Schrodinger (SDGR) Risk Analysis

Conducting successful clinical trials requires the enrollment of a sufficient number of patients, and suitable patients may be difficult to identify and recruit. Identifying and qualifying patients to participate in future clinical trials for any other product candidate we develop is critical to our success. Patient enrollment in clinical trials and completion of patient participation and follow-up depends on many factors, including the severity of disease; size of the patient population; the nature of the trial protocol; the attractiveness of, or the discomforts and risks associated with, the treatments received by enrolled subjects; the availability of clinical trial investigators with appropriate competencies and experience; support staff; the number of ongoing clinical trials in the same indication that compete for the same patients; proximity of patients to clinical sites; the number and availability of trial sites; the ability to comply with the eligibility and exclusion criteria for participation in the clinical trial; ability to obtain and maintain patient consents; patient compliance; the ability to monitor patients during and after treatment; and the impact of any health pandemic or epidemic. For example, patients may be discouraged from enrolling in our clinical trials if the trial protocol requires them to undergo extensive post-treatment procedures or follow-up to assess the safety and effectiveness of our product candidates. Patients may also not participate in our clinical trials if they choose to participate in contemporaneous clinical trials of competitive products with competitors that have more clinical development experience than we do. Our inability to locate and enroll a sufficient number of patients for our clinical trials would result in significant delays, could require us to abandon one or more clinical trials altogether and could delay or prevent our receipt of necessary regulatory approvals. Enrollment delays in our clinical trials may result in increased development costs for our product candidates, which would cause the value of our company to decline and limit our ability to obtain additional financing.

Our drug discovery collaborators have significant discretion in determining when to make announcements about the status of our collaborations, including about preclinical and clinical developments and timelines for advancing the collaborative programs. While as a general matter we intend to periodically report on the status of our collaborations, our drug discovery collaborators, and in particular, our privately-held collaborators, may wish to report such information more or less frequently than we intend to or may not wish to report such information at all. The price of our common stock may decline as a result of the public announcement of unexpected results or developments in our collaborations, or as a result of our collaborators withholding such information.

Research programs to identify new product candidates require substantial technical, financial, and human resources. As an organization, we are advancing SGR-1505, our clinical-stage MALT1 inhibitor, and SGR-3515, our clinical-stage Wee1/Myt1 inhibitor, and we may fail to identify additional product candidates for development. Similarly, a key element of our business plan is to expand the use of our computational platform through an increase in software sales and drug discovery collaborations. A failure to demonstrate the utility of our platform by successfully using it ourselves to discover internal product candidates could harm our business prospects. Because we have limited resources, we focus our research programs on protein targets where we believe our computational assays are a good substitute for experimental assays, where we believe it is theoretically possible to discover a molecule with properties that are required for the molecule to become a drug and where we believe there is a meaningful commercial opportunity, among other factors. The focus of our initial proprietary drug discovery programs was in the area of oncology, and we have only recently begun expanding into other therapeutic areas, including neurology and immunology. We may forego or delay pursuit of opportunities with certain programs, collaborations, or product candidates or for indications that later prove to have greater commercial potential. However, the development of any product candidate we pursue may ultimately prove to be unsuccessful or less successful than another potential product candidate that we might have chosen to pursue on a more aggressive basis with our capital resources. If we do not accurately evaluate the commercial potential for a particular product candidate, we may relinquish valuable rights to that product candidate through strategic collaboration, partnership, licensing, or other arrangements in cases in which it would have been more advantageous for us to retain sole development and commercialization rights to such product candidate. Alternatively, we may allocate internal resources to a product candidate in a therapeutic area in which it would have been more advantageous to enter into a collaboration. Our research programs may show initial promise in identifying potential product candidates internally or with collaborators, yet fail to yield product candidates for clinical development for a number of reasons, including: - our research methodology or that of any collaborator may be unsuccessful in identifying potential product candidates that are successful in clinical development;- potential product candidates may be shown to have harmful side effects or may have other characteristics that may make the product candidates unmarketable or unlikely to receive marketing approval;- our current or future collaborators may change their development profiles for potential product candidates or abandon a therapeutic area; or - new competitive developments may render our product candidates obsolete or noncompetitive. If any of these events occur, we may be forced to abandon our development efforts for a program or programs, which would have a material adverse effect on our business.

If serious adverse events or undesirable side effects are observed in any of our clinical trials, we may have difficulty recruiting patients to our clinical trials, patients may drop out of our trials, or we may be required to abandon the trials or our development efforts of one or more product candidates altogether or limit development to certain uses or subpopulations in which the serious adverse events, undesirable side effects or other characteristics are less prevalent, less severe or more acceptable from a risk-benefit perspective. We, the FDA, comparable foreign regulatory authorities or an independent institutional review board may suspend clinical trials of a product candidate at any time for various reasons, including a belief that subjects or patients in such trials are being exposed to unacceptable health risks or adverse side effects. For example, in August 2025, we announced the discontinuation of the clinical development program for SGR-2921, our CDC7 inhibitor, which was being evaluated in a Phase 1 dose-escalation clinical trial in patients with relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia, or AML, or high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes. Despite early evidence of monotherapy activity observed in the Phase 1 clinical trial, based on the profile observed prior to discontinuation, including two emergent events where SGR-2921 was considered to have contributed to two deaths in patients with AML, we determined the path to development as a combination therapy would be difficult to pursue. Some potential therapeutics developed in the biotechnology industry that initially showed therapeutic promise in early-stage trials have later been found to cause side effects that prevented their further development. Even if the side effects do not preclude the product candidate from obtaining or maintaining marketing approval, undesirable side effects may inhibit market acceptance of the approved product due to its tolerability versus other therapies. In addition, adverse events which had initially been considered unrelated to the study treatment may later, even following approval and/or commercialization, be found to be caused by the study treatment. Any of these developments could materially harm our business, financial condition and prospects.

Before obtaining regulatory approvals for the commercial sale of any of our product candidates, we will be required to demonstrate with substantial evidence through well-controlled clinical trials that our product candidates are safe and effective for their intended uses. Clinical testing is expensive and can take many years to complete, and its outcome is inherently uncertain. Failure can occur at any time during the clinical trial process. Success in preclinical studies and early-stage clinical trials does not mean that future clinical trials will be successful. The results of our product candidates in preclinical studies may not be indicative of future results in our ongoing or later stage clinical trials. Product candidates in later-stage clinical trials may fail to demonstrate sufficient safety and efficacy to the satisfaction of the FDA and other comparable foreign regulatory authorities despite having progressed through preclinical studies and early-stage clinical trials. In some instances, there can be significant variability in safety and efficacy results between different clinical trials of the same product candidate due to numerous factors, including changes in trial protocols, differences in size and type of the patient populations, differences in and adherence to the dosing regimen and other trial protocols and the rate of dropout among clinical trial participants. Patients treated with our product candidates may also be undergoing surgical, radiation and chemotherapy treatments and may be using other approved products or investigational new drugs, which can cause side effects or adverse events that are unrelated to our product candidate. As a result, assessments of efficacy can vary widely for a particular patient, and from patient to patient and site to site within a clinical trial. This subjectivity can increase the uncertainty of, and adversely impact, our clinical trial outcomes. We do not know whether any clinical trials we may conduct will demonstrate consistent or adequate efficacy and safety sufficient to obtain marketing approval to market our product candidates. Most product candidates that begin clinical trials are never approved by regulatory authorities for commercialization. Moreover, preclinical studies and clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses and many companies that believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in preclinical studies and clinical trials nonetheless failed to obtain FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authority approval. We cannot guarantee that the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities will interpret trial results as we do, and more trials than we anticipated could be required before we are able to submit applications seeking approval of our product candidates. To the extent that the results of the trials are not satisfactory to the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities for support of a marketing application, we may be required to expend significant resources, which may not be available to us, to conduct additional trials in support of potential approval of our product candidates. Even if regulatory approval is secured for any of our product candidates, the terms of such approval may limit the scope and use of our product candidate, which may also limit its commercial potential. Furthermore, the approval policies or regulations of the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may significantly change in a manner rendering our clinical data insufficient for approval, which may lead to the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities delaying, limiting or denying approval of our product candidates.

From time to time, we may publicly disclose interim, initial, preliminary or topline data from our clinical trials, including our ongoing Phase 1 clinical trial of SGR-1505 and our ongoing Phase 1 clinical trial of SGR-3515, which are based on a preliminary analysis of then-available data, and the results and related findings and conclusions are subject to change following a more comprehensive review of the data related to the particular trial. Interim data from clinical trials that we may complete are subject to the risk that one or more of the clinical outcomes may materially change as patient enrollment continues and more patient data become available or as patients from our clinical trials continue other treatments for their disease. We will also have to make assumptions, estimations, calculations and conclusions as part of our analyses of data, and we may not have received or had the opportunity to fully and carefully evaluate all data. As a result, the interim, initial, topline or preliminary results that we report may differ from future results of the same trials, or different conclusions or considerations may qualify such results, once additional data have been received and fully evaluated. Preliminary or topline data also remain subject to audit and verification procedures that may result in the final data being materially different from the preliminary or topline data we previously published. As a result, interim, initial, topline and preliminary data should be viewed with caution until the final data are available. Adverse differences between interim data and final data could significantly harm our reputation and business prospects and may cause volatility in the price of our common stock.

We conduct, and we intend to continue to conduct, clinical trials for our product candidates at trial sites that are located outside the United States. Although the FDA may accept data from clinical trials conducted outside the United States, acceptance of these data is subject to certain conditions imposed by the FDA. In cases where data from foreign clinical trials are intended to serve as the sole basis for marketing approval in the United States, the FDA will generally not approve the application on the basis of foreign data alone unless (i) the data are applicable to the U.S. population and U.S. medical practice; (ii) the trials were performed by clinical investigators of recognized competence and pursuant to cGCP regulations; and (iii) the data may be considered valid without the need for an on-site inspection by the FDA, or if the FDA considers such inspection to be necessary, the FDA is able to validate the data through an on-site inspection or other appropriate means. In addition, even where the foreign study data are not intended to serve as the sole basis for approval, the FDA will not accept the data as support for an application for marketing approval unless the study satisfies certain conditions. For example, the clinical trial must be well designed and conducted and performed by qualified investigators in accordance with cGCPs. The FDA must be able to validate the data from the trial, including, if necessary, through an onsite inspection. The trial population must also have a similar profile to the U.S. population and the data must be applicable to the U.S. population and U.S. medical practice in ways that the FDA deems clinically meaningful, except to the extent the disease being studied does not typically occur in the United States. In addition, while these clinical trials are subject to the applicable local laws, FDA acceptance of the data will be dependent upon its determination that the trials also complied with all applicable U.S. laws and regulations. There can be no assurance that the FDA will accept data from trials conducted outside of the United States. If the FDA does not accept the data from any trial that we conduct outside the United States, it would likely result in the need for additional trials, which would be costly and time-consuming and delay or permanently halt our development of our product candidates or potential product candidates in the future. In addition, the conduct of clinical trials outside the United States could have a significant adverse impact on us. Risks inherent in conducting international clinical trials include: clinical practice patterns and standards of care that vary widely among countries; non-U.S. regulatory authority requirements that could restrict or limit our ability to conduct our clinical trials; administrative burdens of conducting clinical trials under multiple non-U.S. regulatory authority schema; foreign exchange rate fluctuations; and diminished protection of intellectual property in some countries.

Our scientific approach focuses on using our platform technology to conduct "computational assays" that leverage our deep understanding of physics-based modeling and theoretical chemistry to design molecules and predict their key properties without conducting time-consuming and expensive physical experiments. Our computational platform underpins our software solutions, our drug discovery collaborations and our own proprietary drug discovery programs. While the results of certain of our drug discovery collaborators suggest that our platform is capable of accelerating drug discovery and identifying high quality product candidates, these results do not assure future success for our drug discovery collaborators or for us with our proprietary drug discovery programs. Even if we or our drug discovery collaborators are able to develop product candidates that demonstrate potential in preclinical studies, we or they may not succeed in demonstrating safety and efficacy of product candidates in human clinical trials. For example, in collaboration with us, Nimbus was able to identify a unique series of acetyl-CoA carboxylase, or ACC, allosteric protein-protein interaction inhibitors with favorable pharmaceutical properties that inhibit the activity of the ACC enzyme. Nimbus achieved proof of concept in a Phase 1b clinical trial of its ACC inhibitor, firsocostat, and later sold the program to Gilead Sciences, Inc., or Gilead Sciences, in a transaction valued at approximately $1.2 billion, comprised of an upfront payment and earn outs. Of this amount, $601.3 million has been paid to Nimbus to date, and we received a total of $46.0 million in cash distributions in 2016 and 2017. In December 2019, Gilead Sciences announced topline results from its Phase 2 clinical trial which included firsocostat, both as a monotherapy and in combination with other investigational therapies for advanced fibrosis due to nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, in which the primary endpoint was not met. Gilead Sciences completed a Phase 2b clinical trial evaluating firsocostat in combination with Novo Nordisk A/S's semaglutide, a GLP-1 receptor agonist, for compensated cirrhosis due to nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. Moreover, preclinical and clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses, and many companies that have believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in preclinical studies and clinical trials have nonetheless failed to obtain marketing approval of their product candidates.

We have invested and expect to continue to invest in research and development efforts that further enhance our computational platform, often in response to our customers' requirements. These investments may involve significant time, risks, and uncertainties, including the risk that the expenses associated with these investments may affect our margins and operating results and that such investments may not generate sufficient revenues to offset liabilities assumed and expenses associated with these new investments. The software industry changes rapidly as a result of technological and product developments, which may render our solutions less desirable. For example, in recent years, a number of companies have entered the drug discovery industry utilizing different AI approaches. While we believe we compete favorably and are meaningfully differentiated from such approaches with the combination of our physics-based computational platform and machine learning capabilities, the success of other such AI approaches to drug discovery could impact the demand for our solutions. We believe that we must continue to invest a significant amount of time and resources in our platform and software solutions to maintain and improve our competitive position. If we do not achieve the benefits anticipated from these investments, if the achievement of these benefits is delayed, if technological developments render our solutions less desirable, or if a slowdown in general computing power impacts the rate at which we expect our physics-based simulations to increase in power and domain applicability, our revenue and operating results may be adversely affected.

From time to time, we expect that we will make public statements regarding the expected timing of certain milestones and key events, such as the commencement and completion of preclinical and IND-enabling studies and clinical trials in our proprietary drug discovery programs as well as developments and milestones under our collaborations. For example, Structure Therapeutics has also made public statements regarding its expectations for the development of programs under collaboration with us, and Structure Therapeutics and other collaborators may in the future make additional statements about their goals and expectations related to collaborations with us. The actual timing of these events can vary dramatically due to a number of factors such as delays or failures in our or our current and future collaborators' drug discovery and development programs, the amount of time, effort, and resources committed by us and our current and future collaborators, and the numerous uncertainties inherent in the development of drugs. As a result, there can be no assurance that our or our current and future collaborators' programs will advance or be completed in the time frames we or they announce or expect. If we or any collaborators fail to achieve one or more of these milestones or other key events as planned, our business could be materially adversely affected and the price of our common stock could decline.

We have and may continue to seek certain designations for one or more of our product candidates that could expedite review and approval by the FDA. A Breakthrough Therapy product is defined as a product that is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other products, to treat a serious condition, and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. For products that have been designated as Breakthrough Therapies, 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. The FDA may also designate a product for Fast Track review if it is intended, whether alone or in combination with one or more other products, for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and it demonstrates the potential to address unmet medical needs for such a disease or condition. For Fast Track products, sponsors may have greater interactions with the FDA and the FDA may initiate review of sections of a Fast Track product's application before the application is complete. This rolling review may be available if the FDA determines, after preliminary evaluation of clinical data submitted by the sponsor, that a Fast Track product may be effective. In June 2025, the FDA granted Fast Track designation for SGR-1505 for the treatment of adult patients with Waldenström macroglobulinemia that have failed at least two lines of therapy, including a BTK inhibitor. We may also seek a priority review designation for one or more of our product candidates. If the FDA determines that a product candidate is intended to treat a serious condition, and if approved, offers a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness, the FDA may designate the product candidate for priority review. Significant improvement may be illustrated by evidence of increased effectiveness in the treatment of a condition, elimination or substantial reduction of a treatment-limiting product reaction, documented enhancement of patient compliance that may lead to improvement in serious outcomes, and evidence of safety and effectiveness in a new subpopulation. A priority review designation means that the goal for the FDA to review an application is six months, rather than the standard review period of ten months. These designations are within the discretion of the FDA. Accordingly, even if we believe that one of our product candidates meets the criteria for these designations, the FDA may disagree and instead determine not to make such designation. Further, even if we receive a designation, the receipt of such designation for a product candidate may not result in a faster development or regulatory review or approval process 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 qualifies for these designations, the FDA may later decide that the product candidates no longer meet the conditions for qualification or decide that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened. In the European Union, we may seek PRIME designation for our product candidates in the future. PRIME is a voluntary program aimed at enhancing the EMA's role to reinforce scientific and regulatory support in order to optimize development and enable accelerated assessment of new medicines that are of major public health interest with the potential to address unmet medical needs. The program focuses on medicines that target conditions for which there exists no satisfactory method of treatment in the European Union or even if such a method exists, it may offer a major therapeutic advantage over existing treatments. PRIME is limited to medicines under development and not authorized in the European Union and the applicant intends to apply for an initial marketing authorization application through the centralized procedure. To be accepted for PRIME, a product candidate must meet the eligibility criteria in respect of its major public health interest and therapeutic innovation based on information that is capable of substantiating the claims. The benefits of a PRIME designation include the appointment of a Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use rapporteur to provide continued support and help to build knowledge ahead of a marketing authorization application, early dialogue and scientific advice at key development milestones, and the potential to qualify products for accelerated review, meaning reduction in the review time for an opinion on approvability to be issued earlier in the application process. PRIME enables an applicant to request parallel EMA scientific advice and health technology assessment advice to facilitate timely market access. Even if we receive PRIME designation for any of our product candidates, the designation may not result in a materially faster development process, review or approval compared to conventional EMA procedures. Further, obtaining PRIME designation does not assure or increase the likelihood of EMA's grant of a marketing authorization.

Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may designate a product as an orphan drug if it is a drug or biologic intended to treat a rare disease or condition. A similar regulatory scheme governs approval of orphan products by the EMA in the European Union. Generally, if a product candidate with an orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first marketing approval for the indication for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to a period of marketing exclusivity, which precludes the FDA or the EMA from approving another marketing application for the same product for the same therapeutic indication for that time period. The applicable period is seven years in the United States and ten years in the European Union. The exclusivity period in the European Union can be reduced to six years if a product no longer meets the criteria for orphan drug designation, in particular if the product is sufficiently profitable so that market exclusivity is no longer justified. In order for the FDA to grant orphan drug exclusivity to one of our products, the FDA must find that the product is indicated for the treatment of a condition or disease with a patient population of fewer than 200,000 individuals annually in the United States. The FDA may conclude that the condition or disease for which we seek orphan drug exclusivity does not meet this standard. Even if we obtain orphan drug exclusivity for a product, that exclusivity may not effectively protect the product from competition because different products can be approved for the same condition. In addition, even after an orphan drug is approved, the FDA can subsequently approve the same product for the same condition if the FDA concludes that the later product is clinically superior in that it is shown to be safer, more effective or makes a major contribution to patient care. Orphan drug exclusivity may also be lost if the FDA or EMA determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient quantity of the product to meet the needs of the patients with the rare disease or condition. In 2017, the Congress passed the FDA Reauthorization Act of 2017, or FDARA, which, among other things, codified the FDA's pre-existing regulatory interpretation, to require that a drug sponsor demonstrate the clinical superiority of an orphan drug that is otherwise the same as a previously approved drug for the same rare disease in order to receive orphan drug exclusivity. Under Omnibus legislation signed by President Trump on December 27, 2020, the requirement for a product to show clinical superiority applies to drugs and biologics that received orphan drug designation before enactment of FDARA in 2017, but have not yet been approved or licensed by the FDA. The FDA and Congress may further reevaluate the Orphan Drug Act and its regulations and policies. This may be particularly true in light of a decision from the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in September 2021 (Catalyst Pharms., Inc. v. Becerra) finding that, for the purpose of determining the scope of exclusivity, the term "same disease or condition" means the designated "rare disease or condition" and could not be interpreted by the FDA to mean the "indication or use." Thus, the court concluded, orphan drug exclusivity applies to the entire designated disease or condition rather than the "indication or use." Although there have been legislative proposals to overrule this decision, they have not been enacted into law. On January 23, 2023, the FDA announced that, in matters beyond the scope of that court order, the FDA will continue to apply its existing regulations tying orphan-drug exclusivity to the uses or indications for which the orphan drug was approved. More recently, however, in February 2025, a federal district court fully embraced the reasoning of the Catalyst decision in another decision challenging the scope of orphan drug exclusivity. On April 17, 2025, the FDA appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. We do not know if, when, or how the FDA may change the orphan drug regulations and policies in the future, and it is uncertain how any changes might affect our business. Depending on what changes the FDA may make to its orphan drug regulations and policies, our business could be adversely impacted. In addition, to obtain orphan drug designation in the European Union, we would need to demonstrate that there exists no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment of the condition in question that has been authorized in the European Union or, if such method exists, the medicinal product will be of significant benefit to those affected by that condition. There is no assurance that we would be able to meet that standard for any of our product candidates. Further, if we do obtain orphan drug designation for a candidate product in the EU, we will not be able to maintain that designation if we are not able to show, to the satisfaction of the EU regulatory authorities, that the product candidate is of significant benefit to patients over available commercial products for the indication in the EU and any additional products that are ahead of our product candidate in clinical development for the indication.