2015, we signed a lease for an administrative and research facility in New York, New York to enhance our presence in the United States. This facility, which includes large state-of-the-art research laboratories, opened on April 8, 2015, and supports the development of our CAR-T pipeline. In March 2016, we entered into a lease for a 26,928 square-foot space in Montvale, New Jersey, which we intend to discontinue before its scheduled expiration in September 2026.

In March 2016, Calyxt acquired 10-acres in 2 parcels in Roseville, Minnesota, and a headhouse and a greenhouse were built and they have been in operations since September 2016. In the third quarter of 2017, Calyxt entered into a sale and lease-back agreement related to these land and buildings. See Item 4D for further information.

We are a clinical stage biotechnological company, employing our core proprietary technologies to develop best-in-class products in the field of immuno-oncology. Our product candidates, based on gene-edited T-cells that express chimeric antigen receptors, or CARs, seek to harness the power of the immune system to target and eradicate cancer cells. We believe that CAR-based immunotherapy is one of the most promising areas of cancer research, representing a new paradigm for cancer treatment. We are designing next-generation immunotherapies that are based on gene-edited CAR T-cells. Our gene-editing technologies allow us to create allogeneic CAR T-cells, meaning they are derived from healthy donors rather than the patients themselves. We believe that the production of allogeneic CAR T-cells will allow us to develop cost-effective, off-the-shelf products that are capable of being cryopreserved, stored and distributed worldwide. Our gene-editing expertise also enables us to develop product candidates that feature additional safety and efficacy attributes, including control properties designed to prevent them from attacking healthy tissues, to enable them to tolerate standard oncology treatments, and to equip them to resist mechanisms that inhibit immune-system activity. In addition to our focus on immuno-oncology, we are exploring the use of our gene-editing technologies in other therapeutic applications, as well as to develop healthier food products for a growing population.

Cancer is the second-leading cause of death in the United States and accounts for one in four deaths. Immuno-oncology seeks to harness the power of the body’s immune system to target and kill cancer. A key to this effort is a type of white blood cell known as the T-cell, which plays an important role in identifying and killing cancer cells. Unfortunately, cancer cells often develop mechanisms to evade the immune system. CARs, which are engineered receptors that can be expressed on the surface of T-cells, provide the T-cells with a specific targeting mechanism, thereby enhancing its ability to seek, identify, interact with and destroy tumor cells bearing a selected antigen. Research and development of CAR T-cell immunotherapies currently focuses on two approaches: autologous and allogeneic therapies. Autologous CAR T-cell immunotherapies modify a patient’s own T-cells to target specific antigens that are located on cancer cells. This type of therapy requires an individualized immunotherapy product for each patient and is currently being tested in clinical trials by several academic institutions, and biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies. In contrast, an allogeneic CAR T-cell immunotherapy is an approach by which a cancer patient is infused with a mass-produced, off-the-shelf immunotherapy product derived from a healthy T-cell donor. Our initial focus is on developing allogeneic treatments, and we believe that we are the leading company pursuing this approach.

68

Gene editing is a type of genetic engineering in which DNA is inserted, deleted, repaired or replaced from a precise location in the genome. The most fundamental challenge of gene editing is the need to specifically and efficiently target a precise DNA sequence within a gene. Our proprietary nuclease-based gene-editing technologies, combined with 18 years of genome engineering experience, allow us to edit any gene with highly precise insertion, deletion, repair and replacement of DNA sequences. Our nucleases, including a particular class of proteins derived from transcription activator-like effectors act like DNA scissors to edit genes at precise target sites and allow us to design allogeneic CAR T-cells. Our patented PulseAgile electroporation technology allows us to efficiently deliver our clinical grade nucleases into human cells while preserving cell viability, making it particularly well-suited for a large-scale manufacturing process. We believe these technologies will enable our clinical grade drug therapeutic products to be manufactured, cryopreserved, stored, distributed broadly and infused into patients in an off-the-shelf approach.

We are developing products internally and through strategic alliances with Pfizer and Servier. We believe that our alliances with Pfizer and Servier have validated our technology platform, our strong expertise in the allogeneic CAR T-cells field and the strength of our intellectual property portfolio.

In 2016, Servier commenced two Phase I clinical studies for UCART19, one in adult Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL), the CALM study, and one in pediatric ALL, the PALL study. The CALM study is commenced in the United Kingdom, the United States, and France, and the PALL study is commenced in the United Kingdom, Belgium and France. We refer in this Annual Report to the CALM and the PALL studies, collectively, as the UCART19 Clinical Studies. In November 2015, when we exclusively licensed the rights to UCART19 to Servier, Servier also announced that it had granted Pfizer the exclusive rights for the development and the commercialization of UCART19 in the United States. Consequently, Servier’s CALM study in the United States is conducted in collaboration with Pfizer. In addition to early data presented by Servier and Pfizer during a meeting at the National Institutes of Health’s Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee (or “RAC”) held on December 14, 2016, in December 2017, Servier presented intermediate results from the UCART19 Clinical Studies during the American Society for Hematology (ASH) annual conference. Such intermediate results show 83% complete remission rate across the two studies: five out of seven patients achieving minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity in the CALM study at 28th day after the infusion and all five children achieving MRD negativity in the PALL study at the 28th day after the infusion. Additional data will be presented on March 21, 2018 during the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation Annual Meeting.

With respect to UCART123, we obtained the unanimous approval of the RAC on December 14, 2016 to start two proposed studies in the United States. In December 2016, we submitted an Investigational New Drug (IND) application for UCART123 with respect to two proposed Phase I studies to be conducted, one in Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) and one in Blastic Plasmacytoid Dendritic Cell Neoplasm (BPDCN). In February 2017, the FDA approved the IND and the first patients were enrolled during 2017. Due to a death in the BPDCN study, the FDA placed a clinical hold on both trials in September 2017 which was lifted by the FDA in November 2017, based on revised protocols. The Phase I clinical study in AML is performed by Weill Cornell and MD Anderson Cancer Center, and the Phase I clinical study in BPDCN is performed by MD Anderson Cancer Center. We refer in this Annual Report to the AML and the BPDCN studies, collectively, as the UCART123 Clinical Studies.

Additionally, we are pursuing proprietary pre-clinical programs (for UCARTCS1, for UCART22, and for other UCART product candidates). Our objective is to file, directly or indirectly, one Investigational New Drug, or IND, application (or foreign equivalent), per year from our maturing product candidates portfolio.

Our vision in the biopharmaceutical industry is to continue to leverage the potential of gene editing to deliver revolutionary products that address unmet medical needs. Our initial focus is to apply our leadership in gene-editing technology to develop and commercialize best-in-class allogeneic CAR T-cell therapeutic products in the area of immuno-oncology.

Until July 2017, we fully owned Calyxt, Inc. On July 25, 2017, Calyxt closed its initial public offering on the Nasdaq Global Market, selling an aggregate of 8,050,000 shares of common stock at a price of $8.00 per

69

share (including the full exercise by the underwriters of their over-allotment option). The Company received net proceeds of approximately $58.0 million, after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and offering expenses. As part of the IPO, we purchased 2,500,000 shares of common stock for a value of $20.0 million, which is included in the net proceeds that Calyxt received. Calyxt used $5.7 million of the proceeds from us to cover a portion of the outstanding obligations owed to Cellectis. As of December 31, 2017, Cellectis owns approximately 79.7% of Calyxt’s common stock. In connection with Calyxt’s initial public offering, we and Calyxt entered into certain agreements that related to our relationship with Calyxt prior to the IPO or that provide a framework for our ongoing relationship with Calyxt. Calyxt is focused on using TALEN gene editing technology to provide healthier food products for a growing population across the world.

Our Immuno-oncology Pipeline

Our lead immuno-oncology product candidates, which we refer to as UCARTs, or universal CARTs, are all allogeneic CAR T-cells engineered to be used for treating any patient with a particular cancer type. Each UCART product candidate targets a selected antigen expressed on tumor cells and bears specific engineered attributes, such as compatibility with specific medical regimens that cancer patients may undergo. UCART is the first therapeutic product line that we are developing using our gene-editing platform to address unmet medical needs in oncology. We are focusing our initial internal pipeline in the hematologic malignancies space, targeting diseases with high unmet needs such as acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), acute myeloid leukemia (AML), multiple myeloma (MM) and different types of lymphomas. In 2017, we commenced UCART123 Clinical Studies. All of our other fully-controlled product candidates are currently in the pre-clinical proof-of-concept phase, and the following chart highlights some of these product candidates:

With respect to our two most advanced pre-clinical product candidates, we intend to file an IND for our UCART22 product candidate in the United States in the first half of 2018 and an IND for UCART CS1 in 2019. All the above products are engineered T-cell product candidates that bear CARs that seek to kill cells expressing targets (e.g., CD123, CS1, and CD22), which are found in other hematologic tumors, such as acute myeloid leukemia, or AML, and multiple myeloma, or MM, as well as acute lymphoblastic leukemia, or ALL.

Strategic Alliances

In addition to the development of our own portfolio of product candidates targeting tumor-associated antigens, we have pursued a strategy of forging strong pharmaceutical alliances. We believe that our strategic alliances with Servier and Pfizer validated our technology platform, our strong expertise in the allogeneic CAR T-cells field, our approach to CAR T-cell development and the strength of our intellectual property portfolio. Our strategic alliances include upfront and potential milestone payments to us of up to $3.9 billion and high single digit royalties on future sales.

70

Collaboration with Servier

In February 2014, we entered into a strategic collaboration agreement with Servier to develop and commercialize certain product candidates. Pursuant to the agreement, Servier made an upfront payment of $8.2 million. In addition, the strategic alliance, as amended in November 2015, provides for aggregate additional payments of up to $1,064 million, comprising payments upon the exercise of each option granted to Servier and payments upon the occurrence of certain specified development and commercial milestones. We are also eligible to receive tiered royalties ranging in the high single-digit percentages based on annual net sales of commercialized products. This agreement covers the development and the potential commercialization of the lead product candidate, UCART19, as well as other product candidates directed at four other targets. Under the terms of the agreement, we will be responsible for the research and development of certain product candidates through the end of their respective Phase I clinical trials. We granted Servier an exclusive option to obtain an exclusive, worldwide license on a product candidate-by-product candidate basis, with respect to each target selected by Servier and developed under the agreement, to further develop, manufacture and commercialize such product in the field of anti-tumor adoptive immunotherapy. Upon exercising each such option, Servier will assume responsibility for the further clinical development, manufacture and commercialization of the relevant product candidate. In November 2015, we entered into an amendment to our initial collaboration agreement with Servier, which allowed for an early exercise of Servier’s option with respect to UCART19 and other product candidates. Pursuant to this amendment, Servier has exercised its option to acquire the exclusive worldwide rights to further develop and commercialize UCART19. In addition, Pfizer and Servier have entered into an exclusive global license and collaboration agreement, under which Pfizer has obtained exclusive rights to develop and commercialize UCART19 in the United States.

Collaboration with Pfizer

In June 2014, we entered into a global strategic collaboration agreement with Pfizer pursuant to which we will collaborate to conduct discovery and pre-clinical development activities to generate CAR T-cells directed at targets selected by Pfizer or us in the field of oncology. Pursuant to the agreement, Pfizer made an upfront, non-refundable $80.0 million payment to us, concurrent with Pfizer’s equity investment in our Company. In addition, the strategic alliance provides for up to $2.8 billion in potential clinical and commercial milestone payments. We are also eligible to receive tiered royalties ranging in the high single-digit percentages based on annual net sales of commercialized products. We may also receive funding for research and development costs associated with the Pfizer-selected targets and for four Cellectis-selected targets within the alliance. Pfizer has exclusive rights to pursue development and commercialization of products for a total of fifteen targets of their choice, which have all been selected.

Our Strategy

Our strategy is to leverage the transformative potential of our unique gene-editing technologies and expertise through our cell engineering platform.

The key elements of our strategy are to:

71

Immunotherapy: Turning the Immune System into “Smart Drugs”

The immune system has evolved to protect the body from invading pathogens or external harmful materials by identifying these foreign bodies through “non-self” antigens, which are molecular signatures that they carry and are foreign to the body. A central function of the immune system is to discriminate between “self,” which is recognized through antigens normally present in the body and borne by cells, proteins, sugars or lipids, and “non-self”, which is detected through abnormal or foreign antigens. Cancer cells thrive, in part, because they trick the immune system into treating them as self, even though they express abnormal antigens, and thus immune tolerance occurs when the immune system fails to recognize and attack tumors. Breaking immune tolerance is an important aspect of most immuno-oncology-based therapeutics because it enables the immune system to recognize and treat tumors as non-self and lead to tumor destruction.

The immune system recognizes non-self danger signals and responds to threats at a cellular level. The immune system may be conceptualized as comprising two arms. The first arm, known as the innate immune system, recognizes non-specific signals of infection or abnormalities as a first line of defense. The innate immune system is the initial response to an infection, and the response is the same every time regardless of prior exposure to the infectious agent. The second arm, known as the adaptive immune system, is composed of highly specialized cells and provides long-term specific recognition and protection from infectious agents and abnormal processes such as cancer. The adaptive immune response is further subdivided into antibody-based responses and cellular responses, which include T-cell-based immune responses. The most significant components of the cellular aspect of the adaptive immune response are T-cells, which are specialized cells that generally mature in the thymus. T-cells are involved in sensing and killing infected or abnormal cells, as well as coordinating the activation of other cells and mounting an immune response.

Although the immune system is designed to identify and destroy foreign or abnormal protein-bearing tumor cells, this process is often defective in cancer patients. Additionally, cancer cells employ a number of mechanisms to escape immune detection and attack to suppress the effect of the immune response.

Immunotherapy is a type of treatment that modifies, stimulates, or re-directs certain parts of the immune system to fight diseases, such as cancer. Immunotherapy works by stimulating a patient’s own immune system or by turning its attacks towards harmful targets, such as cancer cells. Immunotherapy can also be pursued by giving patients engineered immune cells, such as CAR T-cells to target certain cells. Immunotherapy is playing an increasingly large role in treating cancer, chronic infectious diseases, autoimmune diseases and allergic diseases.

T-cells and T-cell Receptors (TCRs)

T-cells are a class of white blood cells that carry a specific TCR at their surface that allows them to recognize and kill other cells that express antigens foreign to the individual. Normal cells express a set of specific

72

molecules, called human leukocyte antigen, or HLA, at their surface. HLA is associated with small fragments, or peptides of the proteins expressed inside the cell or processed from the extracellular body fluids. Abnormal or foreign proteins (viruses, for example) can attach to HLAs and be presented at the cell’s surface and be recognized by T-cells through these HLA-peptide complexes and identified as foreign antigens. This recognition triggers the activation of the T-cells, which destroy the foreign HLA-peptide complex-bearing cell, secrete specific cytokines attracting other immune-competent cells to their location, and start multiplying to establish a full immune response.

An activated T-cell can multiply tens of thousands of times, so long as there remains a presence of the foreign antigen in the body. Unlike antibodies that mainly diffuse passively through the body and its circulating fluids, T-cells actively leave blood vessels or lymphoid organs and travel through the tissues of the body where they can attack foreign antigens. Once the antigen is eliminated from the body, the T-cells run out of stimulation and die off, with only a fraction surviving as “memory T-cells,” which can react promptly should the antigen reappear in the body.

There is a high variability of HLA molecules in the population. Therefore, if a cell is introduced into a person and originally comes from another individual that is not HLA-matched, it will bear, at its surface, HLA-peptide complexes that are recognized as foreign and will be killed by the T-cells of the recipient. This mechanism of graft rejection has been a major limitation to transplanting patients with allogeneic tissues. Reciprocally, if T-cells are grafted from one individual to another and start recognizing as foreign the normal HLA-peptide complexes at the surface of all tissues of the grafted individual, then they may attack and kill those healthy tissues, leading to Graft-versus-Host disease (GvHD), which can be very severe, and potentially fatal, if left untreated. GvHD has been a major limitation to the use of allogeneic T-cells when treating patients.

Cancerous cells express abnormal antigens and can be killed by T-cells. However, cancer may grow and spread to various organs when T-cells with cancer-specific receptors are in low numbers, of poor quality, or rendered inactive by suppressive mechanisms employed by tumor tissues. T-cells are a key armament when fighting cancers. They play a particularly significant role if they are tailored to target tumors, and potentially even more so if their genes are edited to overcome tumor defenses, to make T-cells compatible with other anti-cancer drugs that can be combined with them, and to prevent GvHD, which would allow the use of allogeneic T-cells.

Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CARs)

CARs are engineered molecules that, when present at the surface of T-cells, enable them to recognize specific proteins or antigens that are present on the surface of other cells. These receptors are typically used to graft the specificity of an antibody derived from a single cell, or a monoclonal antibody, onto a T-cell and provide it with a specific targeting mechanism to seek, identify, interact with and destroy the tumor cells bearing a selected antigen associated with that tumor also known as tumor-associated antigen, or TAA and tumor-specific antigens, or TSA. The expression of some genes, or combinations of genes, can be associated with certain classes of cancers. It is sometimes possible to identify TAAs that are expressed at various levels by tumor cells from a given cancer type. These TAAs may also be normally expressed by other tissues at different stages of development.

T-cells with CARs are referred to as CAR T-cells. Whereas natural T-cell receptors, or TCRs, only recognize antigens bound to an HLA molecule at a cell’s surface, a CAR is able to directly recognize antigens that are present at the targeted cell’s surface. It is believed that upon cell-to-cell contact between a CAR T-cell and an antigen-bearing targeted cell, antigen recognition by the CAR “activates” the CAR T-cell, triggering it to multiply, attack and kill its target through the release of “hole-forming” proteins, known as perforins, and “degradation enzymes,” known as granzymes, that enter the targeted cell through the perforin-formed holes and carry out the killing. The activation of a T-cell through a CAR results in a target-associated “kill and amplify” chain reaction that eradicates the tumor.

73

CARs are constructed by assembling components, or domains, from different proteins, including:

The following diagram shows the mechanism by which a CAR T-cell is believed to attack a tumor cell:

Recent immuno-oncology advancements have supported the potential to cure certain cancers by harnessing the body’s immune system to fight cancer cells. For example:

Based on these and other advancements, immuno-oncology has become a new frontier for treatment, and we believe it is one of the most promising areas of development within oncology.

74

Limitations of Current Autologous Treatments

Many of the CAR T-cell immunotherapy treatments currently under development are created through an autologous approach in which the patient’s own T-cells are engineered to fight cancer cells. Part of our scientific basis for pursuing allogeneic approaches rests in the recognized limitations of autologous approaches, including:

Although some autologous approaches to CAR T-cell have recently demonstrated encouraging clinical data, we believe our allogeneic approach provides developmental benefits.

Our Gene-Editing Approach to Allogeneic CAR T-cell Therapy

The most fundamental challenge of genome engineering is the need to specifically and efficiently target a precise DNA sequence within a complex genome. Our founder and CEO, Dr. André Choulika, was one of the pioneers and first researchers in nuclease-based genome engineering in the early 1990s and has been integral in the development and advancement of gene-editing tools.

Our proprietary gene-editing platform relies on our capacity to custom design DNA-sequence specific cutting enzymes, or nucleases, for any chosen gene we need to modify and our capability to introduce such custom-made nucleases into the living cells we want to engineer. Our platform relies on precisely chosen protein families that can specifically recognize unique DNA sequences and can be tailored to target such sequences in any chosen gene or genetic region.

We are currently developing an allogeneic CAR T-cell therapy approach based on our technology platform that combines single or multi-chain CARs, TALEN and PulseAgile to address the opportunities for improvement discussed above. Our approach aims to deliver an off-the-shelf product with the following benefits:

TALEN—Proprietary Gene-editing Technology

The flagship nuclease structure we use for gene editing is based on a class of proteins derived from transcription activator-like effectors, or TALE. TALEN products are designed by fusing the DNA-cutting domain of a nuclease to TALE domains, which can be tailored to specifically recognize a unique DNA sequence. These fusion proteins serve as readily targetable “DNA scissors” for genome engineering applications that enable us to perform targeted genome modifications such as sequence insertion, deletion, repair and replacement in living cells.

75

The following diagram shows the structure of a TALEN. The DNA binding domain of TALEN is composed of DNA binding units (repeat variable di-residues or RVDs) that each individually recognize a single base pair, and that are assembled to collectively recognize a DNA sequence. The specificity of this RVD single base pair recognition is mediated by two of the amino-acids in the RVD (NN, NI, NG, or HD), the RVDs that directly interact with the base of the DNA.

We believe the key benefits of TALEN technology are:

76

The following diagram shows the mechanism by which TALEN inactivates, or knocks out, a gene:

We are able to assemble long arrays of modular domains with predictable specificity for a chosen sequence of DNA unique within a genome. When a TALEN is present, its TALE domains recognize its target DNA sequence and thereby direct the enzyme to the proper chromosomal location. Once bound to its target DNA sequence, the DNA cleaving-domain of the TALEN induces a DNA break at the targeted location to induce permanent DNA modifications. We believe TALEN stands out among nucleases as exceptionally precise, accurate and efficient to perform gene inactivation.

Other Types of Gene Editing Technologies

We have developed a strong expertise and capacity in meganuclease technologies, which involve enzymes capable of recognizing very large unique DNA sequences. In addition, using the flexibility of the TALE domain, we have developed new classes of custom-designed nucleases, such as compact TALEN and mega-TALE nucleases that combine meganucleases and TALEN technology. Compact-TALEN is built with a single TALE molecule fused to a fragment of a chosen meganuclease that carries limited DNA sequence recognition functionality but fully functional DNA-cleaving activity. These chimeric proteins are smaller in size than

77

classical TALEN, which can facilitate their delivery to cells. In contrast, mega-TALEs use a full-size meganuclease to enhance their DNA sequence recognition capacities, while demonstrating enhanced precision. We also have discovered a new class of nuclease that we named BurrH nucleases, also based on arrays of single DNA-base recognizing modular domains. Recently, we announced the issuance of two US patents covering certain uses of RNA-guided endonucleases, such as Cas9 or Cpf1, for the genetic engineering of T-cells.

PulseAgile—Electroporation Technology

In order to perform gene editing, we use our proprietary PulseAgile electroporation technology to introduce nucleases inside the target T-cell where they can access the cell’s DNA. Electroporation allows messenger RNA, or mRNA, molecules coding for the nuclease to enter into the cell, where it is translated into the nuclease protein that can cut into the cell’s DNA. The mRNA molecules are rapidly degraded by the cell, which means that the nuclease is only expressed for a short time.

PulseAgile electroporation uses a unique electrical field wave-form that, in combination with a proprietary buffer solution, enables molecules, such as nucleases, to enter efficiently into the cell while maintaining a high percentage of viable cells. PulseAgile technology is particularly effective due to the shape of the electrical field that includes high voltage peaks, which are optimized to create transient holes in the cell membrane, followed by lower voltage pulses that help mRNA (for example TALEN-encoding mRNA) migrate into the cells. In addition, PulseAgile is optimized to preserve high cell viability and thus suited for large-scale manufacturing.

Next-Generation Products Based on Multi-chain CAR

Historically, CAR components have been assembled into a linear CAR molecule, known as a “single-chain” CAR. We have developed another architecture, which we call “multi-chain” CAR that is currently based on the structure of the high-affinity IgE receptor, which is normally absent in T-cells. The multi-chain CAR is composed of several membrane-bound proteins that naturally assemble at the cell’s surface and, as described below, have several benefits.

CAR architectures generally utilize a single polypeptide chain, which requires multiple appending of domains to enable a configuration that provides both the T-cell activation and co-stimulation needed for optimal T-cell responses. Typically, the target-binding domain of a CAR consists of a single-chain variable fragment of an antibody comprising variable domains of large polypeptide subunits, or heavy chains, and small polypeptide subunits, or light chains, joined by a short linker peptide. This structure allows the expression of the CAR as a single-chain protein. One limitation of single-chain CAR architecture is the small number of features that it is able to add to a cell. When such protein domains are not located close to the transmembrane structure, they may be less stable or active, which limits the number of domains that can be added.

We have developed a novel multi-subunit CAR architecture that overcomes these structural issues and expands the functional possibilities that can be brought to a T-cell. Our multi-chain CAR is currently based on the architecture of a specific high affinity IgE receptor, that is normally absent from T-cells. This architecture offers the potential for inclusion of multiple intra-cellular signaling domains, optimally located at their natural distance from the membrane. In other words, our multi-chain CAR offers additional positions close to the cell membrane so that domains can be more flexibly located relative to the cell’s transmembrane structure. This also facilitates the potential implementation of multiple recognition domains, possibly allowing the recognition of not only a single antigen, but also of patterns of multiple antigen expression. This novel multi-subunit architecture would allow the construction of CARs with both improved activity and specificity and thus with an expanded range of applications.

CARs, whether single or multi-chain, are means to redirect T-cell activity toward cells bearing selected antigens. Our platform allows us to design CARs and to optimize their design depending on where and how their target is expressed on the surface of cancer cells.

78

The following diagram shows the distinction between single-chain CARs and multi-chain CARs:

Nuclease Technology and T-cells: The Design Process

Our T-cell gene-editing process involves two engineering rounds:

Step 1: Gene Editing to add Genes, such as a CAR

In the first round, genetic material is added to the T-cell’s genome using a viral vector—a benign modified virus that cannot replicate autonomously but can efficiently deliver such genetic material into a cell with which it is in contact. In particular, we use allow targeted integration. The genetic material added includes a gene-coding for a CAR, which becomes a new receptor at the T-cell’s surface that allows it to recognize and bind to a target molecule that is present at the surface of other cells. At this stage, we can also add additional genes to these cells that confer specific properties. For example, we add suicide genes, which code for proteins that can make T-cells susceptible to certain drugs and enable us to deplete our engineered T-cells at our discretion by administering a drug to the patient. This system can also be integrated within the CAR itself.

Step 2: Gene Editing to Inactivate Genes, such as the TCRα, PD-1, CD52

In the second round, we use our PulseAgile electroporation technology to introduce specific TALEN mRNA into the T-cells to inactivate a number of genes that are naturally present in the genome of these T-cells.

TCRs at the surface of T-cells allow them to recognize cells that express foreign, non-self, antigens (for example, cells infected by a virus or cells coming from another individual). Non-modified allogeneic T-cells bear

79

functional TCRs and, if injected into a patient, can potentially recognize non-self on that patient’s tissues and start to attack them. For this reason, all of our UCART product candidates undergo the inactivation of a gene coding for TCRα, a key component of the natural antigen receptor of T-cells, to suppress their alloreactivity. The engineered T-cells lack functional TCRs and are no longer capable of recognizing foreign antigens. As a result, when injected into a patient, the engineered T-cell would not recognize the tissues of the host patient as foreign and thus would avoid attacking the patient’s tissues. This could avoid the GvHD that can sometimes be observed when allogeneic TCR-positive T-cells are infused into some patients.

The figure below depicts the suppression of alloreactivity in T-cells engineered to lack functional TCRs. The figure summarizes experiments in which we injected mice with T-cells engineered for the inactivation of TCRα while injecting other mice with non-engineered T-cells with functional TCRs. We then measured the effects of such injections on mean body weight, which serves as a proxy for the impact of GvHD.

During the manufacturing process, the T cells from a healthy donor are first engineered. The CAR gene is transduced and cell attributes like the TCR alpha gene are knocked out by TALEN. Then, the T-cells of our UCART products are amplified. The desired TCR-alpha deleted are finally purified from the cells that may still bear a TCR, and are finally frozen. We perform a battery of specialized testing techniques and various quality assurance and quality control assays to further validate cellular functional integrity following gene editing.

The lack of a TCR at the surface of our UCART product candidates is a key feature that allows them to be used as allogeneic off-the-shelf products. Other genes can also be inactivated in this round to confer additional specific attributes to the T-cells. They can be made resistant, and therefore compatible, with specific medical regimens used during the course of cancer treatments. For example, we inactivate the CD52 gene, which codes for the target of alemtuzumab, a monoclonal antibody sometimes used in CLL patients, that would otherwise destroy our engineered T-cells. Likewise, we believe we can inactivate the deoxycytidine kinase (dCK) or glucocorticoid receptor (GR) genes in order to make our T-cells respectively resistant to purine nucleotide analogs (e.g., fludarabine, clofarabine or cytarabine) or to corticoids that are used for several types of cancer patients.

80

The following diagram shows the key stages in our engineering of UCART19:

Our engineered T-cell could also be made insensitive to inhibition signals, which diminishes immune system activity, that may be present within the tumor microenvironment and that usually block T-cell attacks. For example, we inactivate the PD-1 gene in our engineered T-cells so that they would no longer be subject to checkpoint regulator inhibition by tumors expressing PDL-1, a common anti-immune defense mechanism found in cancer.

The following diagram shows the inactivation of the PD-1 gene to suppress checkpoint inhibition in the T-cell:

81

Using our ability to add and to inactivate genes, our platform has the flexibility to deliver smart T-cells designed for specific indications and purposes.

Key Benefits of our UCART Approach

We believe our CAR T approach and manufacturing process has the potential to provide the following benefits:

Our UCART product candidates are intended to enable universal market access driven by an allogeneic approach. Current autologous treatments require dedicated infrastructure, which could limit their availability to only a few select sites. Because our UCART product candidates are designed to be frozen and available off-the-shelf, they could be shipped globally at any time and administered immediately to patients when needed, including in local clinics.

Our manufacturing process is a benefit to our UCART product candidate line that could contribute to the design of a reasonably priced product. Our manufacturing process produces UCART product candidates from healthy, selected, screened and tested donor T-cells. Moreover, because our process is powered by our nucleases and our proprietary PulseAgile electroporation systems, we expect to be able to inactivate genes in a highly efficient manner that avoids harming T-cells during processing, which could allow us to manufacture quality UCART products at high yields. This could enable us to manufacture in bulk, and we expect that T-cells from one healthy donor, and one manufacturing run of UCART, could be used to create hundreds of doses of product. These efficiencies could allow us to reduce costs to patients and produce competitive gross profit margins.

We aim to engineer T-cells for specific clinical results that enhance safety and provide greater control over cellular activity. For example, our research includes disabling T-cells from attacking a patient’s healthy tissues, designing T-cells to be compatible with standard oncology treatments, enabling our engineered T-cells to surpass key immune checkpoint regulators that can protect tumors from the immune system, and building into our products a suicide gene that directs the natural clearance of allogeneic T-cells with the addition of a drug.

Our research also aims at allowing T-cells to resist and be compatible with compounds that cancer patients are exposed to, including standard oncology treatments, such as specific monoclonal antibody therapies, corticoids, or other relevant chemotherapies. We are pursuing treatment options that would allow patients to be treated with our engineered T-cells after or during treatment with traditional approaches that would impair T-cell function or viability.

Our frozen, off-the-shelf UCART product candidates are intended to be produced pursuant to cGMP and are extensively controlled. Like other pharmaceutical products, we expect that their quality will be controlled to ensure consistency over time and from batch to batch. This is a significant difference from autologous approaches currently reported to be in clinical development. In these autologous settings, where the donor of T-cells is the very patient who will receive the CAR-bearing cells, a specific batch of T-cells must be made for each patient and in some cases, sufficient T cells may not be available from the patient to create the autologous product.

82

How can we turn a procedure into a large scale, widely available drug?

Autologous CAR-T cell approaches are therapeutic procedures conducted for each patient, which involve the engineering of T-cells by addition of a transgene coding for a chimeric antigen receptor into the patient’s own T cells. Our UCART approach goes one step further in engineering and also in moving the CAR concept from a patient-by-patient therapeutic procedure to an off-the-shelf widely available pharmaceutical compound.

The manufacturing process of our allogeneic CAR T-cell product line, Universal CARTs or UCARTs, yields frozen, off-the-shelf, allogeneic, engineered CAR T-cells. UCARTs are meant to be readily available CAR T-cells for a large patient population. The specificity of those allogeneic therapies is that T-cells from healthy donors are genetically edited with our proprietary technology, TALEN, to seek and destroy cancer cells. TALEN-based gene editing is designed to suppress T-cell alloreactivity (and, for certain UCART product candidates, to confer resistance to alemtuzumab) to the T-cells.

Our UCARTs are designed and manufactured through a common platform that relies on defined unit operations and technologies combined into a single process adapted to each individual UCART. The process is gradually developed from small to larger scales, incorporating elements that are eventually used in GMP conditions. Notwithstanding this central unit operations based model, each product is unique and for each new UCART, a developmental phase is necessary to individually customize each engineering step and to create a robust procedure that can later be implemented in a GMP environment to ensure the production of clinical batches. This work is performed in our research & development environment to evaluate and assess variability in each step of the process in order to define the most reliable experimental conditions.

The following diagram summarizes the generic UCART production process made of distinct unit operations. The engineering steps for transduction and electroporation can take place one before another (and several times), depending on the product.

On October 28, 2015, we announced that we completed a series of three production runs of UCART19 confirming the transfer of Cellectis’ manufacturing process into clinical grade, GMP conditions. This important milestone showed that UCARTs can be manufactured in GMP conditions and demonstrated the industrial production of UCART19, as well as the capacity of Cellectis’ pipeline of UCART product candidates to be manufactured for clinical investigations. Since then, UCART19 manufacturing of clinical supplies has been conducted by CELLforCURE to support the two clinical trials opened with UCART19 in the United Kingdom. On November 15, 2016, we announced that we completed a series of production runs of UCART123 at CELLforCURE, our CMO, to support the UCART123 Clinical Trials for which we filed an IND, the FDA approval of which was announced on February 6, 2017. This year, we also proceeded to the transfer of our manufacturing processes for UCARTCS1 and UCART22 to the same CMO.

UCART Pipeline

We are developing a series of product candidates for advanced hematologic cancers.

Our lead immuno-oncology product candidates, which we refer to as Universal CAR T-cells (UCARTs), are allogeneic CAR T-cells engineered to be used as an “off-the-shelf” treatment for any patient with a particular cancer type. Each UCART product candidate targets a selected antigen expressed on tumor cells and bears

83

specific engineered attributes, such as inhibition of alloreactivity and compatibility with specific medical regimens that cancer patients may undergo. UCART is the first therapeutic product line that we are developing with our gene-editing platform to address unmet medical needs in oncology. We are focusing our initial internal pipeline in the hematologic cancer space, targeting diseases with high unmet needs such as acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), acute myeloid leukemia (AML), blastic plasmacytoid dendritic cell neoplasm (BPDCN), multiple myeloma (MM) and different types of lymphomas. In December 2016, we filed an IND for our lead product candidate, UCART123 in AML and in BPDCN and in February 2017, we received FDA approval to initiate UCART123 Clinical Studies. All of our other product candidates are currently in the late pre-clinical / early manufacturing phase, and the following chart highlights some of these product candidates:

UCART19 for Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia

UCART19 is an allogeneic, off-the-shelf product candidate designed to exhibit high efficacy in fighting hematological malignancies bearing the B-lymphocyte antigen CD19, or CD19. In November 2015, Servier acquired the exclusive rights to UCART19 from Cellectis. Servier and Pfizer collaborate on a joint clinical development program for UCART19, and Pfizer has acquired exclusive rights from Servier to develop and commercialize UCART19 in the United States.

Targeted Indications

Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL)

ALL is a heterogeneous hematologic disease characterized by the proliferation of immature lymphoid cells in the bone marrow, peripheral blood, and other organs. The proliferation and accumulation of blast cells in the marrow results in suppression of hematopoiesis and, thereafter, anemia, thrombocytopenia, and neutropenia. Extramedullary accumulations of lymphoblasts may occur in various sites, especially the meninges, gonads, thymus, liver, spleen, or lymph nodes. The age-adjusted incidence rate of ALL in the United States is 1.7 per 100,000 individuals per year, with approximately 5970 new cases and 1440 deaths estimated in 2017. The median age at diagnosis for ALL is 15 years with 56.1% of patients diagnosed at younger than 20 years of age. In contrast, 28% of cases are diagnosed at 45 years or older and only 11.7 % of patients are diagnosed at 65 years or older. ALL represents 75% to 80% of acute leukemia among children, making it the most common form of childhood leukemia; by contrast, ALL represents approximately 20% of all leukemia among adults. The cure rates and survival outcomes for patients with ALL have improved dramatically over the past several decades, primarily among children. Improvements are largely owed to advances in the understanding of the molecular genetics and pathogenesis of the disease, the incorporation of risk-adapted therapy, and the advent of new targeted agents. Data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database have shown a 5-year overall survival (OS) of 86% to 89% for children. Adults have the poorest 5-year OS rate of 24.1% for patients between the ages of 40 and 59 years and an even lower rate of 17.7% for patients between the ages of 60 and 69 years. Despite great progress in the development of curative therapies, ALL remains a leading cause of pediatric cancer-related mortality for patients

84

presenting with a relapsed or refractory disease. New therapies are needed to overcome chemotherapy resistance and reduce non-specific treatment associated side effects.

Product Features

UCART19 is an allogeneic T-cell product intended for the treatment of CD19-expressing hematologic malignancies such as ALL.

UCART19 is designed to become active, proliferate, secrete cytokines and kill CD19-bearing B-cell malignancies upon contact with such cells, following administration to patients. Activation of UCART19 is driven by contact between its anti-CD19 CAR and the CD19 protein on the surface of tumor cells.

UCART19 cells bear a CAR targeting the CD19 antigen that drives their capacity to kill CD19-bearing cells. Moreover, as all UCART product candidates, UCART19 lacks the TCR responsible for recognition of non-self antigens by the T-cells, which allows use of healthy donor T-cells to produce UCART19, with reduced potential for GvHD. In addition, some UCART19 cells lack CD52, a protein expressed on the cell surface that makes T-cells sensitive to alemtuzumab. This feature permits the use of UCART19 in patients recently treated or being treated with the immunosuppressing/lymphodepleting agent alemtuzumab.

UCART19 activation could potentially lead to eradication of CD19-expressing cancer cells through T-cell mediated killing of such cancer cells and potentially pro-inflammatory immune system production as well as CAR T-cell amplification.

Clinical Findings

In December 2017, preliminary results from the first twelve patients in the UCART19 Clinical Studies were presented at the 59^th American Society of Hematology (ASH) Annual Meeting. These first-in-human data show 83% complete remission rate across the adult and pediatric patient population. Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) was mild and manageable except in one adult patient treated with UCART19 at the first dose level, who developed CRS Grade 4 and neutropenic sepsis leading to death at day 15. Only two cases of Grade 1 acute graft versus host disease (GvHD) occurred and no severe neurotoxicity was observed.

We are encouraged by these promising preliminary results reported for the UCART19 Clinical Studies.

Development Status

In 2016, Servier commenced the UCART19 Clinical Studies—a Phase I clinical study in pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), the PALL study, and a Phase I clinical study in adult patients with ALL, the CALM study, each of which was approved by the MHRA.

The PALL Study is commenced in United Kingdom at UCL Great Ormond Hospital (London), in Belgium at Het Kinderziekenhuis Prinses Elisabeth (Gent), and in France at Hôpital Robert-Debré (Paris).

The CALM Study is commenced in United Kingdom at King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (London), in United States at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) and at University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (Houston, Texas), and in France at Hôpital Saint-Antoine (Paris).

UCART123 for Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) and Blastic Plasmacytoid Dendritic Cell Neoplasm (BPDCN)

UCART123 is an allogeneic engineered T-cell product designed for the treatment of hematologic malignancies expressing the alpha chain of the interleukin-3 receptor, or CD123, and is currently being developed for the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and blastic plasmacytoid dentric cell neoplasm (BPDCN).

85

Targeted Indications

Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML)

Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is a form of cancer that is characterized by infiltration of the bone marrow, blood, and other tissues by proliferative, clonal, abnormally and/or poorly differentiated cells of the hematopoietic system called blast cells. These cells interfere with normal hematopoiesis, thus contributing to the bone marrow failure which is the most common underlying cause of death. AML is the most common type of acute leukemia in adults with an age-adjusted incidence rate in the United States of 4.2 per 100,000 individuals per year, with approximately 21,380 new cases and 10,590 deaths estimated in 2017. Although it can occur in children and adults, AML is primarily a disease of the elderly. The median age at onset is 68 years and only 16.5% of patients are younger than 45 years of age at diagnosis While complete response rates can be as high as 80% in patients undergoing initial induction cytotoxic chemotherapy, the majority of AML patients will ultimately be diagnosed with relapsed or refractory disease with a poor prognosis. The outcome in older patients who are unable to receive intensive chemotherapy without unacceptable side effects remains dismal, with a median survival of only 5 to 10 months. CD 123 is highly expressed on acute myeloid leukemia (AML) leukemic stem cells and blast cells, as well as in other hematologic malignancies, and constitutes an attractive target for AML.

Blastic Plasmacytoid Dendritic Cell Neoplasm (BPDCN)

Blastic plasmacytoid dendritic cell neoplasm (BPDCN) is a rare and aggressive hematological neoplasm classified among AML in the 2008 World Health Organization (WHO) classification of hematologic malignancies, and reclassified under myeloid neoplasms, acute leukemia in the 2016 WHO classification. BPDCN is a rare myeloid disease characterized by the clonal proliferation of precursors of plasmacytoid dendritic cells. There are no formal studies on the incidence of BPDCN in the general population. The few available data reported indicate that its overall incidence is extremely low, accounting for 0.44% of all hematologic malignancies and 0.7% of cutaneous lymphomas. Moreover, the leukemic form of disease is a rare phenomenon, representing fewer than 1% of cases of acute leukemia. The disease may occur at any age, but most patients are elderly men who present with skin lesions and/or involved lymph nodes, spleen, and bone marrow. Given its rarity and only recent recognition as a distinct clinico-pathological entity, no standardized therapeutic approach has been established for BPDCN and the optimal therapy remains to be defined. Although transient responses are seen to combination chemotherapy regimens used to treat acute leukemia or lymphoma, most patients relapse with drug-resistant disease with a median overall survival rate of 9 to 13 months, irrespective of the initial presentation of the disease.

Product Features

UCART123 is an allogeneic T-cell product candidate intended for the treatment of CD123-expressing hematologic malignancies.

UCART123 is designed to become active, proliferate, secrete cytokines and kill CD123 expressing cells. UCART123 bears a CAR targeting the CD123 antigen, providing specificity for CD123 expressing cells. In addition, as with all UCART products, UCART123 lacks the TCR and is intended to be used in an allogeneic context. UCART123 activity could potentially lead to eradication of CD123-expressing cancer cells through T-cell mediated killing, pro-inflammatory cytokine production as well as CAR T-cell amplification.

Pre-clinical Findings

UCART123 has been evaluated both in vitro and in animal studies, with promising results.

In vitro studies demonstrated efficient killing of human CD123-bearing cell lines by UCART123. In addition, UCART123 has also demonstrated efficient killing of human CD123-expressing cells derived from

86

AML and BPDCN patients. Animal studies were conducted in mice injected both with UCART123 and human CD123-bearing tumor cells, and have shown anti-tumor activity in an immunodeficient mouse model. In addition, in another animal model, limited toxicity against normal, healthy cells, has been observed.

UCART123 was also tested for its potential to induce GvHD. Mice receiving unmodified T-cells from a human donor showed GvHD, while mice receiving the UCART123 cells that lack the TCR showed no sign of GvHD. Pre-clinical and translational activities on UCART123 in AML and BPDCN were performed in collaboration with Weill Cornell and MD Anderson Cancer Center, respectively.

Development Status

On December 14, 2016, Cellectis received unanimous approval from the National Institute of Health’s Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee (“ RAC”) for two proposed Phase I protocols for UCART123. In February 2017, the FDA granted Cellectis an Investigational New Drug (IND) approval to conduct a Phase I clinical study with UCART123 in AML and BPDCN. The initial patients were enrolled during 2017, at Weill Cornell Medical College for AML and at MD Anderson Cancer Center for BPDCN. Due to a death in the BPDCN study, both trials were put on hold in September 2017 but then cleared to resume by the FDA, in November 2017, based on revised protocols.

UCART22 for Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL)

UCART22 is an allogeneic engineered T-cell product candidate designed for the treatment of Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL).

See “Item 4.B.—Business Overview—UCART Pipeline—UCART19 for Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia—Targeted Indications—Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia” for more information on ALL.

Product Features

UCART22 is an allogeneic engineered T-cell product candidate intended for the treatment of CD22-expressing hematologic malignancies. UCART22 is designed to become active, proliferate, secrete cytokines and kill CD22 expressing cells (i.e. either CD22 positive tumor cells or non-malignant CD22 positive B lineage cells). UCART22 bears a CAR targeting the CD22 antigen, providing specificity for CD22 expressing cells. As with all UCART products, UCART22 lacks the TCR and is intended to be used in an allogeneic context. In addition, some UCART22 cells lack CD52, a protein expressed on the cell surface that makes T-cells sensitive to alemtuzumab, a drug often used to treat CLL patients. This feature should allow for improved engraftment of the cells in conjunction with a potential alemtuzumab treatment.

UCART22 activity could potentially lead to eradication of CD22-expressing cancer cells through T-cell mediated killing, pro-inflammatory cytokine production as well as CAR T-cell amplification.

Pre-clinical findings

UCART22 has been evaluated both in vitro and in animal studies, with promising results.

In vitro studies demonstrated efficient killing of human CD22-bearing cell lines by UCART22. In addition, UCART22 has also demonstrated efficient killing of human CD22-expressing cells derived from ALL patients. Animal studies were conducted in mice injected both with UCART22 and human CD22-bearing tumor cells, and have shown anti-tumor activity in an immunodeficient mouse model. Further in vitro and in vivo studies are ongoing to further investigate the safety and the activity of UCART22.

Pre-clinical and translational activities on UCART22 in ALL are performed in collaboration with MD Anderson Cancer Center.

87

Development Status

UCART22 is at the late pre-clinical / early manufacturing stage of development. The manufacturing process has been transferred to CELLforCURE, our CMO. Manufacturing of clinical grade UCART22 at large scale in accordance with GMP was initiated at the end of 2017.

UCARTCS1 for Multiple Myeloma (MM)

UCARTCS1 is an allogeneic engineered T-cell product candidate designed for the treatment of CS1-expressing hematologic malignancies which is being developed in multiple myeloma (MM).

Targeted Indication Multiple Myeloma

Multiple myeloma (MM) is a clonal plasma cell malignant neoplasm that is characterized by the proliferation of a single clone of plasma cells producing a monoclonal immunoglobulin. This clone of plasma cells proliferates in the bone marrow and often results in extensive skeletal destruction with osteolytic lesions, osteopenia, and/or pathologic fractures. Additional disease-related complications include hypercalcemia, renal insufficiency, anemia, and infections. MM accounts for approximately 10% of hematologic malignant disorders. The annual incidence, age-adjusted to the US population, is 6.6 per 100,000, resulting in over 30,000 new patients in the United States each year. The median age at onset is 69 years, and only 3.5 % of patients are younger than 45 years of age at diagnosis. Nine drugs have been approved over the past fifteen years for the treatment of MM, substantially expanding the number of treatment regimens available for patients in all stages of the disease. In the last decade, survival of multiple myeloma (MM) patients has markedly improved with a median survival of approximately 5 to 7 years but with major variation depending on host factors, stage of the disease, cytogenetic abnormalities, and response to therapy. However, despite this progress, patients with disease refractory to both immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs) and proteasome inhibitors have a median overall survival (OS) of only 9 months.

Product Features

UCARTCS1 is an allogeneic T-cell drug candidate intended for the treatment of CS1 (also as known as SLAMF7)-expressing hematologic malignancies, in particular MM. UCARTCS1 is designed to become active, proliferate, secrete cytokines and kill CS1 expressing cells. As CS1 is expressed on the cell surface of CD8 T-cells, CS1 will be inactivated in T-cells prior to transduction with a viral vector encoding an anti-CS1 CAR. The inactivation of CS1 may improve the production and activity of UCARTCS1 by preserving the CD8 T cell population. In addition, as with all UCART products, UCARTCS1 lacks the TCR and is intended to be used in an allogeneic context.

Pre-clinical Findings

In vitro studies demonstrated efficient killing of human CS1-bearing cell lines by UCARTCS1. In addition, UCARTCS1 has also demonstrated efficient killing of human CS1-expressing cells derived from MM patients. Furthermore, while non-gene-edited T-cells expressing an anti-CS1 CAR display limited cytolytic activity in vitro against MM cell lines and result in a progressive loss of CD8 T-cells, CS1-gene-edited CAR cells (UCARTCS1) display significantly increased cytotoxic activity, with the percentage of CD8 T-cells remaining unaffected. Experiments in an orthotopic MM mouse model showed that UCARTCS1 was able to mediate an in vivo anti-tumoral activity. Further in vitro and in vivo studies are ongoing to further investigate the safety and the activity of UCARTCS1.

Pre-clinical and translational activities for UCARTCS1 in MM are performed in collaboration with the MD Anderson Cancer Center.

88

Development Status

UCARTCS1 is at the late pre-clinical / early manufacturing stage of development.

Manufacturing process transfer has been completed to CELLforCURE, our third-party manufacturing contractor, for clinical supplies of UCARTCS1.

Our Strategic Alliances

We have signed collaboration agreements with Pfizer and Servier, which we believe validate our research and approach to CAR-T. Our strategic alliances include potential milestone payments to us of up to $3.9 billion and royalties on future sales.

Research Collaboration and License Agreement with Pfizer

In June 2014, we entered into a Research Collaboration and License Agreement with Pfizer pursuant to which we collaborate to conduct discovery and pre-clinical development activities to generate CAR T-cells directed at Pfizer- and Cellectis-selected targets in the field of human oncology. We granted Pfizer an exclusive, worldwide, royalty-bearing, sublicensable license, on a target-by-target basis, under certain of our intellectual property to make, use, sell, import, and otherwise commercialize products directed at the Pfizer-selected targets in the field of human oncology.

Under the agreement, we are obligated to use commercially reasonable efforts to develop, for each Cellectis-selected target, at least one product candidate. Pfizer granted us a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free license, with sublicensing rights under certain conditions, under certain of its intellectual property to conduct research, and to make, use, sell, import and otherwise commercialize products directed at Cellectis-selected targets.

Pursuant to the agreement, Pfizer made an upfront, non-refundable $80.0 million payment to us, concurrent with Pfizer’s €25.8 million equity investment in our company. In addition, the strategic alliance provides for payments of up to $185.0 million per product that is directed against a Pfizer-selected target, with aggregate potential pre-clinical, clinical and commercial milestone payments totaling up to $2.8 billion. We are also eligible to receive from Pfizer tiered royalties on annual net sales of any products that are commercialized by Pfizer that contain or incorporate certain of our intellectual property at rates in the high single-digit percentages.

Except as required of us by our collaboration agreement with Servier, until the earlier of (1) the completion or termination of a four-year term or (2) the filing by Cellectis of an IND for certain targets to which we retain rights, we and our affiliates may not grant rights under certain of our intellectual property and intellectual property developed in the course of the collaboration to develop or commercialize CAR T-cells in the field of human oncology, other than certain specified non-commercial collaborations.

Unless earlier terminated in accordance with the agreement, our agreement with Pfizer will expire on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis, until the later of (1) the expiration of the last to expire of the licensed patents covering such product; (2) the loss of regulatory exclusivity afforded such product in such country, and (3) the tenth anniversary of the date of the first commercial sale of such product in such country; however, in no event shall the term extend, with respect to a particular licensed product, past the twentieth anniversary of the first commercial sale for such product. At any time after the first anniversary of the effective date of the agreement, Pfizer will have the right to terminate the agreement at will upon 60 days’ prior written notice, either in its entirety or on a target-by-target basis. Either party may terminate the agreement, in its entirety or on a target-by-target basis, upon 90 days’ prior written notice in the event of the other party’s uncured material breach. The agreement may also be terminated upon written notice by Pfizer at any time in the event that we become bankrupt or insolvent.

89

Research, Product Development, Option, License and Commercialization Agreement with Servier

In February 2014, we entered into a Research, Product Development, Option, License and Commercialization Agreement with Servier. Pursuant to this agreement, we are responsible for the research and development up to and including the Phase I clinical trial of candidate products directed against five targets, including the UCART19 product candidate. Pursuant to the agreement, we granted Servier the right to exercise an exclusive option to obtain an exclusive, worldwide license, on a product candidate-by-product candidate basis, with respect to each product candidate selected by Servier and developed under the agreement. Upon Servier’s exercise of each option, we shall grant Servier an exclusive, worldwide, royalty-bearing, sublicensable license under certain of our patents and know-how covering the respective product candidate to develop, manufacture and commercialize such product in the field of anti-tumor adoptive immunotherapy, and Servier will assume responsibility for the further clinical development, manufacture and commercialization of such product. During the term of the agreement, we are prohibited from researching, developing, or commercializing any product directed against a target that is used for the same purpose as it is used with a product candidate developed under the agreement.

Pursuant to the agreement, Servier made an upfront payment of $10.0 million and, upon its exercise of each license option provided for in the agreement, Servier will pay us a lump sum license fee.

In November 2015, we entered into an amendment to our initial collaboration agreement with Servier, which allowed for an early exercise of Servier’s option with respect to UCART19 and other product candidates. Pursuant to this amendment, Servier has exercised its option to acquire the exclusive worldwide rights to further develop and commercialize UCART19. In connection with the entry into the amendment to the collaboration agreement, Servier made an upfront payment of $38.5 million, excluding taxes.

As of December 31, 2017, we are eligible to receive from Servier aggregate additional payments of up to $1,064 million, comprising payments upon the exercise of options granted to Servier under the agreement and payments upon the occurrence of certain specified development and commercial milestones. Pursuant to the agreement, we are also eligible to receive tiered royalties ranging in the high single-digit percentages based on annual net sales of commercialized products.

Unless earlier terminated, the agreement will expire upon the expiration of the last to expire of the patents covering a product licensed pursuant to the agreement. Either party may terminate the agreement for the other party’s uncured material breach upon 90 days’ prior written notice to the breaching party, or 30 days’ notice if such breach relates to a payment obligation. The parties may also terminate the agreement by mutual consent. The agreement immediately and automatically terminates upon the expiration of Servier’s last license option in the event Servier has not exercised any option to license in accordance with the agreement prior to such expiration. Servier has the right, at its sole discretion, to terminate the agreement in its entirety or with respect to specific products, upon three months’ prior written notice to us. Servier may also terminate the agreement at any time for product-related safety reasons. Either party may terminate the agreement in the event of the other party’s bankruptcy or insolvency. In the event that Servier does not exercise its option to license a product candidate, we may independently pursue all activities related to such product candidate and/or license such product candidate and the associated intellectual property to a third party. For such purpose, Servier granted us a non-exclusive, sublicensable license under any such Servier-controlled intellectual property for which we will pay tiered royalties on annual net revenues at rates ranging in the low single-digit percentages.

Collaboration with Cornell University and MD Anderson Cancer Center

In 2015, we entered into alliances with Cornell University and the MD Anderson Cancer Center to accelerate the development of our lead candidate products.

Alliance with Cornell University

On June 2, 2015, Cornell University and Cellectis entered into a strategic research alliance to accelerate the development of a targeted immunotherapy for patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Under our alliance

90

with Cornell University and Cellectis will conduct research and develop clinical strategies with the objective of implementing and conducting one or more clinical trials at Weill Cornell on UCART123 and potentially other product candidates in AML. Cellectis is responsible for funding the research programs, and Cornell University and Cellectis will work together to develop and implement improvements to the research plan for the programs. The objectives of the collaboration are to demonstrate functionalities and specificity of UCART123 in vitro and in vivo, define the pre-clinical package required for a clinical trial application, prepare the clinical trial protocol and the regulatory and other study-specific documents, and discovery research for the identification of novel targets in AML patients potentially enabling the development of additional CARs for AML.

In connection with the alliance, Cellectis was responsible for generating and manufacturing UCART123 and performing in vitro and in vivo pre-clinical activities on tumor cell lines and in animal models. Cornell University was responsible for evaluating UCART123 activity against primary AML samples and in animal models, as well as evaluating toxicity against HSCs in animal models. Cornell University is also working on the development and implementation of correlative studies. In addition, Cornell University and Cellectis collaborate on the preparation of the different versions of the clinical trial protocols. Finally, Cellectis and Cornell University are working on target discovery in the AML area, in order to identify new potential targets for AML and generate new potential candidate products for AML patients.

On April 2017, we enter into a clinical trial agreement with Cornell University acting for and on behalf of its Joan and Sanford I. Weill Medical College and The New York Presbyterian Hospital (collectively referred to as Weill Cornell) under which Weill Cornell performs the UCART123 clinical study for AML.

Alliance with The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center

On September 1, 2015, Cellectis and the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (the MD Anderson Cancer Center) entered into a research and development alliance (the Strategic Alliance Agreement) aimed at bringing novel cellular immunotherapies to patients suffering from different types of liquid tumors, particularly multiple myeloma (MM), acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (T-ALL) and blastic plasmacytoid dendritic cell neoplasm (BPDCN). Under this strategic alliance, the MD Anderson Cancer Center and Cellectis have agreed to collaboratively conduct several pre-clinical studies on candidate products: UCART123 in BPDCN, UCARTCS1 for multiple myeloma, UCART38 for T-ALL and UCART22 for ALL. Cellectis has agreed to provide funding and other support for these studies. The objective of the studies is to build on complementary expertise from the MD Anderson Cancer Center and Cellectis for the development of the product candidates. The MD Anderson Cancer Center and Cellectis will work together to develop and implement improvements to the research plan for the programs under joint direction of the MD Anderson Cancer Center and Cellectis’ investigators. The objective of the studies is to demonstrate the functionalities and specificity of the UCART candidate products listed above, define the pre-clinical package required for clinical trial applications, prepare a clinical trial protocol and the regulatory documents required for interactions with FDA and the clinical trial applications. Pursuant to the alliance, Cellectis is responsible for generation and manufacturing of the UCART candidate products and some of the in vitro and in vivo pre-clinical work. The MD Anderson Cancer Center is responsible for evaluation of the candidate products against primary patient samples and for some activities to be performed in animal models. The alliance also includes the possibility for Cellectis and the MD Anderson Cancer Center to collaborate on one or more early phase clinical studies on the same product candidates.

Pursuant to the Strategic Alliance Agreement, we entered, in March 2017, into a study order with MD Anderson Cancer Center, according to which MD Anderson Cancer Center performs the UCART123 clinical study for BPDCN.

On January 2018, we entered into a new study order with MD Anderson Cancer Center in order to expand the performance of the UCART123 clinical study in AML to MD Anderson Cancer Center.

91

Raw Materials

We are dependent on specialized third parties, who are subject to stringent manufacturing requirements and regulations, for the supply of various critical and biological materials—such as cells, cytokines, vectors, nucleic acids, antibodies—that are necessary to produce our product candidates. We source these raw and starting materials through master service agreements and/or on a purchase order basis and do not systematically have long-term supply contracts in place. However, we believe that competitive pricing is achieved because there are a number of potential long-term replacements to each of our suppliers. Generally, the prices of the principal biological raw and starting materials that we purchase are stable or fluctuate within a limited range. To the extent that we are exposed to price fluctuations, we generally do not expect, in the near term, to be able to pass on cost increases because of the early development stage of our product candidates.

Applications of Our Technology in Agriculture

Calyxt was incorporated in the State of Delaware in the United States in 2010. Calyxt is a consumer-centric, food- and agriculture-focused company that is combining its leading gene-editing technology and technical expertise with an innovative commercial strategy to pioneer a paradigm shift to deliver healthier food ingredients for consumers and agriculturally advantageous traits for farmers. Before its initial public offering, which closed on July 25, 2017, Calyxt was a wholly owned subsidiary of ours. As of December 31, 2017, we owned approximately 79.7% of Calyxt’s outstanding common stock. Calyxt’s common stock is listed on the Nasdaq market under the ticker symbol “CLXT”.

Calyxt’s commercial strategy is centered on two core elements: developing healthier specialty food ingredients to enable the food industry to address evolving consumer trends and developing agriculturally advantageous traits, such as herbicide tolerance, for farmers. Its first product candidate, which is expected to be commercialized by the end of 2018, is a high oleic soybean designed to produce a healthier oil that has increased heat stability with zero trans fats. Among Calyxt’s other product candidates are high fiber wheat and herbicide tolerant wheat. We believe each of these three Calyxt product candidates addresses a multibillion dollar market opportunity. Moreover, while the traits that enable these characteristics may occur naturally and randomly through evolution—or under a controlled environment through traditional agricultural technologies—those processes are imprecise and take many years, if not decades. Calyxt’s technology enables it to cost effectively edit a plant genome with precision and specificity in order to elicit the desired traits and characteristics, resulting in a final product that has no foreign DNA.

Gene Editing in Agricultural Biotechnology

While plant breeders have been crossbreeding varieties and selecting advantageous traits for thousands of years, the modern agriculture industry has relied primarily on two methods of crop improvement: genetic modification, which involves the use of genetic technologies to randomly insert foreign genetic material into a plant’s genome for the development of seeds in which the inserted genes express specific traits, and chemical mutagenesis, in which mutagenesis is induced in plants using agents and chemicals. We believe these traditional approaches can no longer effectively meet societal demands for innovative solutions demanded by the consumer and the farmer. We believe that the proprietary technologies deployed by Calyxt will bridge this divide because it enables Calyxt to precisely and specifically edit a plant genome to elicit a desired trait and characteristic and to do so more quickly and cost effectively than traditional methods.

Market Dynamics

The agriculture industry has historically been burdened by high infrastructure costs in a market that has focused on price and market share resulting in commoditization. A highly segmented supply chain has also resulted in the legacy agriculture companies focusing on increasing margins and market share through increased yields and consolidation, and on passing along maximum value to the growers, thereby keeping pace with the

92

growing demand for food globally. Over the past few decades the agriculture industry has seen a consolidation of over 200 seed companies, leaving the industry with only a handful of large, dominant players such as Bayer AG, Monsanto Co., DowDuPont Inc., AgReliant and Syngenta AG. In addition, development at these legacy agriculture companies has been significantly limited by time and cost constraints. Genetic modification, a primary method of these companies to improve crops, involves a lengthy and expensive process to progress a new crop from the discovery stage through commercialization. Innovations have primarily achieved increases in yields and food production volumes through the creation of herbicide tolerance and insect resistance, using genetically modified traits that in many cases contain bacterial DNA. We believe these industry dynamics explain the inability for the agricultural industry to evolve to a consumer- and farmer-focused approach, and thereby effectively meet their demands as societal trends shift and provide new market opportunities.

TALEN Technology Platform in Agricultural Biotechnology

Using proprietary technologies and expertise, Calyxt edits the genome of food crops by using “molecular scissors” to precisely cut DNA in a single plant cell, use the plant’s natural repair machinery to make a desired edit and finally regenerate the single cell into a full plant. Calyxt is able to develop targeted traits—some of which would be nearly impossible to develop using traditional trait-development methods—quicker, more efficiently and more cost effectively than would be possible using traditional trait-development methods. Calyxt’s technology also puts it in a position to assess the probability of success early on in the research and development process, potentially eliminating excess cost associated with traditional trait-development methods and further reducing the risk of the product development process.

Calyxt’s proprietary technologies and intellectual property portfolio enable it to edit DNA in living plant cells by knocking out genes or creating precise gene edits. Calyxt’s scientists are capable of custom designing DNA-sequence specific cutting enzymes for any chosen gene that they need to edit and to introduce such custom-made nucleases into the living plant cells they want to edit. Calyxt takes advantage of deep knowledge about plant gene function to create novel genetic variation that results in traits of value.

A feature that distinguishes Calyxt’s products from those created through genetic modification is that Calyxt’s crop varieties lack foreign DNA. As such, for each of the six product candidates Calyxt has submitted to date, the USDA has confirmed that the products are not regulated articles, which represents regulatory cost savings for the development of these products.

In addition, by utilizing proprietary TALEN gene-editing technologies and leveraging Calyxt’s expertise and innovative supply chain, we believe that Calyxt is able to identify a consumer or farmer need and develop a

93

product from “concept to fork” or “concept to field” in approximately three to six years, which would make it possible to effectively respond to evolving consumer preferences and farmer needs.

Calyxt Agricultural Biotechnology Products

Calyxt has an extensive product pipeline, as set forth in the table below, that is intended to address the potential market opportunities Calyxt has identified to date.

Calyxt categorizes the stages of pre-commercial development from Phase I to Phase III. Prior to entering Phase I, in Discovery, Calyxt identifies genes of interest. In Phase I, Calyxt edits the identified genes of interest, targets edits that it wishes to make, and produces an initial seed that contains the desired edit. Phase II is trait validation, where Calyxt performs small-scale and large-scale tests to confirm phenotype and ingredient functionality. In this phase Calyxt also performs replicated, multi-location field testing, after confirming that the product is not a regulated article by the USDA. In Phase III, Calyxt develops the first commercial-scale pilot production, begins to build out the supply chain and inventory and performs customer testing prior to commercialization.

Calyxt’s current main product candidates are:

High Oleic Soybean (Consumer Trait)

Soybean oil has historically been partially hydrogenated to enhance its oxidative stability in order to increase shelf life and improve frying characteristics. This process, however, creates trans-unsaturated fatty acids, or trans fats, which have been demonstrated to raise low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels and

94

lower high-density lipoprotein (HDL), both of which contribute to cardiovascular disease. The discovery that dietary trans fats increase the risk of several health issues led the FDA to rule in 2003 that manufacturers be required to include trans fat content information on the “Nutrition Facts” label of foods. In 2015, the FDA took a further step and banned the use of partially hydrogenated oils, the primary dietary source of artificial trans fat in processed foods, by all food manufacturers beginning in 2018. After the FDA’s 2003 ruling, commodity soybean oil—which leads to high trans fats in foods—lost approximately 20% market share to other vegetable oils, such as palm oil and canola oil.

Monounsaturated fats, such as oleic acid, have been linked to reducing LDL cholesterol and triglycerides and raising HDL cholesterols. Diets rich in monounsaturated acids are associated with lower fat mass and decreased blood pressure. High levels of oleic acids can be found in olive, canola, sunflower and safflower oils.

Calyxt developed a soybean trait that has produced oils with a fatty acid profile that contains 80% oleic acid, 20% less saturated fatty acids compared to commodity soybean oil and zero transfats. Oil created from Calyxt’s high oleic soybean product candidate has multiple desirable characteristics as an ingredient for the food industry. The high level of oleic acid in Calyxt’s soybean oil enhances oxidative stability more than fivefold when compared to commodity oil. This eliminates the need for partial hydrogenation, and thus no trans fats are produced during oil production. Furthermore, Calyxt’s high oleic soybean oil offers additional potential benefits, including reduced saturated fats, a threefold increase in fry-life, and reduced polymerization upon frying at high temperatures. Soybean oil is also neutral in flavor, odorless and colorless, and is therefore highly desired as a food ingredient because it has limited impact on the sensory characteristics of the final food product.

Calyxt’s high oleic soybean product candidate was created using our TALEN gene-editing technology. We designed TALEN to specifically target two fatty acid desaturase genes (designated FAD2-1A and FAD2-1B). These genes convert oleic acid (a mono-unsaturated fatty acid) to linoleic acid (a polyunsaturated fat). By specifically inactivating both the FAD2-1A and FAD2-1B genes by removing DNA with TALEN, oleic acid accumulates in the seed—increasing from about 20% to 80%. By key measures, including yield, this high oleic soybean variety performs comparably to its unedited counterpart. Further, this improved soybean variety does not contain any foreign DNA. Because the TALEN technology is so precise and can target genes with well-known functions in the plant, Calyxt has not, to date, detected any other changes as a result of the gene-editing process or undesired effects in the product.

In mid-2015, Calyxt received a letter from the USDA indicating that its high oleic soybean variety is not a regulated article under the Plant Protection Act. This allowed Calyxt to test the performance of its soybean variety in the field. In November 2015, Calyxt announced the completion of the second year of multi-location field trials in Minnesota and South Dakota. The agronomic and yield performance of its high oleic soybeans is on par with the non-GMO variety used to create this product.

Calyxt’s soybean product candidate is in Phase III of the development process, and Calyxt is making preparations to create the capacity to crush on a commercial scale, which will enable product testing by potential food company customers. During the third quarter of 2017, Calyxt completed the harvest of its high oleic soybean and produced more high-quality seeds than needed to meet its commercialization target date. Calyxt is currently completing its commercialization plan and anticipates commercialization by the end of 2018.

In December 2017, Calyxt announced its partnership with Farmers Business Network (FBN) to expand the distribution and grower base of its identity-preserved high oleic soybeans. FBN will distribute its high oleic soybean seeds to growers in its network and register farmers for our Producer Premium Program. This partnership will help develop a dedicated, high-quality grower base and bolster supply chain operations in the upper Midwest.

In addition, Calyxt’s high oleic soybean product candidate can be stacked with other soybean traits.

95

High Fiber Wheat (Consumer Trait)

Research has shown that fiber—the indigestible portion of food—may play a large role in maintaining bowel health, lowering cholesterol, stabilizing blood glucose levels and controlling weight gain. In recent years, the awareness of the health benefits of high fiber diets has increased, which has translated to a strong growth in demand for high fiber food products.

Calyxt is developing high fiber wheat traits that could be used to produce white flour with up to three times more dietary fiber than standard white flour. Calyxt anticipates that by altering the proportion of certain slower digested carbohydrates in the wheat grain, it will increase dietary fiber. This would allow consumers to reach their daily value of fiber without changing their existing food preferences. These high fiber wheat product candidates will not contain any foreign DNA.

This product candidate is currently in Phase I of Calyxt’s development process and may launch as early as 2020 – 2021. The gene-edited wheat line has been identified and grown and the fiber levels are under examination in grain derived from greenhouse grown plants.

In addition to Calyxt’s high fiber wheat product candidate, Calyxt is also developing other consumer traits in its wheat pipeline, including a reduced gluten product candidate.

Herbicide Tolerant Wheat (Farmer Trait)

Weed control is one of the greatest challenges farmers face in producing crops. Herbicide tolerance is a plant’s ability to withstand a particular chemical herbicide. Herbicide tolerance traits in crops can provide additional crop protection chemistry alternatives to control weeds and increase crop yields.

Herbicide tolerant traits may offer farmers a vital tool in managing weeds effectively during crop production. The deployment of herbicide tolerant traits in wheat significantly lags other major crops and wheat production is constantly faced with yield-robbing weeds that can result in lower yield and higher dockage costs at the elevator. In the United States, no broad acre GMO herbicide tolerant trait has been developed for wheat, largely due to the complexity of the wheat genome.

Calyxt is pioneering the development of herbicide tolerant traits in wheat without the use of foreign DNA, built using the TALEN gene-editing technology. Calyxt aims to achieve herbicide tolerance by specifically making a subtle repair to prevent herbicides from being able to recognize and block functions of certain plant-encoded proteins, such that the edited plant survives the application of the herbicide. In September 2017, Calyxt successfully advanced its herbicide tolerant wheat program from the Discovery phase into Phase I development.

Powdery Mildew Resistant Wheat (Farmer Trait)

In addition to herbicide tolerance, Calyxt is developing traits that are advantageous to the farmer including a variety of wheat that confers resistance to a fungal pathogen, namely powdery mildew. Powdery mildew resistant wheat advanced to Phase II in 2017 after successfully conducting the first field trial to assess agronomic and trait performance of the powdery mildew resistance trait line. We believe powdery mildew resistance may increase yield and reduce the need for the use of costly fungicides.

Improved Oil Composition Canola (Consumer Trait)

Calyxt’s improved oil composition canola is its first canola product candidate. The development of this first canola product expands Calyxt’s improved oils franchise, in line with its mission to create healthier specialty ingredients and become a preferred partner of the food industry. In September 2017, Calyxt successfully advanced its improved oil composition canola program from Discovery stage into Phase I development.

96

Other Products in Our Development Pipeline

Calyxt’s extensive product pipeline includes a variety of consumer- and farmer-centric traits for soybean, wheat, canola, alfalfa and potato. As of December 31, 2017, Calyxt had a total of nine product candidates in Phase I or higher across its five crops, which is reflective of its rapidly advancing product pipeline.

Intellectual Property

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

To achieve this objective, we maintain a strategic focus on identifying and licensing key patents that provide protection and serve as an optimal platform to enhance our intellectual property and technology base.

Historical Perspectives

Cellectis was founded in early 2000. In June 2000, Institut Pasteur provided us with exclusive rights to its gene-editing patent portfolio. This patent portfolio includes patents relating to homologous recombination and rare-cutting endonucleases (also named meganucleases), respectively, for genetic engineering in living cells.

Since 2002, we have filed a large number of patent applications, many now issued as patents, for custom-made meganucleases, and uses thereof, that specifically target a desired genetic sequence in a genome. In 2014, we entered into a cross-licensing agreement with Precision Biosciences, Inc., or Precision, in settlement of patent litigation and patent proceedings related to this technology. Pursuant to this cross-license, we licensed our patents and patent applications in this area to Precision, and Precision licensed its relevant patents and patent applications to us.

In 2010, we acquired a portfolio of patents and patent applications relating to electroporation methods and devices. In 2011, we entered into an exclusive license agreement with the Regents of the University of Minnesota (UMN) pursuant to which we in-licensed one patent family related to a new generation of customized rare-cutting endonucleases, in connection with which we have registered the trademark TALEN in certain jurisdictions outside of the United States. This patent portfolio comprises five patents in the United States and one European patent, which is under opposition before the European Patent Office. In addition, in 2014, we entered into a series of agreements with Life Technologies Corporation (now Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc.) pursuant to which we received a non-exclusive sublicense under certain patents and patent applications related to the research and therapeutic uses of TALEN and we granted certain rights to Life Technologies under our TALEN technology. In addition, we entered into a license agreement with Calyxt, pursuant to which Calyxt has been granted certain rights in connection with our gene editing and plant intellectual property portfolio.

Since 2012, we have filed about 50 new patent applications related to the CAR T-cell technology. Included in this patent portfolio are patent applications relating to manufacturing allogeneic immune cells and to CAR design, including multi-subunit CARs and conditional expression CARs. In addition, we have filed a number of patent applications related to new TALEN structures (for example, compact TALEN, methylation TALEN) and alternatives to the TALEN structure (BurrH, CRISPR-Cas9).

In October 2014 and March 2014, we exclusively in-licensed two patent portfolios from Ohio State Innovation Foundation and University College London, respectively. The Ohio State Innovation Foundation patent portfolio includes an international patent application relating to CARs directed to cancer marker CS1. The University College London patent portfolio includes patent applications relating to a polypeptide expressing the suicide gene RQR8, and uses thereof.

97

Current Intellectual Property Portfolio

As a result of the licensing opportunities described below and our continuing research and development efforts, our intellectual property estate now contains patent applications that cover our products, including claims that cover:

The issued patents in our portfolio consist of approximately 27 Cellectis-owned and 47 in-licensed U.S. patents, 16 Cellectis-owned and 13 in-licensed European patents, and 47 Cellectis-owned and 13 in-licensed patents in other jurisdictions, including Australia, Canada, China, Hong Kong, India, Israel, Japan, Korea, Mexico and Singapore.

The pending patent applications in our portfolio consist of approximately 115 Cellectis-owned and 20 in-licensed U.S. patent applications, 80 Cellectis-owned and 19 in-licensed European patent applications, and 436 Cellectis-owned and 67 in-licensed patent applications pending in other jurisdictions, including Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Hong Kong, India, Israel, Japan, Korea, Mexico and Singapore.

Our portfolio includes a total of 165 owned and in-licensed granted patents, and 737 owned and in-licensed patent applications.

Our UCART product candidates rely for each product candidate upon one or more patent rights protecting various aspects of the technologies, including rights relating to:

For additional information, see “—Gene-Editing Platform” below.

Similarly, our most advanced agricultural product candidates each rely upon one or more patent rights relating to:

98

Individual patent terms extend for varying periods of time, depending upon the date of filing of the patent application, the date of patent issuance, and the legal term of patents in the countries in which they are obtained. In most countries in which we file patent applications, including the United States, the patent term is 20 years from the date of filing of the first non-provisional application to which priority is claimed. In certain instances, a patent term can be extended under certain circumstances. For example, in the United States, the term of a patent that covers an FDA-approved drug may be eligible for a patent term restoration of up to five years to effectively compensate for the patent term lost during the FDA regulatory review process, subject to several limitations discussed below under “—Our Intellectual Property Strategy.” Also, in the United States, a patent’s term may be lengthened by patent term adjustment, which compensates a patentee for administrative delays by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in granting a patent, or may be shortened if a patent is terminally disclaimed over an earlier-filed patent. Our issued patents will expire on dates ranging from 2019 to 2035. If patents are issued on our pending patent applications, the resulting patents are projected to expire on dates ranging from 2023 to 2035. However, the actual protection afforded by a patent varies on a product-by-product basis, from country-to-country, and depends upon many factors, including the type of patent, the scope of its coverage, the availability of regulatory-related extensions, the availability of legal remedies in a particular country, and the validity and enforceability of the patent.

The patent portfolio for our most advanced product candidates, UCART19 and UCART123, are summarized below.

Gene Editing Platform

Each of our UCART product candidates relies upon our gene-editing platform and T-cell and CAR technology platforms. The patent portfolio covering these platforms and technologies, includes approximately 30 issued patents or pending patent applications. These issued patents and pending patent applications, which expire between 2019 and 2033, cover product claims or process claims relevant to each of our product candidates, including UCART19 and UCART123.

Our gene-editing platform and each of our UCART product candidates benefits from the protections of several patents and patent applications in our patent portfolio. As a result of this broad range of patent protection, very few individual patents in our portfolio are critical to our ability to effectively conduct our product development activities. Although certain patents relating to our electroporation technology will expire in 2019, other patents covering this technology remain in force or are expected to be granted under patent applications, and additional patents protect the nucleases delivered by our electroporation technology, as well as the methods to modify the cells by use of such nucleases. As a result of the breadth of our patent protection and the integration of patented technologies, compositions and methods of use within our gene-editing, T-cell and CAR technology platforms, we do not expect that the expiration of these patents in 2019, individually or in the aggregate, will have a material effect on our future operations or financial position.

UCART19

In addition to the patent portfolio relating to our platform and technologies, described above, our patent portfolio relating specifically to UCART19 includes pending patent applications from the patent family WO2014184143 (CD19 Specific Chimeric Antigen Receptor and Uses Thereof). We believe these pending patent applications, which, if issued, would expire in 2034, include claims to cover the composition of matter of UCART19, methods of manufacture of UCART19, and methods to use UCART19 in treatment.

99

UCART123

In addition to the patent portfolio relating to our platform and technologies, described above, our patent portfolio relating specifically to UCART123 includes pending patent applications from the patent family WO2015140268 (CD123 Specific Chimeric Antigen Receptors for Cancer Immunotherapy). We believe these pending patent applications, which, if issued, would expire in 2034, include claims to cover the composition of matter of UCART123, methods of manufacture of UCART123, and methods to use UCART123 in treatment.

In each case, some of the issued patents and pending patent applications, if issued, may be eligible for patent term extension and patent term adjustment, thereby extending their terms, as described above.

Material Exclusive Licenses Granted to Cellectis

Licenses from Institut Pasteur

In 2000, we entered into three license agreements with L’Institut Pasteur, or Pasteur, pursuant to which we in-licensed a substantial portion of Pasteur’s gene-editing patent portfolio. The details of the two license agreements that remain in effect are provided below.

In June 2000, we entered into an agreement with Pasteur, later amended in 2003 (collectively, the “Second June 2000 Agreement”), acting on its own behalf and on the Boston Children Hospital’s behalf, pursuant to which it granted to us an exclusive, worldwide, royalty-bearing, sublicenseable license under certain patents and know-how owned by Pasteur and the Boston Children’s Hospital relating to certain chimeric endonucleases for chromosomal gene editing by homologous recombination in cells to use, manufacture, and sell products and to practice processes covered by such patents. The license granted under the Second June 2000 Agreement is non-exclusive, however, with respect to the licensed processes applied to human gene therapy. In the event that Pasteur has the possibility to grant exploitation rights for applications to human gene therapy, it must immediately inform us, and we may amend our agreement with Pasteur to obtain such exploitation rights. One of the licensed patents is under third party ex-parte reexamination.

The exclusivity of each of the licenses granted under the Second June 2000 Agreement is further contingent upon our continued diligence in designing, developing, and obtaining the required regulatory authorizations necessary to sell the respective licensed products and processes.

In October 2000, we entered into an agreement with Pasteur, later amended in 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2007 (collectively, the “October Agreement”), pursuant to which we obtained an exclusive, worldwide, royalty-bearing, sublicenseable license under certain patents and know-how owned by Pasteur relating to a method of homologous recombination to make, use, and sell products and to implement processes covered by such patents. The exclusivity of the license granted under the October Agreement is subject to a license granted to a third party under the licensed patents in the domain of genes that encode for Erythropoietin.

We may only grant sub-licenses under our Pasteur agreements with Pasteur’s prior approval, which is deemed to have been given if Pasteur does not object to a proposed sub-license within a specified period of time from notice of the proposed sublicense and which may only be withheld for serious cause.

Pursuant to the terms of each of the Second June 2000 Agreement, we made cash payments to Pasteur in an aggregate amount of 600,000 French Francs with respect to the entry into the agreement and the reimbursement of license fees. Pursuant to the terms of the October Agreement, we made cash payments to Pasteur in the aggregate amount of 500,000 French Francs with respect to the entry into the agreement and the reimbursement of license fees and 250,000 Euros in connection with the execution of amendments. Under the Second June 2000 Agreement, we are also required to pay Pasteur an ongoing royalty fee equal to a low- to mid-single digit percentage of our net income with respect to licensed products under the respective agreement. With respect to sublicenses granted under the Second June 2000 Agreement, we are also required to pay Pasteur a percentage of

100

all payments received under such sublicenses, subject in certain cases to minimum payment amounts based on net revenues of the applicable sublicensee. Under the October Agreement, we are also required to pay Pasteur an ongoing royalty fee equal to a low-single digit percentage of our net income with respect to licensed products under the October Agreement. With respect to sublicenses granted under the October Agreement, we are required to pay Pasteur a tiered percentage of all compensation received by us during the applicable year under the sublicense agreement, subject in certain cases to minimum payment amounts based on net revenues of the applicable sublicensee.

The terms of each of our agreements with Pasteur will expire upon the expiration of the last-to-expire of the respective patents licensed to us pursuant to the applicable agreement. We expect the last to expire patent under the Second June 2000 Agreement to expire on February 3, 2020 and the last to expire patent under the October Agreement to expire on April 3, 2020. Pasteur and we may each terminate any of our agreements with Pasteur in the event of the other party’s breach of an obligation under the applicable agreement, which remains uncured for 90 days following receipt of notice of such breach from the terminating party. Pasteur may immediately terminate such agreements if we challenge or contest the validity of any of the licensed patents under the respective agreement before a court or patents office. In addition, Pasteur and we may terminate any of the agreements, upon 60 days’ prior notice, in connection with certain insolvency-related judicial proceedings instituted against the other party. Further, we have the right to terminate any of these agreements for any reason immediately upon notice to Pasteur.

License from Regents of the University of Minnesota

In January 2011, we entered into an exclusive license agreement with Regents of the University of Minnesota, or UMN. Pursuant to this agreement, as amended in 2012, 2014, and 2015 we and our affiliates were granted an exclusive, worldwide, royalty-bearing, sublicenseable license, under certain patents and patent applications owned by UMN, to make, use, sell, import, and otherwise dispose of products covered by the licensed patents, for all fields of use. These licensed patents relate to TALEN molecules and their use in gene editing. Pursuant to the agreement, we are required to achieve certain specified research- and sales-related milestones.

Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, we paid UMN an upfront license fee in the amount of $250,000 upon the effective date of the license agreement, and a second upfront payment in the amount of $1,000,000 following execution of the third amendment. In the non-agricultural field we are also required to pay to UMN low single digit percentage royalties on net sales of licensed products, as well as a percentage of all revenues received by us under sublicenses. Pursuant to the agreement, UMN is entitled to a minimum annual royalties of $30,000 per year. In the agricultural field, no royalties are due on net sales of licensed products, but an annual fee of $150,000 per year is due to UMN and commercial milestones are due upon the occurrence of certain commercial sale milestones. We are also required to pay UMN milestone payments up to a total of $290,000 in the aggregate upon the occurrence of specified events and to pay certain patent-related expenses incurred under the agreement for prosecuting and maintaining the licensed patents. If we undergo a change of control and wish to assign our rights and duties under the agreement, we will be required to pay UMN an additional transfer fee.

The license agreement will expire upon the expiration of the last to expire valid claim of the licensed patents. UMN may terminate the agreement upon advance written notice in the event of our insolvency or bankruptcy, and immediately upon written notice in the event that we challenge the validity or enforceability of any licensed patent in a court or other applicable authority. UMN and we may terminate the agreement by written notice in the event of the other party’s breach that has not been cured within a specified number of days after receiving notice of such breach.

License from Ohio State Innovation Foundation

In October 2014, we entered into an exclusive license agreement with Ohio State Innovation Foundation. Pursuant to this agreement, we were granted an exclusive, worldwide, royalty-bearing, sublicenseable license

101

under certain patents and patent applications owned by Ohio State Innovation Foundation to use, make, distribute, sell, lease, loan or import products or process covered by the licensed patents, for any and all activities relating to cancer immunotherapy. The licensed portfolio includes an international patent application relating to CAR directed to cancer marker CS1. Pursuant to the agreement, we must use diligence and commercially reasonable efforts to commercialize licensed products or processes, including achieving certain milestone events by specified deadlines, subject to our ability to extend such deadlines upon payment of certain fees.

Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, we paid Ohio State Innovation Foundation an upfront license fee in the amount of $100,000. We are required to pay an annual license maintenance fee of $20,000 from 2015 onward until our first sale of a licensed product. We are also required to pay to Ohio State Innovation Foundation low single-digit percentage royalties on net sales of licensed products and licensed processes by us and are subject to minimum annual royalties due to Ohio State Innovation Foundation of $100,000. We are also required to pay Ohio State Innovation Foundation a percentage of royalties paid to us by sublicensees. We are also required to pay Ohio State Innovation Foundation milestone payments up to a total of $1,950,000 in the aggregate upon the occurrence of certain development-related events prior to deadlines specified in the agreement.

Unless earlier terminated, the license agreement will expire upon the expiration of the last to expire valid claim of the licensed patents, which we expect will be on May 2, 2034. We may terminate the agreement at our option by giving 90 days’ written notice. Ohio State Innovation Foundation may immediately terminate the agreement, any part of the licensed patent rights or the agreement’s exclusivity if we fail to make required payments under the agreement and such breach continues for sixty days after delivery of written notice from Ohio State Innovation Foundation or if we breach any other provision of the agreement and fail to cure such breach within 60 days after delivery of written notice from Ohio State Innovation Foundation. Ohio State Innovation Foundation may also terminate the agreement if we or our affiliate initiates any proceeding or action challenging the validity, enforceability or scope of any of the patent rights or assists a third party in such a proceeding or action. The agreement automatically terminates if we file for bankruptcy or become bankrupt or insolvent, our board of directors elects to liquidate our assets or dissolve our business, we cease business operations, we make an assignment for the benefit of creditors or if we are otherwise placed in the hands of a receiver, assignee or trustee, whether by our voluntary act or otherwise.

Other Exclusive Licenses Granted to Cellectis

With respect to our plant sciences business, we have filed nine patent applications in connection with new soybean, tobacco and potato traits. These new traits have been obtained mainly by using TALEN, which is protected by the UMN and the Cellectis TALEN patent portfolios.

License Agreements from Regents of the University of Minnesota

In December 2014, Calyxt entered into an exclusive license with the Regents of the University of Minnesota, or UMN, pursuant to which Calyxt was granted an exclusive, worldwide, sublicensable license under a specified patent application owned by UMN relating to the use of the CRISPR-Cas9 technology to make use, and commercialize products covered by the licensed patents in any field of use. Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, Calyxt must use commercially reasonable efforts to commercialize the licensed technology and to manufacture, offer to sell, and sell licensed products as soon as practicable and to maximize sales. Calyxt must also achieve certain sales- and patent-related milestones.

Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, Calyxt paid UMN an upfront license fee payment in the amount of $130,000 in connection with entering into the agreement. Calyxt is also required to pay UMN a tiered annual fee that increases from $20,000 to $225,000 based on the occurrence of certain specified events, including the grant of a sublicense to a third party, as well as patent-related expenses incurred under the agreement in prosecuting and maintaining the licensed patents. Calyxt is also required to pay UMN a percentage of all revenues received by it under sublicenses. If Calyxt undergoes a change of control and wishes to assign all of its rights and duties under the agreement, Calyxt will have to pay UMN a specified transfer fee.

102

Unless earlier terminated, the agreement will continue in effect until no licensed patent is active and until no licensed patent application is pending, which we expect will be on March 24, 2034. UMN may terminate the agreement for Calyxt’s uncured breach of the agreement upon 90 days’ prior written notice, or 60 days’ prior written notice if the breach relates to Calyxt’s payment obligations under the agreement. UMN may also terminate the agreement, upon 10 days’ prior written notice, if Calyxt files for bankruptcy or becomes insolvent. UMN may also immediately terminate the agreement if Calyxt or its agents or representatives commences or maintains an action in any court or before any governmental agency asserting or alleging the invalidity or unenforceability of the licensed patent rights. Calyxt may terminate the agreement for UMN’s uncured breach of the agreement upon 90 days’ prior written notice. Calyxt may also terminate the agreement at any time upon 60 days’ prior written notice.

Other Exclusive License Granted to Calyxt

In April 2015, we entered into an exclusive license agreement with Plant Bioscience Limited, or PBL, pursuant to which we were granted an exclusive, worldwide license to use and exploit certain gene-editing technologies related to wheat with endogenous resistance to powdery mildew, and to provide commercial development and technical services to third parties. The technology licensed to us was originally exclusively licensed to PBL by the Institute of Genetics and Developmental Biology, or IGDB, which holds certain rights to which our exclusive license from PBL is subject. Pursuant to the agreement, we are required to use commercially reasonable efforts to achieve certain milestones in a specified development and commercial program, and to exploit the license so as to maximize the sublicensing of the licensed technology and the development and commercial use of the licensed products.

The agreement will expire on the later of the tenth anniversary of the date that sales of the licensed products first occurred or the last expiration of a valid claim of a licensed patent. We may terminate the agreement at any time for any reason by giving PBL written notice. PBL may terminate the agreement upon our material breach of the agreement that has not been cured within a specified number of days after receiving notice of such breach. The agreement will also automatically terminate if we become insolvent or bankrupt.

In December 2017, we entered into an Evaluation License and Option Agreement with PBL to evaluate gene-editing technologies related to wheat with altered grain size and structure. The licensed technology was originally licensed to PBL by IGDB, which holds certain rights to which our evaluation license from PBL is subject. Pursuant to the agreement, we have the ability to evaluate the technology in-house with the option of acquiring a worldwide exclusive right. The agreement will endure for a period of three years from the effective date.

Our Intellectual Property Strategy

We believe our current layered patent estate, together with our efforts to develop and patent next generation technologies, provides us with substantial intellectual property protection. However, the area of patent and other intellectual property rights in biotechnology is an evolving one with many risks and uncertainties.

Our strategy is also to develop and obtain additional intellectual property covering innovative manufacturing processes and methods for genetically engineering T-cells expressing new constructs and for genetically engineering plants expressing new traits. To support this effort, we have established expertise and development capabilities focused in the areas of pre-clinical research and development, manufacturing and manufacturing process scale-up, quality control, quality assurance, regulatory affairs and clinical trial design and implementation. Thus, we expect to file additional patent applications to expand this layer of our intellectual property estate.

The term of individual patents depends upon the legal term of the patents in the countries in which they are obtained. In most countries in which we file, the patent term is 20 years from the date of filing of the first

103

non-provisional application to which priority is claimed. In the United States, a patent’s term may be lengthened by patent term adjustment, which compensates a patentee for administrative delays by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in granting a patent, or may be shortened if a patent is terminally disclaimed over an earlier-filed patent. The term of a patent that covers an FDA-approved drug may also be eligible for a patent term restoration of up to five years under the Hatch-Waxman Act, which is designed to compensate for the patent term lost during the FDA regulatory review process. The length of the patent term restoration is calculated based on the length of time the drug is under regulatory review. A patent term restoration under the Hatch-Waxman Act cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval and only one patent applicable to an approved drug may be restored. Moreover, a patent can only be restored once, and thus, if a single patent is applicable to multiple products, it can only be extended based on one product. Similar provisions are available in Europe and certain other foreign jurisdictions to extend the term of a patent that covers an approved drug. When possible, depending upon the length of clinical trials and other factors involved in the filing of a BLA, we expect to apply for patent term extensions for patents covering our product candidates and their methods of use.

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

We may rely, in some circumstances, on trade secrets to protect our technology. However, trade secrets can be difficult to protect. We seek to protect our proprietary technology and processes, in part, by entering into confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants, scientific advisors and contractors. We also seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our data and trade secrets by maintaining physical security of our premises and physical and electronic security of our information technology systems. While we have confidence in these individuals, organizations and systems, agreements or security measures may be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies for any breach. In addition, our trade secrets may otherwise become known or be independently discovered by competitors. To the extent that our consultants, contractors or collaborators use intellectual property owned by others in their work for us, disputes may arise as to the rights in related or resulting know-how and inventions.

Competition

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries put significant resources toward developing novel and proprietary therapies for the treatment of cancer, which often incorporate novel technologies and incorporate valuable intellectual property. We compete with companies in the immunotherapy space, as well as companies developing novel targeted therapies for cancer. In addition, our products will compete with existing standards of care for the diseases that our product candidates target. We anticipate that we will face intense and increasing competition from many different sources, including new and established biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, academic research institutions, governmental agencies and public and private research institutions.

Our competitors include:

104

In August 2017, Novartis AG has obtained approval from the FDA to commercialize the first CAR-T cell therapy, Kymriah^®, for children and young adults with B-cell ALL that is refractory or has relapsed at least twice, and has recently been granted US FDA priority review for adults with refractory/relapsed DLBCL, priced at $475,000. In October 2017, Kite Pharma, Inc. (acquired by Gilead Sciences, Inc.) has obtained approval from the FDA to commercialize Yescarta^®, the first CAR-T cell therapy for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma after two or more lines of systemic therapy, priced at $373,000. Due to the promising therapeutic effect of T-cell therapies in clinical exploratory trials, we anticipate substantial direct competition from other existing and new competitors developing these therapies. In particular, we expect to compete with therapies with tumor infiltrating lymphocytes, or TILs, that are naturally occurring tumor-reactive T-cells harvested, propagated ex vivo and re-infused into patients. We also expect to compete with therapies using genetically engineered T-cells, rendered reactive against tumor-associated antigens prior to their administration to patients. However, we believe that most of our competitors are currently focused on autologous therapies, and we believe that we are the most advanced company developing the allogeneic CAR-T cell approach. In addition, we differentiate ourselves by using our gene-editing capabilities to add specific features to our T-cell products, such as cancer drug resistance or resistance to checkpoint inhibition.

We also face competition from non-cell based treatments offered by companies such as Amgen Inc., AstraZeneca plc, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Incyte Corporation, Merck & Co., Inc., and F. Hoffman-La Roche AG. Immunotherapy is further being pursued by several biotech companies as well as by large-cap pharmaceuticals. Many of our current or potential competitors, either alone or with their collaboration partners, have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, pre-clinical testing, conducting clinical trials, and marketing approved products than we do. Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical, biotechnology and gene therapy industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel and establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs.

Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient or are less expensive than any products that we may develop. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market or make our development more complicated. The key competitive factors affecting the success of all of our programs are likely to be their efficacy, safety, and convenience.

105

Government Regulation and Product Approval

Government Regulation of Biological Products

We are subject to extensive regulation. We expect our cell product candidates to be regulated as biologics. Governmental authorities, including the FDA and comparable regulatory authorities in other countries, regulate the design, development, production / manufacturing, testing, safety, efficacy, labeling, storage, record-keeping, advertising, promotion and marketing of pharmaceutical products, including biologics. Non-compliance with applicable requirements can result in fines and other judicially imposed sanctions, including product seizures, import restrictions, injunctive actions and criminal prosecutions of both companies and individuals. In addition, administrative remedies can involve requests to recall violative products; the refusal of the government to enter into supply contracts; or the refusal to approve pending product approval applications until manufacturing or other alleged deficiencies are brought into compliance. The FDA and similar authorities around the world also have the authority to cause the withdrawal of approval of a marketed product, to impose labeling restrictions or to require that we redo some non-clinical and/or clinical studies.

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

Our product candidates must be approved by the FDA before they may be legally marketed in the United States and by the appropriate foreign regulatory agencies before they may be legally marketed in foreign countries. Generally, our activities in foreign countries will be subject to regulation that is similar in nature and scope as that imposed in the United States, although there can be important differences. Additionally, some significant aspects of regulation in Europe are addressed in a centralized way, but country-specific regulation remains essential in many respects. The process for obtaining regulatory marketing approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources.

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

Set forth below is a description of the process of obtaining U.S. government approval for biological product development. Similar processes apply in other jurisdictions.

U.S. Biological Product Development

In the United States, the FDA regulates biologics under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or FDCA, and the Public Health Service Act, or PHSA, and their implementing regulations. Biologics are also subject to other federal, state and local statutes and regulations. The process required by the FDA before biologic product candidates may be marketed in the United States and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. Failure to comply with the applicable U.S. requirements at any time during the product development process, approval process or after approval, may subject an applicant to administrative or judicial sanctions. These sanctions could include, among other actions, the FDA’s refusal to approve pending applications, withdrawal of an approval, a clinical hold, untitled or warning letters, product recall requests or withdrawals from the market, labeling restrictions, non-clinical and/or clinical studies to be performed again, product seizures,

106

total or partial suspension of production or distribution injunctions, import restrictions, fines, refusals of government contracts, restitution, disgorgement, or civil or criminal penalties for both companies and individuals. Any agency or judicial enforcement action could have a material adverse effect on us.

Our biological product candidates must be approved by the FDA through the Biologics License Application, or BLA, process before they may be legally marketed in the United States. The process required by the FDA before a biologic may be marketed in the United States generally involves the following:

The data required to support a BLA is generated in three distinct development stages: manufacturing, pre-clinical and clinical. The manufacturing development stage generally involves laboratory evaluations of drug chemistry and biology properties, formulation and stability, the pre-clinical stage generally involves studies to evaluate pharmacology and toxicity in animals, which support subsequent clinical testing. The conduct of the manufacturing and pre-clinical studies must comply with federal regulations, including GMPs and GLPs for the main Toxicology Studies.

Where a trial involving the deliberate transfer of (1) recombinant DNA or (2) DNA or RNA derived from recombinant DNA into one or more human research participants (including recombinant DNA molecules, and/or organisms and viruses containing recombinant DNA molecules) (a gene therapy trial) is conducted at, or sponsored by, institutions receiving NIH funding for recombinant DNA research, a protocol and related documentation is submitted to and the trial is registered with the NIH Office of Biotechnology Activities, or OBA, prior to the submission of an IND to the FDA. This is done pursuant to the NIH Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant or Synthetic Nucleic Acid Molecules, or NIH Guidelines. Compliance with the NIH Guidelines is mandatory for investigators at institutions receiving NIH funds for research involving recombinant DNA, however many companies and other institutions not otherwise subject to the NIH Guidelines voluntarily follow them. The NIH is responsible for convening the RAC, a federal advisory committee, which discusses protocols that raise novel or particularly important scientific, safety or ethical considerations at one of its quarterly public meetings. The OBA will notify the FDA of the RAC’s decision regarding the necessity for full public review of a gene therapy protocol. RAC proceedings and reports are posted to the OBA web site and may be accessed by the public.

The sponsor must submit the results of the pre-clinical studies, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature and a proposed clinical protocol, to the FDA as part of an

107

IND before any clinical testing may proceed. An IND is a request for authorization from the FDA to administer an investigational drug product to humans. The IND must become effective before clinical trials may begin. The IND is automatically approved 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless during that time the FDA raises concerns or questions regarding the proposed clinical trials. In such a case, the FDA may place the IND on clinical hold and the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. With gene therapy protocols, if the FDA allows the IND to proceed, and the RAC decides that full public review of the protocol is warranted but did not take place before the IND review is complete, the FDA will request at the completion of its IND review that sponsors delay initiation of the protocol until after completion of the RAC review process. The FDA may also impose clinical holds on a product candidate at any time before or during clinical trials due to safety concerns or non-compliance. Accordingly, we cannot be sure that submission of an IND will result in the FDA allowing clinical trials to begin, or that, once begun, issues will not arise that could cause the trial to be suspended or terminated.

Before the IND becomes active, the Clinical Protocol will also need to be approved by the relevant Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) and Institutional Biosafety Committees (IBCs), which are the cornerstone of institutional oversight of recombinant DNA clinical research.

Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational product to human subjects under the supervision of qualified investigators, generally physicians not employed by or under the trial sponsor’s control, in accordance with GCPs, which include the requirement that all research subjects provide their informed consent for their participation in any clinical trial. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the clinical trial, dosing procedures, subject selection and exclusion criteria, and the parameters to be used to monitor subject safety and assess efficacy. Each protocol, and any subsequent amendments to the protocol, must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. Further, each clinical trial must be reviewed and approved by an independent institutional review board, or IRB, at or servicing each institution at which the clinical trial will be conducted. An IRB is charged with protecting the welfare and rights of trial participants and considers such items as whether the risks to individuals participating in the clinical trials are minimized and are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits. The IRB also approves the informed consent form that must be provided to each clinical trial subject or his or her legal representative and must monitor the clinical trial until completed.

All gene therapy experiments and clinical trials are also subject to review and oversight by an institutional biosafety committee, or IBC, a local institutional committee that reviews and oversees basic and clinical research conducted at that institution. The IBC assesses the safety of the research and identifies any potential risk to public health or the environment.

There are also requirements governing the reporting of ongoing clinical trials and completed clinical trial results to public registries. Sponsors of clinical trials of FDA-regulated products, including biologics, are required to register and disclose certain clinical trial information, which is publicly available at www.clinicaltrials.gov. Information related to the product, patient population, phase of investigation, study sites and investigators, and other aspects of the clinical trial is then made public as part of the registration. Sponsors are also obligated to discuss the results of their clinical trials after completion. Disclosure of the results of these trials can be delayed until the new product or new indication being studied has been approved.

Human clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases. However, these phases may overlap or be combined:

108

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

During all phases of clinical development, regulatory agencies require extensive monitoring and auditing of all clinical activities, clinical data, and clinical trial investigators. Annual progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials must be submitted to the FDA. Written IND safety reports must be promptly submitted to the FDA, the NIH, IRB and the investigators for serious and unexpected adverse events, any findings from other studies, tests in laboratory animals or in vitro testing that suggest a significant risk for human patients, or any clinically important increase in the rate of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure. The sponsor must submit an IND safety report within 15 calendar days after the sponsor determines that the information qualifies for reporting. The sponsor also must notify the FDA of any unexpected fatal or life-threatening suspected adverse reaction within seven calendar days after the sponsor’s initial receipt of the information.

Phase I, Phase II and Phase III 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 or terminate a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk, including risks inferred from other unrelated immunotherapy trials. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the biological product has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients.

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

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

U.S. Review and Approval Processes for Biological Product Candidates

After the completion of clinical trials, non-clinical and manufacturing activities of a biological product candidate, FDA approval of a BLA must be obtained before commercial marketing of the biological product. The

109

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

Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA, as amended, each BLA must be accompanied by a significant user fee. The FDA adjusts the PDUFA user fees on an annual basis. PDUFA also imposes an annual product fee for biological products and an annual establishment fee on facilities used to manufacture prescription biological products. Fee waivers or reductions are available in certain circumstances, including a waiver of the application fee for the first application filed by a small business. Additionally, no user fees are assessed on BLAs for products designated as orphan drugs, unless the product also includes a non-orphan indication.

Within 60 days following submission of the application, the FDA reviews a BLA submitted to determine if it is substantially complete before the agency accepts it for filing. The FDA may refuse to file any BLA that it deems incomplete or not properly reviewable at the time of submission and may request additional information. In this event, the BLA must be resubmitted with the additional information. The resubmitted application also is subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth substantive review of the BLA. The FDA reviews the BLA to determine, among other things, whether the proposed product is safe and potent, or effective, for its intended use, and has an acceptable purity profile, and whether the product is being manufactured in accordance with cGMP regulations to assure and preserve the product’s identity, safety, strength, quality, potency and purity. The FDA may refer applications for novel biological products or biological products that present difficult questions of safety or efficacy to an advisory committee, typically a panel that includes clinicians and other experts, for review, evaluation and a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions. During the biological product approval process, the FDA also will determine whether a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, is necessary to assure the safe use of the biological product candidate. A REMS may be imposed to ensure safe use of the drug, 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. If the FDA concludes a REMS is needed, the sponsor of the BLA must submit a proposed REMS. The FDA will not approve a BLA without a REMS, if required.

Before approving a BLA, the FDA will inspect the facilities at which the product candidate is manufactured. The FDA will not approve the product candidate unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. For cell based immunotherapy products, the FDA also will not approve the product if the manufacturer is not in compliance with the current good tissue practice, or GTP requirements, to the extent applicable. These requirements are set out in FDA regulations and guidance documents and govern the methods used in, and the facilities and controls used for, the manufacture of human cells, tissues, and cellular and tissue based products, or HCT/Ps, which are human cells or tissue intended for use in implantation, transplantation, infusion, or transfer into a human recipient. The primary intent of the GTP requirements is to ensure that cell and tissue based products are manufactured in a manner designed to prevent the introduction, transmission and spread of communicable disease. FDA regulations also require tissue establishments to register and list their HCT/Ps with the FDA and, when applicable, to evaluate donors through screening and testing. Additionally, before approving a BLA, the FDA may inspect one or more clinical sites to assure that the clinical trials were conducted in compliance with IND trial requirements and GCP requirements. To assure cGMP, GTP and GCP compliance, an applicant must incur significant expenditure of time, money and effort in the areas of training, record keeping, production, and quality control.

Notwithstanding the submission of relevant data and information, the FDA may ultimately decide that the BLA does not satisfy its regulatory criteria for approval and deny approval. Data obtained from clinical trials are not always conclusive and the FDA may interpret data differently than we interpret the same data. If the agency

110

decides not to approve the BLA in its submitted form, the FDA will issue a complete response letter that describes all of the specific deficiencies in the BLA identified by the FDA. The deficiencies identified may be minor, for example, requiring labeling changes, or major, for example, requiring additional clinical trials. Additionally, the complete response letter may include recommended actions that the applicant might take to place the application in a condition for approval. If a complete response letter is issued, the applicant may either resubmit the BLA, addressing all of the deficiencies identified in the letter, or withdraw the application.

If a product candidate receives regulatory approval, the approval may be significantly limited to specific diseases and dosages or the indications for use may otherwise be limited, which could restrict the commercial value of the product.

Further, the FDA may require that certain contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling. The FDA may impose restrictions and conditions on product distribution, prescribing, or dispensing in the form of a REMS, or otherwise limit the scope of any approval. In addition, the FDA may require post marketing clinical trials, sometimes referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials, or additional studies like safety studies, designed to further assess a biological product’s safety and effectiveness, and testing and surveillance programs to monitor the safety of approved products that have been commercialized.

In addition, unless a waiver is granted, under the Pediatric Research Equity Act, or PREA, a BLA or supplement to a BLA must contain data to assess the safety and effectiveness of the product for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective. The Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act, or FDASIA, requires that a sponsor who is planning to submit a marketing application for a drug or biological product that includes a new active ingredient, new indication, new dosage form, new dosing regimen or new route of administration submit an initial Pediatric Study Plan, or PSP, within sixty days after an end-of-Phase II meeting or as may be agreed between the sponsor and FDA. The initial PSP must include, among other things, an outline of the pediatric study or studies that the sponsor plans to conduct, including to the extent practicable study objectives and design, age groups, relevant endpoints and statistical approach, or a justification for not including such detailed information, and any request for a deferral of pediatric assessments or a full or partial waiver of the requirement to provide data from pediatric studies along with supporting information. FDA and the sponsor must reach agreement on the PSP. A sponsor can submit amendments to an agreed-upon initial PSP at any time if changes to the pediatric plan need to be considered based on data collected from nonclinical studies, early phase clinical trials, and/or other clinical development programs. The FDA may grant deferrals for submission of data or full or partial waivers. Unless otherwise required by regulation, PREA does not apply to any product for an indication for which orphan designation has been granted. However, if only one indication for a product has orphan designation, a pediatric assessment may still be required for any applications to market that same product for the non-orphan indications.

One of the performance goals agreed to by the FDA under the PDUFA is to review 90% of standard BLAs in 10 months and 90% of priority BLAs in six months, whereupon a review decision is to be made. The FDA does not always meet its PDUFA goal dates for standard and priority BLAs and its review goals are subject to change from time to time. The review process and the PDUFA goal date may be extended by three months if the FDA requests or the BLA sponsor otherwise provides additional information or clarification regarding information already provided in the submission within the last three months before the PDUFA goal date.

Orphan Drug Designation

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

111

Orphan drug designation must be requested before submitting a BLA. After the FDA grants orphan drug designation, the generic and trade name, if any, of the drug or biologic and the rare disease or condition for which orphan-drug designation was granted are disclosed publicly by the FDA. The orphan drug designation does not convey any advantage during, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review or approval process.

If a product that has orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for the disease or condition for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan product exclusivity, which means that the FDA may not approve any other applications, including a full BLA, to market the same drug or biologic for the same indication for seven years, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan drug exclusivity. Orphan drug exclusivity does not prevent FDA from approving a different drug or biologic for the same disease or condition, or the same drug or biologic for a different disease or condition. Among the other benefits of orphan drug designation are tax credits for certain research and a waiver of the BLA application user fee.

A designated orphan drug may not receive orphan drug exclusivity if it is approved for a use that is broader than the indication for which it received orphan designation. Orphan exclusivity also could block the approval of one of our products for seven years if a competitor obtains approval of the same drug or biologic as defined by the FDA or if our product candidate is determined to be contained within the competitor’s product for the same indication or disease. In addition, exclusive marketing rights in the United States may be lost if the FDA later determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient quantities of the product to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition.

The criteria for designating an “orphan medicinal product” in the EU are similar to those in the United States. Such designation can be requested in the case of products that are intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition and either (a) such condition affects no more than five in 10,000 persons in the EU when the application is made, or (b) the product, without the benefits derived from orphan status, would unlikely generate sufficient return in the EU to justify the necessary investment. Moreover, in order to obtain orphan designation it is necessary to demonstrate that there exists no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment of such condition authorized for marketing in the EU, or if such a method exists, the product will be of significant benefit to those affected by the condition.

In the EU, orphan medicinal products are eligible for financial incentives as well as specific regulatory assistance and scientific advice. Products receiving orphan status in the EU can receive ten years of market exclusivity, during which time no similar medicinal product for the same indication may be placed on the market. An orphan product can also obtain an additional two years of market exclusivity in the EU for pediatric studies. No extension to any supplementary protection certificate can be granted on the basis of pediatric studies for orphan indications.

However, the 10-year market exclusivity may be reduced to six years in certain circumstances, including for example if, at the end of the fifth year, it is established that the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity.

There can be no assurance that we will receive orphan drug designation for any product candidates in the United States, in the EU or in any other market. There can be no assurance that an Orphan exclusivity from a competitor could not block the approval of one of our products for a certain period of time, in the United States, in the EU or in any other market.

Expedited Development and Review Programs

The FDA has a Fast Track program that is intended to expedite or facilitate the process for reviewing new drugs and biological products that meet certain criteria. Specifically, new products are eligible for Fast Track designation if they are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and demonstrate the

112

potential to address unmet medical needs for the disease or condition. Fast Track designation applies to the combination of the product and the specific indication for which it is being studied. The sponsor of a new drug or biologic may request the FDA to designate the drug or biologic as a Fast Track product candidate at any time during the clinical development of the product candidate. Unique to a Fast Track product, the FDA may consider the review of sections of the BLA on a rolling basis before the complete application is submitted, if the sponsor provides a schedule for the submission of the sections of the BLA, the FDA agrees to accept sections of the BLA and determines that the schedule is acceptable, and the sponsor pays any required user fees upon submission of the first section of the BLA.

Any product candidate, submitted to the FDA for approval, including a product with a Fast Track designation, may also be eligible for other types of FDA programs intended to expedite development and review, such as priority review and accelerated approval. A product candidate is eligible for priority review if it has the potential to provide safe and effective therapy where no satisfactory alternative therapy exists or a significant improvement in the treatment, diagnosis or prevention of a disease compared to marketed products. The FDA will attempt to direct additional resources to the evaluation of an application for a new product candidate designated for priority review in an effort to facilitate the review, and aims to review such applications within six months as opposed to ten months for standard review. Additionally, a product candidate may be eligible for accelerated approval. Product candidates studied for their safety and effectiveness in treating serious or life-threatening illnesses and that provide meaningful therapeutic benefit over existing treatments may receive accelerated approval which means that they may be approved on the basis of adequate and well-controlled clinical trials establishing that the product candidate has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit, or on the basis of an effect on a clinical endpoint other than 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. As a condition of approval, the FDA may require that a sponsor of a drug or biological product candidate receiving accelerated approval perform adequate and well-controlled post-marketing clinical trials. In addition, the FDA currently requires as a condition for accelerated approval pre-approval of promotional materials, which could adversely impact the timing of the commercial launch of the product. Fast Track designation, priority review and accelerated approval do not change the standards for approval but may expedite the development or approval process.

Breakthrough Therapy Designation

Under the provisions of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act, or FDASIA, enacted in 2012, the FDA established a Breakthrough Therapy Designation which is intended to expedite the development and review of products that treat serious or life-threatening conditions. A breakthrough therapy is defined as a drug that is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. The designation includes all of the features of Fast Track designation, as well as more intensive FDA interaction and guidance. The Breakthrough Therapy Designation is a distinct status from both accelerated approval and priority review, but these can also be granted to the same product candidate if the relevant criteria are met.

The FDA must take certain actions, such as holding timely meetings and providing advice, intended to expedite the development and review of an application for approval of a breakthrough therapy. All requests for breakthrough therapy designation will be reviewed within 60 days of receipt, and FDA will either grant or deny the request.

Where applicable, we plan to request Fast Track and/or Breakthrough Therapy Designation for our product candidates. Even if we receive one of these designations for our product candidates, the FDA may later decide that our product candidates no longer meet the conditions for qualification. In addition, these designations may not provide us with a material commercial advantage.

113

Post-Approval Requirements

Maintaining compliance with applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations requires the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. Rigorous and extensive FDA regulation of biological products continues after approval, particularly with respect to cGMP and pharmacovigilance requirements as well as post marketing commitments. Any products for which we receive FDA approval will be subject to continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, record-keeping requirements, reporting of adverse experiences with the product, providing the FDA with updated safety and efficacy information, product sampling and distribution requirements, and complying with FDA promotion and advertising requirements, which include, among others, standards for direct-to-consumer advertising, restrictions on promoting products for uses or in patient populations that are not described in the product’s approved uses (known as off-label use), limitations on industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities, and requirements for promotional activities involving the internet. Although physicians may prescribe legally available products for off-label use that they deem to be appropriate in their professional medical judgment, manufacturers may not market or promote such off-label uses.

Other post-approval requirements applicable to biological products include reporting of cGMP deviations that may affect the identity, potency, purity and overall safety of a distributed product, record-keeping requirements, reporting of adverse effects, reporting updated safety and efficacy information, and complying with electronic record and signature requirements. After a BLA is approved, the product may also be subject to official lot release. In this case, as part of the manufacturing process, the manufacturer is required to perform certain tests on each lot of the product before it is released for distribution. If the product is subject to official release by the FDA, the manufacturer submits samples of each lot of product to the FDA together with a release protocol showing a summary of the history of manufacture of the lot and the results of all of the manufacturer’s tests performed on the lot. The FDA also may perform certain confirmatory tests on lots of some products 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.

In addition, we and any third-party manufacturers of our products will be required to comply with applicable requirements in the cGMP regulations, including quality control and quality assurance and maintenance of records and documentation. We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties for the production of clinical and commercial quantities of our products in accordance with cGMP regulations. cGMP regulations require among other things, quality control and quality assurance as well as the corresponding maintenance of records and documentation and the obligation to investigate and correct any deviations from cGMP. Manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved products are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies, and are subject to periodic announced and unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with cGMP and other laws. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money, and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain cGMP compliance. Discovery of problems with a product after approval may result in restrictions on a product, manufacturer, or holder of an approved BLA, including, among other things, recall or withdrawal of the product from the market. In addition, changes to the manufacturing process are strictly regulated, and depending on the significance of the change, may require prior FDA approval before being implemented. Other types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications and claims, are also subject to further FDA review and approval.

The FDA also may require post-marketing studies, known as Phase 4 studies, and surveillance to monitor the effects of an approved product. Discovery of previously unknown problems with a product or the failure to comply with applicable FDA requirements can have negative consequences, including adverse publicity, judicial or administrative enforcement, warning letters from the FDA, mandated corrective advertising or communications with doctors, and civil or criminal penalties, among others. Newly discovered or developed safety or effectiveness data may require changes to a product’s approved labeling, including the addition of new warnings and contraindications, and also may require the implementation of other risk management measures.

114

Also, new government requirements, including those resulting from new legislation, may be established, or the FDA’s policies may change, which could delay or prevent regulatory approval of our products under development.

U.S. Patent Term Restoration and Marketing Exclusivity

The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act, or BPCIA, amended the PHSA to authorize the FDA to approve similar versions of innovative biologics, commonly known as biosimilars. A competitor seeking approval of a biosimilar must file an application to establish its molecule as highly similar to an approved innovator biologic, among other requirements. The BPCIA, however, bars the FDA from approving biosimilar applications for 12 years after an innovator biological product receives initial marketing approval. This 12-year period of data exclusivity may be extended by six months, for a total of 12.5 years, if the FDA requests that the innovator company conduct pediatric clinical investigations of the product.

The first biological product submitted under the abbreviated approval pathway that is determined to be interchangeable with the reference product has exclusivity against other biologics submitting applications under the abbreviated approval pathway for the lesser of (1) one year after the first commercial marketing, (2) 18 months after approval if there is no legal challenge, (3) 18 months after the resolution in the applicant’s favor of a lawsuit challenging the biologic’s patents if an application has been submitted, or (4) 42 months after the application has been approved if a lawsuit is ongoing within the 42-month period.

Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of the FDA approval of the use of our product candidates, some of our U.S. patents, if granted, may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, commonly referred to as the Hatch-Waxman Act. The Hatch-Waxman Act permits a patent restoration term of up to five years, as compensation for patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review process. However, patent term restoration cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the product’s approval date. The patent term restoration period is generally one-half the time between the effective date of an IND and the submission date of a BLA plus the time between the submission date of a BLA and the approval of that application. Only one patent applicable to an approved product is eligible for the extension and the application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, in consultation with the FDA, reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension or restoration. In the future as applicable, we may apply for restoration of patent term for one of our currently owned or licensed patents seeking restored patent life beyond its current expiration date, depending on the expected length of the clinical trials and other factors involved in the filing of the relevant BLA.

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

Other U.S. Healthcare Laws and Compliance Requirements

In the United States, our activities are subject to regulation by various federal, state and local authorities in addition to the FDA, including but not limited to, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, other divisions of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (e.g., the Office of Inspector General), the U.S. Department of Justice, or DOJ, and individual U.S. Attorney offices within the DOJ, and state and local governments. For example, sales, marketing and scientific/educational grant programs must comply with the anti-fraud and abuse provisions of the Social Security Act, the false claims laws, the privacy provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, and similar state laws, each as amended.

115

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

Additionally, the intent standard under the Anti-Kickback Statute was amended by the ACA to a stricter standard such that a person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation. In addition, the ACA codified case law that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the federal False Claims Act (discussed below).

The civil monetary penalties statute imposes penalties against any person or entity who, among other things, is determined to have presented or caused to be presented a claim to a federal health program that the person knows or should know is for an item or service that was not provided as claimed or is false or fraudulent.

The federal False Claims Act prohibits, among other things, any person or entity from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a false claim for payment to, or approval by, 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. As a result of a modification made by the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009, a claim includes “any request or demand” for money or property presented to the U.S. government. Recently, several pharmaceutical and other healthcare companies have been prosecuted under these laws for allegedly providing free product to customers with the expectation that the customers would bill federal programs for the product. Other companies have been prosecuted for causing false claims to be submitted because of the companies’ marketing of the product for unapproved, and thus non-reimbursable, uses.

HIPAA created new federal criminal statutes that prohibit knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud or to obtain, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations or promises, any money or property owned by, or under the control or custody of, any healthcare benefit program, including private third-party payors and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up by trick, scheme or device, a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services.

Also, many states have similar fraud and abuse statutes or regulations that apply to items and services reimbursed under Medicaid and other state programs, or, in several states, apply regardless of the payor.

We may also be subject to data privacy and security regulations by both the federal government and the states in which we conduct our business. HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, or HITECH, and its implementing regulations, imposes requirements relating to the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information. Among other things, HITECH makes HIPAA’s privacy and security standards directly applicable to business associates independent contractors or agents of covered entities that receive or obtain protected health information in connection with providing a service on behalf of a covered entity. HITECH also created four new tiers of civil monetary

116

penalties, amended HIPAA to make civil and criminal penalties directly applicable to business associates, and gave state attorneys general new authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce the federal HIPAA laws and seek attorneys’ fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions.

In addition, state laws govern the privacy and security of health information in specified circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and may not have the same effect, thus complicating compliance efforts.

Additionally, the federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act, enacted as part of the ACA, and its implementing regulations, require certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biological and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (with certain exceptions) to report information related to certain payments or other transfers of value made or distributed to physicians and teaching hospitals, or to entities or individuals at the request of, or designated on behalf of, the physicians and teaching hospitals and to report annually certain ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members.

In order to distribute products commercially, we will need to comply with state laws that require the registration of manufacturers and wholesale distributors of drug and biological products in a state, including, in certain states, manufacturers and distributors who ship products into the state even if such manufacturers or distributors have no place of business within the state. Some states also impose requirements on manufacturers and distributors to establish the pedigree of product in the chain of distribution, including some states that require manufacturers and others to adopt new technology capable of tracking and tracing product as it moves through the distribution chain. Several states have enacted legislation requiring pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies to establish marketing compliance programs, file periodic reports with the state, make periodic public disclosures on sales, marketing, pricing, clinical trials and other activities, and/or register their sales representatives, as well as to prohibit pharmacies and other healthcare entities from providing certain physician prescribing data to pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies for use in sales and marketing, and to prohibit certain other sales and marketing practices. All of our activities are also potentially subject to federal and state consumer protection and unfair competition laws.

If our operations are found to be in violation of any of the federal and state healthcare laws described above or any other governmental regulations that apply to us, we may be subject to penalties, including without limitation, civil, criminal and/or administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, exclusion from participation in government programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, injunctions, private “qui tam” actions brought by individual whistleblowers in the name of the government, or refusal to allow us to enter into government contracts, contractual damages, reputational harm, administrative burdens, diminished profits and future earnings, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations.

Coverage, Pricing and Reimbursement

Sales of our products will depend, in part, on the extent to which our products, if approved, will be covered and reimbursed by third-party payors, such as government health programs, commercial insurance and managed healthcare organizations. These third-party payors are increasingly reducing reimbursements for medical products and services. The process for determining whether a third-party payor will provide coverage for a drug product typically is separate from the process for setting the price of a drug product or for establishing the reimbursement rate that a payor will pay for the drug product once coverage is approved. Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific drug products on an approved list, also known as a formulary, which might not include all of the approved drugs for a particular indication.

In order to secure coverage and reimbursement for any product candidate that might be approved for sale, we may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and

117

cost-effectiveness of the product candidate, in addition to the costs required to obtain FDA or other comparable regulatory approvals. Whether or not we conduct such studies, our product candidates may not be considered medically necessary or cost-effective. A third-party payor’s decision to provide coverage for a drug product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Further, one payor’s determination to provide coverage for a product does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage for the product. Even if coverage is obtained from third party payors, reimbursement may not be sufficient to enable us to maintain price levels high enough to realize an appropriate return on our investment in product development.

The containment of healthcare costs has become a priority of federal, state and foreign governments, and the prices of drugs have been a focus in this effort. The U.S. government, state legislatures and foreign governments have shown significant interest in implementing cost-containment programs, including price controls, restrictions on reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products. Similar policies and laws have been adopted by many EU Member States. Adoption of price controls and cost-containment measures, and adoption of more restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could further limit our net revenue and results. Decreases in third-party reimbursement for our product candidate or a decision by a third-party payor to not cover our product candidate could reduce physician usage of the product candidate and have a material adverse effect on our sales, results of operations and financial condition.

In addition, in some foreign countries, the proposed pricing for a drug must be approved before it may be lawfully marketed. The requirements governing drug pricing vary widely from country to country. For example, the EU provides options for its Member States to restrict the range of medicinal products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices of medicinal products for human use. A Member State may approve a specific price for the medicinal product or it may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the medicinal product on the market. For example, in France, effective access to the market assumes that our future products will be supported by the hospital (through an agreement for local communities) or reimbursed by social security. The price of medications is negotiated with the Economic Committee for Health Products, or CEPS. There can be no assurance that any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for pharmaceutical products will allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements for any of our product candidates. Historically, products launched in the EU do not follow price structures of the United States and generally tend to be significantly lower.

Healthcare Reform and Subsequent Legislation

In March 2010, President Obama enacted the ACA, which has the potential to substantially change healthcare financing and delivery by both governmental and private insurers, and significantly impact the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry. The ACA will impact existing government healthcare programs and will result in the development of new programs.

Among the ACA’s provisions of importance to the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, in addition to those otherwise described above, are the following:

118

We anticipate that, absent to further legislative changes, the ACA will result in additional downward pressure on coverage and the price that we receive for any approved product in the United States, and could seriously harm our business. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare and other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability, or commercialize our product candidates, if approved. In addition, it is possible that there will be further legislation or regulation that could change parts of the ACA that affect public and private healthcare coverage. Those changes could harm our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted. On August 2, 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011 among other things, created measures for spending reductions by Congress. A Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, tasked with recommending a targeted deficit reduction of at least $1.2 trillion for the years 2013 through 2021, was unable to reach required goals, thereby triggering the legislation’s automatic reduction to several government programs. This includes aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year, which started in April 2013. On January 2, 2013, President Obama signed into law the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, or the ATRA, which, among other things, also reduced Medicare payments to several providers, including hospitals, imaging centers and cancer treatment centers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. Further, in January 2017, President Trump signed an Executive Order directing federal agencies with authorities and responsibilities under the ACA to waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation of any provisions of the ACA that would impose a fiscal or regulatory burden on states, individuals, healthcare providers, health insurers, or manufacturer of pharmaceutical products. Congress may also consider subsequent legislation to replace elements of the ACA that are repealed. As a result, the full impact of the ACA, any law repealing and/or replacing elements of it, and the political uncertainty surrounding any repeal or replacement legislation remains unclear.

Additional Regulation

In addition to the foregoing, state and federal laws regarding environmental protection and hazardous substances, including the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Resource Conservancy and Recovery Act and the Toxic Substances Control Act, affect our business. These and other laws govern our use, handling and disposal of various biological, chemical and radioactive substances used in, and wastes generated by, our operations. If our operations result in contamination of the environment or expose individuals to hazardous substances, we could be liable for damages and governmental fines. We believe that we are in material compliance with applicable environmental laws and that continued compliance therewith will not have a material adverse effect on our business. We cannot predict, however, how changes in these laws may affect our future operations.

119

European Union Drug Development

In the EU, our future product candidates may also be subject to extensive regulatory requirements. As in the United States, medicinal products can only be marketed if a marketing authorization from the competent regulatory agencies has been obtained.

Similar to the United States, the various phases of pre-clinical and clinical research in the European Union are subject to significant regulatory controls. Although the EU Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC has sought to harmonize the EU clinical trials regulatory framework, setting out common rules for the control and authorization of clinical trials in the EU, the EU Member States have transposed and applied the provisions of the Directive differently. This has led to significant variations in the Member State regimes. To improve the current system, a new Regulation No. 536/2014 on clinical trials on medicinal product candidates for human use, which will repeal Directive 2001/20/EC, was adopted on April 16, 2014 and published in the European Official Journal on May 27, 2014. The new Regulation aims at harmonizing and streamlining the clinical trials authorization process, simplifying adverse event reporting procedures, improving the supervision of clinical trials, and increasing their transparency. The new Regulation entered into force on June 16, 2014 and was set to apply not earlier than May 28, 2016. Based on announcements of the European Medicines Agency, it is now expected that the mentioned Regulation will not enter into force before October 2018. Until then the Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC will continue to apply. In addition, the transitional provisions of the new Regulation offer, under certain conditions, the clinical trial sponsors the possibility to choose between the requirements of the Directive and the Regulation for a limited amount of time.

Under the current regime, before a clinical trial can be initiated it must be approved in each of the EU Member States where the trial is to be conducted by two distinct sets of bodies: the National Competent Authority, or NCA, and one or more Ethics Committees, or ECs. Under the current regime all suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions, or SUSARs, to the investigational product that occur during the clinical trial have to be reported to the NCA and ECs of the Member State where they occurred as well as in the European safety database, EudraVigilance.

European Union Drug Review and Approval

In the EU, medicinal products can only be commercialized after obtaining a Marketing Authorization, or MA. The same rules also apply in the EFTA Member States (Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein). There are two types of marketing authorizations:

The Community MA, which is issued by the European Commission through the Centralized Procedure, based on the opinion of the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use, or CHMP, of the European Medicines Agency, or EMA, and which is valid throughout the entire territory of the EU. The Centralized Procedure is mandatory for certain types of products, such as biotechnology medicinal products, orphan medicinal products, and medicinal products containing a new active substance indicated for the treatment of AIDS, cancer, neurodegenerative disorders, diabetes, auto-immune and viral diseases. The Centralized Procedure is also mandatory for so-called Advance Therapy Medicinal Products (or ATMPs). ATMPs comprise gene therapy, somatic cell and tissue engineered products. In this regard, on May 28, 2014, the EMA issued a recommendation that Cellectis’ UCART19 be considered a gene therapy product under Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007 on ATMPs. The Centralized Procedure is optional for products containing a new active substance not yet authorized in the EEA, or for products that constitute a significant therapeutic, scientific or technical innovation or which are in the interest of public health in the EU. Under the Centralized Procedure, the CHMP serves as the scientific committee that renders opinions about the safety, efficacy and quality of human products on behalf of the EMA. The CHMP is composed of experts nominated by each Member State’s national drug authority, with one of them appointed to act as Rapporteur for the co-ordination of the evaluation with the possible assistance of a further member of the Committee acting as a Co-Rapporteur. The CHMP has 210 days to adopt an opinion as to whether a marketing authorization should be granted. The process usually takes longer as

120

additional information is requested, which triggers clock-stops in the procedural timelines. Based on the CHMP’s opinion the European Commission will adopt a decision on the granting of the marketing authorization. In case of ATMPs, the EMA’s Committee for Advanced Therapies, a multidisciplinary committee of experts on ATMPs, will prepare a draft opinion which will be submitted to the CHMP before the latter adopts its final opinion.

Under the above-described procedure, before granting the MA, the EMA makes an assessment of the risk-benefit balance of the product on the basis of scientific criteria concerning its quality, safety and efficacy.

In the EU, new products authorized for marketing (i.e., reference products) qualify for eight years of data exclusivity and an additional two years of market exclusivity upon marketing authorization. The data exclusivity period prevents generic applicants from relying on the pre-clinical and clinical trial data contained in the dossier of the reference product when applying for a generic marketing authorization in the EU during a period of eight years from the date on which the reference product was first authorized in the EU. The market exclusivity period prevents a successful generic applicant from commercializing its product in the EU until ten years have elapsed from the initial authorization of the reference product in the EU. The ten-year market exclusivity period can be extended to a maximum of eleven years if, during the first eight years of those ten years, the marketing authorization holder obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications which, during the scientific evaluation prior to their authorization, are held to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with existing therapies.

The EU also provides opportunities for market exclusivity. For example, products receiving orphan designation in the EU can receive ten years of market exclusivity, during which time no similar medicinal product for the same indication may be placed on the market. An orphan product can also obtain an additional two years of market exclusivity in the EU for pediatric studies. No extension to any supplementary protection certificate can be granted on the basis of pediatric studies for orphan indications.

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

The 10-year market exclusivity may be reduced to six years if, at the end of the fifth year, it is established that the product no longer meets the criteria for orphan designation, for example, if the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity. Additionally, marketing authorization may be granted to a similar product for the same indication at any time if:

121

Food Oversight Responsibilities Between USDA and FDA, Including Transgenic or Genetically Modified Organisms

In the United States, the FDA and the USDA Food Safety Inspection Service, or FSIS, are primarily responsible for overseeing food regulation and safety, although as many as fifteen federal agencies also play a role in U.S. food regulation, including several other agencies within USDA.

FSIS is responsible for ensuring the safety, wholesomeness, and correct packaging and labeling of the nation’s commercial supply of meat, poultry, egg products, and catfish. The agency’s main authorizing statutes are the Poultry Products Inspection Act, Federal Meat Inspection Act, Agricultural Marketing Act, and the Egg Products Inspection Act. To carry out its mission, FSIS deploys almost 8,000 inspection program personnel to the more than 6,000 establishments around the country to ensure food manufactures are following the proper procedures to reduce the risks of food borne illnesses such as Salmonella, Escherichia coli, Listeria monocytogenes, and Campylobacter.

USDA has regulatory jurisdiction over transgenic crops through the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, or APHIS. Under the Plant Protection Act, USDA requires anyone who wishes to import, transport interstate, or plant a “regulated article” to apply for a permit or notify APHIS that the introduction will be made. Regulated articles are defined as “any organism which has been altered or produced through genetic engineering [...] which USDA determines is a plant pest or has reason to believe is a plant pest.” The petition process can be a multi-year process that varies based on a number of factors, including APHIS’ familiarity with similar products, the type and scope of the environmental review conducted, and the number and types of public comments received. APHIS conducts a comprehensive science-based review of the petition to assess, among other things, plant pest risk, environmental considerations pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, or NEPA, and any potential impact on endangered species. If, upon the completion of the review, APHIS grants the petition, the product is no longer deemed a “regulated article” and the petitioner may commercialize the product, subject to any conditions set forth in the decision. If APHIS does not determine the product to be non-regulated, the product may be subject to extensive regulation, including permitting requirements for import, handling, interstate movement, and release into the environment, and inspections.

Calyxt has submitted petition to APHIS for six of our product candidates to date: high oleic soybeans, high oleic/low linoleic soybeans, cold storable potatoes, reduced browning potatoes, powdery mildew resistant wheat, and improved quality alfalfa. Calyxt has received confirmation from APHIS for all six product candidates that APHIS does not consider such product candidate to be a “regulated article” under the Plant Protection Act. There can be no guarantee of the timing or success in obtaining nonregulated status from APHIS for other crops developed by Calyxt or that the governing regulations will not change. Government regulations, regulatory systems, and the policies that influence them vary widely among jurisdictions and change often.

As part of its National Organic Program, USDA also regulates GMOs, or genetically modified (“GM”) foods, to the extent that food manufacturers can use the “USDA Organic” label on their products. The use of genetic engineering, or GMOs, is prohibited in USDA organic products. According to USDA, this means, for example, that an organic farmer cannot plant GMO seeds, an organic cow cannot eat GMO alfalfa or corn, and an organic soup producer cannot put any GM ingredients into its soup. To label products with the USDA organic seal, farmers and food processors must show they are not using GMOs and that they are protecting their products from contact with GMOs (along with other prohibited substances) from farm to table.

FDA has jurisdiction to regulate more than 80 percent of the U.S. food supply. It derives its regulatory power from the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”), which has been amended over time by several subsequent laws. FDA’s oversight of food safety and security is primarily carried out by its Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (“CFSAN”). To execute its responsibilities, FDA has a team of 900 investigators and 450 analysts in the foods program who conduct inspections and collect and analyze product samples. FDA typically does not perform pre-market inspection for foods. FDA also regulates ingredients, packaging, and

122

labeling of foods, including nutrition and health claims and the nutrition facts panel. Foods are typically not subject to premarket review and approval requirements, with limited exceptions.

For its part, FDA regulates foods made with GMOs under its 1992 “Statement of Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties.” Under this policy, FDA regulates foods derived from GM plant varieties consistent with the framework for non-GM foods. In most cases, foods derived from GM plant varieties are not subject to premarket review and approval. In some cases, however, such foods will be considered to contain “food additives” that require premarket review and approval. FDA offers a voluntary consultation process to determine whether foods derived from GM plant varieties will be subject to these more stringent regulatory requirements.

FDA does not currently require manufacturers to label foods made with GMOs as such, but permits voluntary labeling pursuant to a guidance document finalized in November 2015. The topic of GMO use and labeling has been of significant public interest; as political forces continue to work, and there can be no guaranty that it will not change in the future. Additionally, three states have passed, and nearly half of U.S. states have considered, mandatory GMO labeling laws to date.

Other Regulatory Matters

French Pharmaceutical Company Status

To date, we do not have the status of pharmaceutical establishment, and therefore, cannot either manufacture the product candidates we develop or directly consider their marketing. Obtaining the pharmaceutical establishment license, either as distributor, operator, importer or as manufacturer, requires the submission of a request file specific to each of the mentioned qualifications with the Agence nationale de sécurité du médicament et des produits de santé (ANSM), which only grants it after review of this file and evaluation, usually after verification that the company has adequate premises, the necessary personnel and an adapted structure with satisfactory procedures for carrying out the proposed pharmaceutical activities.

We currently entrust CMOs with the manufacturing of clinical batches and intend to continue relying on CMOs for the production of the first commercial batches. We may consider internalizing production once our first product candidate is approved by regulatory authorities.

Legal Proceedings

From time to time, we may be involved in various claims and legal proceedings relating to claims arising out of our operations. We are not currently a party to any legal proceedings that, in the opinion of our management, are likely to have a material adverse effect on our business. Regardless of outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on us because of defense and settlement costs, diversion of management resources and other factors.

In 2015, Cellectis S.A. had two French subsidiaries (Cellectis Bioresearch and Ectycell) and three U.S. subsidiaries (Calyxt, Inc., Cellectis, Inc. and Cellectis Bioresearch Inc.). Non-controlling shareholders held a 24.5% interest in Cellectis Bioresearch, Cellectis Bioresearch Inc. and Ectycell until May 18, 2015.

The following internal reorganization was completed in 2015:

123

Following the reorganization and as of December 31, 2016, the two remaining subsidiaries, Cellectis, Inc. and Calyxt, Inc., were wholly-owned by Cellectis.