Silence Therapeutics PLC

SLNCIK 0001479615 · Every Form 4 filed by insiders at this issuer. See financials →

Annual report (10-K)

Latest 10-K filed Mar 5, 2026. Sentiment + YoY language diff vs prior year. Read sections →

Signal:Neutral

Risk Factors:tone -0.0159

MD&A: not detected

Sentiment via Loughran-McDonald lexicon · YoY diff via Jaccard similarity + paragraph set difference.

Recent 8-K announcements

Per-item disclosure feed. Item 2.02 is the earnings release.

May 18, 2026no items parsed May 7, 2026no items parsed Mar 5, 2026no items parsed Dec 22, 2025no items parsed Dec 22, 2025no items parsed

YoY shift: Unscored

Year-over-year tone shift - average net-tone change across Risk Factors and MD&A vs the prior 10-K.

Why YoY instead of absolute: the LM lexicon has ~6.6× more negative words than positive (legal/risk-disclosure language is heavy on hedging), so every 10-K reads bearish on raw tone. Year-over-year change strips that bias and surfaces the actual shift in management's framing.

Per-snippet highlights

Sentence-level sentiment highlighting with category and subcategory filters is coming once the snippet-scoring pipeline lands. For now, dig into the actual section text on the Sections tab.

Top insiders

Most active reporters at Silence Therapeutics PLC

Name	Roles	Filings
Griffiths Richard Ian	10% Owner	25
Ede-Golightly James	Director	3
Hellums Rhonda Lynette	OfficerDirector	2
Lemus David	Director	2
McInerney Timothy	Director	2

Showing 1-5 of 9

Per pagePage 1 of 2Next

All filings

40 Form 4 / 4-A filings, newest first

Filed	Insider	Top transaction	Shares	Price	Value
Feb 13, 2026	Griffiths Richard Ian 10% Owner	Holdings only	-	-	-
Jan 6, 2026	McInerney Timothy Director	Holdings only	-	-	-
Jan 6, 2026	Romano Steven J. EVP and Chief R&D Officer	Holdings only	-	-	-
Jan 6, 2026	Lemus David Director	Holdings only	-	-	-
Jan 6, 2026	Hellums Rhonda Lynette Chief Financial Officer · Director	Holdings only	-	-	-

Showing 1-5 of 40

Per pagePage 1 of 8Next

Real-time Form 4 intelligence. Smarter insider tracking.

Filed		Top transaction	Shares	Price	Value

In certain regions or countries, regulatory-related patent extensions may be available to extend the term of a patent that claims an approved product or method. Regulatory-based patent term extensions allow patentee to recapture a portion of patent term effectively lost as a result of the regulatory review period for a product candidate. The term of a U.S. patent that covers an FDA-approved drug or biologic, for example, may be eligible for patent term extension, which permits patent term restoration as compensation for the patent term lost during the FDA regulatory review process. The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, or the Hatch-Waxman Act, permits a patent term extension of up to five years beyond the expiration of the patent. The length of the patent term extension is related to the length of time the drug or biologic is under regulatory review. Patent extension 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 extended. Similar provisions are available in Europe, Japan, China and other jurisdictions to extend the term of a patent that covers an approved drug, for example Supplementary Protection Certificates in Europe. In very few jurisdictions (such as in the U.S. and Europe), patent or regulatory exclusivities may potentially be further extended by a pediatric extension, to give an additional six months’ extension, if pre-defined clinical trial data for a pediatric indication are timely submitted and accepted. In the future, if and when our products receive FDA approval, we expect to apply for regulatory patent term extensions on patents covering those products. We anticipate that some of our issued patents may be eligible for patent term extensions in certain jurisdictions based on an approved product or method, but such extensions may not be available and therefore its commercial monopoly may be restricted solely to patent term.

Third-party payers are increasingly imposing additional requirements and restrictions on coverage and limiting reimbursement levels for medical products. For example, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, imposes rebates on many Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D products to penalize price increases that outpace inflation on an annual basis. In addition, HHS has been empowered to negotiate the price of certain single-source drugs that have been on the market for at least 7 years covered under Medicare as part of the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program. Each year up to twenty (20) products will be selected by HHS for the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program. Products subject to the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program are expected to experience a significant reduction in reimbursement from the Medicare program on a per unit basis. In addition, federal and state governments reimburse covered prescription drugs at varying rates generally below average wholesale price. These restrictions and limitations influence the purchase of healthcare services and products. Third-party payers may limit coverage to specific drug products on an approved list, or formulary, which might not include all of the FDA-approved drug products for a particular indication. Third-party payers are increasingly challenging the price and examining the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of medical products and services, in addition to their safety and efficacy. We may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of our products, in addition to the costs required to obtain the FDA approvals. Our product candidates may not be considered medically necessary or cost-effective. A payer’s decision to provide coverage for a drug product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Further, one payer’s determination to provide coverage for a drug product does not assure that other payers will also provide coverage for the drug product. Adequate third-party reimbursement may not be available to enable us to maintain price levels sufficient to realize an appropriate return on our investment in drug development. Legislative proposals to reform healthcare or reduce costs under government insurance programs may result in lower reimbursement for our products and product candidates or exclusion of our product candidates from coverage. The cost containment measures that healthcare payers and providers are instituting and any healthcare reform could significantly reduce our revenues from the sale of any approved product candidates. We cannot provide any assurances that we will be able to obtain and maintain third-party coverage or adequate reimbursement for our product candidates in whole or in part. Further, coverage policies and third-party payer reimbursement rates may change at any time. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for products for which we receive marketing approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future.

The current administration is pursuing policies to reduce regulations and expenditures across government agencies including at HHS, the FDA, CMS and related agencies. These actions, presently directed by executive orders or memoranda from the Office of Management and Budget, may propose policy changes that create additional uncertainty for our business. For example, the current administration has announced agreements with pharmaceutical companies that require the drug manufacturers to offer, through a direct-to-consumer platform, U.S. patients and Medicaid programs prescription drug Most-Favored Nation pricing equal to or lower than those paid in other developed nations, with additional mandates for direct-to-patient discounts and repatriation of foreign revenues. Other recent actions, for example, include (1) directing agencies to reduce agency workforce and cut programs; (2) directing HHS and other agencies to lower prescription drug costs through a variety of initiatives, including by improving upon the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program and establishing Most-Favored-Nation pricing for pharmaceutical products; (3) imposing tariffs on imported pharmaceutical products; and (4) as part of the Make America Healthy Again Commission’s Strategy Report released in September 2025, working across government agencies to increase enforcement on direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising. Additionally, the current administration recently called on Congress to enact “The Great Healthcare Plan,” to codify and expand Most-Favored Nation pricing, lower government subsidies to private insurance companies, increase healthcare price transparency, expand pharmaceutical drugs available for over-the-counter purchase, and enact restrictions on pharmacy benefit manager payment methodologies, among other things. These actions and policies may significantly reduce U.S. drug prices, potentially impacting manufacturers’ global pricing strategies and profitability, while increasing their operational costs and compliance risks. In June 2024, in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the U.S. Supreme Court greatly reduced judicial deference to regulatory agencies, which could increase successful legal challenges to federal regulations affecting our operations. Congress may introduce and ultimately pass health care related legislation that could impact the drug approval process and make changes to the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program. These and other healthcare reform initiatives may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding.

Governments influence the price of medicinal products in the European Union through their pricing and reimbursement rules and control of national healthcare systems that fund a large part of the cost of those products to consumers. Some jurisdictions operate positive and negative list systems under which products may only be marketed once a reimbursement price has been agreed. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval, some of these countries may require the completion of clinical trials that compare the cost-effectiveness of a particular product candidate to currently available therapies. This Health Technology Assessment, or HTA, process is the procedure according to which the assessment of the public health impact, therapeutic impact and the economic and societal impact of use of a given medicinal product in the national healthcare systems of the individual country is conducted. The outcome of HTA regarding specific medicinal products will often influence the pricing and reimbursement status granted to these medicinal products by the competent authorities of individual EU Member States. In December 2021, Regulation No 2021/2282 on Health Technology Assessment, or HTA Regulation, was adopted. The HTA Regulation is intended to boost cooperation among EU Member States in assessing health technologies, including new medicinal products, and establishes the framework for EU level joint clinical assessments, joint scientific consultations, and the early identification of emerging health technologies. The HTA Regulation entered into application on January 12, 2025, through a phased implementation based on the type of product (i.e. oncology and advanced therapy medicinal products as of 2025, orphan medicinal products as of 2028, and all other medicinal products by 2030) and is intended to harmonize the clinical benefit assessment of HTA across the European Union. The Regulation permits EU Member States to use common tools, methodologies, and procedures and requires them to rely on EU‑level joint clinical assessment reports for the clinical components of their national HTA evaluations. Individual EU Member States will continue to be responsible for assessing non-clinical (e.g., economic, social, ethical) aspects of health technologies, and making decisions on pricing and reimbursement. Other EU Member States allow companies to fix their own prices for medicines but monitor and control company profits. The downward pressure on healthcare costs in general, particularly prescription medicines, has become very intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products.

time and resources that they dedicate to our programs. These third parties may have contractual relationships with other entities, some of which may be our competitors, which may draw time and resources away from our programs. If we cannot contract with acceptable third parties on commercially reasonable terms, or at all, or if these third parties do not carry out their contractual duties, satisfy legal and regulatory requirements for the conduct of clinical trials or meet expected deadlines, our clinical development program could be delayed or otherwise adversely affected. In all events, we are responsible for ensuring that each of our clinical trials is conducted in accordance with the general investigational plan and protocols for the trial. The FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities require us to comply with GCP, other applicable regulatory requirements and the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki for conducting, recording and reporting the results of clinical trials to assure that data and reported results are credible, accurate and complete and that the rights, integrity and confidentiality of trial participants are protected. We rely, for example, on third parties for aspects of quality control which are especially important in monitoring compliance with GCP requirements and avoiding any investigator fraud or misconduct in clinical research, such as practices including adherence to an investigational plan; accurate recordkeeping; drug accountability; obtaining completed informed consent forms; timely reporting of any adverse drug reactions; notifying appropriate investigational review boards, or IRBs, and ethics committees of progress reports and any significant changes; and obtaining documented IRB approvals or positive ethics committee opinions. Our reliance on third parties that we do not control does not relieve us of these responsibilities and requirements. The third parties with which we contract might not be diligent, careful or timely in conducting our clinical trials, as a result of which we could experience one or more lapses in quality controls or other aspects of clinical trial management, and the clinical trials could be delayed or unsuccessful. Any such event could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

In addition, drug product manufacturers and their facilities are subject to payment of user fees or may require manufacturing and import authorizations, or MIAs, in the European Union, and continual review and periodic inspections by regulatory authorities for compliance with current good manufacturing practices, or cGMP, including quality control, quality assurance, and the maintenance of records and documentation to ensure that approved products are safe and consistently meet applicable requirements, and adherence to commitments made in the NDA or MA. We or any third party manufacturers we engage may be unable to comply with these cGMP and with other regulatory authority requirements. These requirements are enforced by regulatory authorities through periodic inspections of manufacturing facilities. If we or a regulatory authority discovers previously unknown problems with a product such as AEs of unanticipated severity or frequency, adverse reactions, or product quality issues, or problems with the facility where the product is manufactured, a regulatory authority may impose restrictions relative to that product or the manufacturing facility. A negative outcome from such inspection or a failure to provide adequate and timely corrective actions in response to deficiencies identified could result in enforcement action, including shutdown of the third-party vendor or invalidation of drug product lots or processes, warning letters, fines and civil penalties, suspension of production, suspension, variation or delay in product approval, license revocation, product seizure or recall of product candidates or approved products, plant shutdown, operating restrictions and criminal prosecutions or the delay, withholding, variation or withdrawal of product approval. If the safety of any product is compromised due to a manufacturer’s failure to adhere to applicable laws or for other reasons, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for or successfully commercialize our products, which would seriously harm our business.

Similarly, in the European Union, orphan designation is intended to promote the development of medicinal products that are intended for (i) the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of life-threatening or chronically debilitating conditions (ii) either (a) such conditions affect not more than 5 in 10,000 persons in the EU when the application is made, or (b) the product without the benefits derived from orphan status, would not generate sufficient return in the EU to justify the necessary investment in developing the medicinal product; and (iii) there exists no satisfactory authorized method of diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of the condition that has been authorized in the EU, or even if such method exists, the product will be of significant benefit to those affected by that condition. In EU, orphan designation entitles a party to a number of incentives, such as fee reductions or fee waivers, protocol assistance, and access to the centralized marketing authorization procedure. Upon grant of a marketing authorization, orphan medicinal products are entitled to a ten-year period of market exclusivity for the approved therapeutic indication, which means that the EMA cannot accept another marketing authorization application or accept an application to extend for a similar product and the European Commission cannot grant a marketing authorization for the same indication for a period of ten years. The period of market exclusivity is extended by two years for orphan medicinal products that have also complied with an agreed PIP. This marketing exclusivity period can however, be reduced to six years if, at the end of the fifth year, it is established that the product no longer meets the criteria on the basis of which it received orphan medicinal product destination, including where it can be demonstrated on the basis of available evidence that the original orphan medicinal product is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity or where the prevalence of the condition has increased above the threshold.

and phishing attacks), malicious code (such as viruses and worms), malware (including as a result of advanced persistent threat intrusions), denial-of-service attacks, credential stuffing attacks, credential harvesting, personnel misconduct or error, ransomware attacks, supply-chain attacks, software bugs, server malfunctions, software or hardware failures, loss of data or other information technology assets, adware, attacks enhanced or facilitated by AI, fire, storm, flood, power loss, earthquakes, telecommunications failures, and other similar threats. These events could lead to the unauthorized access, disclosure and use of our sensitive data and information technology systems. The techniques used by criminal elements to attack computer systems can be sophisticated, change frequently and may originate from less regulated and remote areas of the world and increasingly involve highly resourced threat actors such as organized criminals and nation states. During times of war and other major conflicts, we, the third parties with whom we work, may be vulnerable to a heightened risk of these attacks, including retaliatory cyber-attacks, that could materially disrupt our systems and operations, supply chain, and ability to produce, sell and distribute our goods and services. In particular, severe ransomware attacks are becoming increasingly prevalent and can lead to significant interruptions in our operations, ability to provide our products or services, loss of sensitive data and income, reputational harm, and diversion of funds. Extortion payments may alleviate the negative impact of a ransomware attack, but we may be unwilling or unable to make such payments due to, for example, applicable laws or regulations prohibiting such payments. It may be difficult and/or costly to detect, investigate, mitigate, contain, and remediate a security incident. Actions taken by us or the third parties with whom we work to detect, investigate, mitigate, contain, and remediate a security incident could result in outages, data losses, and disruptions of our business. Threat actors may also gain access to other networks and systems after a compromise of our networks and systems. For example, threat actors may use an initial compromise of one part of our environment to gain access to other parts of our environment, or leverage a compromise of our networks or systems to gain access to the networks or systems of third parties with whom we work, such as through phishing or supply chain attacks. As a result, we cannot provide assurance that our efforts to address these threats proactively or implement adequate preventative measures will always be successful.

In the ordinary course of business, we may transfer personal data from Europe and other jurisdictions to the United States or other countries. Europe and other jurisdictions have enacted laws requiring data to be localized or limiting the transfer of personal data to other countries. In particular, the European Economic Area (EEA) and the United Kingdom have significantly restricted the transfer of personal data to third countries, including the United States, whose privacy laws it generally believes are inadequate. Other jurisdictions may adopt or have already adopted similarly stringent interpretations of their data localization and cross-border data transfer laws. Although there are currently various mechanisms that may be used to transfer personal data from the EEA and UK to the United States in compliance with law (e.g., the EEA Standard Contractual Clauses, the United Kingdom’s International Data Transfer Agreement / Addendum, and the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework and the United Kingdom’s extension thereto (which allows for transfers to relevant U.S.-based organizations who self-certify compliance and participate in the Framework)), these mechanisms are subject to legal challenges, and there is no assurance that we can satisfy or rely on these measures to lawfully transfer personal data to the United States. If there is no lawful manner for us to transfer personal data from the EEA, the UK or other jurisdictions to the United States, or if the requirements for a legally-compliant transfer are too onerous, we could face significant adverse consequences, including the interruption or degradation of our operations, the need to relocate part of or all of our business or data processing activities to other jurisdictions (such as Europe) at significant expense, increased exposure to regulatory actions, substantial fines and penalties, the inability to transfer data and work with partners, vendors and other third parties, and injunctions against our processing or transferring of personal data necessary to operate our business. Additionally, companies that transfer personal data out of the EEA and UK to other jurisdictions, particularly to the United States, are subject to increased scrutiny from regulators, individual litigants, and activist groups. Some European regulators have ordered certain companies to suspend or permanently cease certain transfers out of Europe for allegedly violating the GDPR’s cross-border data transfer limitations. Additionally, the U.S. Department of Justice issued a rule entitled the Preventing Access to U.S. Sensitive Personal Data and Government-Related Data by Countries of Concern or Covered Persons, which places additional restriction on certain data transactions involving countries of concern (e.g., China, Russia, Iran) and covered persons (i.e., individuals and entities who are designated as such by the U.S. Attorney General or considered “foreign persons” and are majority owned by, organized under the laws of, a primary resident in, or a contractor of, a covered person or country of concern, as applicable) that may impact certain business activities such as vendor engagements, sale or sharing of data, employment of certain individuals, and investor agreements. Violations of the rule could lead to significant civil and criminal fines and penalties. The rule applies regardless of whether data is anonymized, key-coded, pseudonymized, de-identified or encrypted, which presents particular challenges for companies like ours and may impact our ability engage in transactions or agreements with certain third parties in the future.

In the United States, federal, state, and local governments have enacted numerous data privacy and security laws, including data breach notification laws, personal data privacy laws, consumer protection laws (e.g., Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act), and other similar laws (e.g., wiretapping laws). Numerous U.S. states have enacted comprehensive privacy laws that impose certain obligations on covered businesses, including providing specific disclosures in privacy notices and affording residents with certain rights concerning their personal data. As applicable, such rights may include the right to access, correct, or delete certain personal data, and to opt-out of certain data processing activities, such as targeted advertising, profiling, and automated decision-making. The exercise of these rights may impact our business and ability to provide our products and services. Certain states also impose stricter requirements for processing certain personal data, including sensitive information, such as conducting data privacy impact assessments. These state laws allow for statutory fines for noncompliance. For example, the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA) applies to the personal data of consumers, business representatives, and employees who are California residents and requires businesses to provide specific disclosures in privacy notices and honor requests of such individuals to exercise certain privacy rights. The CCPA provides for fines and allows private litigants affected by certain data breaches to recover significant statutory damages. The CCPA and other comprehensive U.S. state privacy laws exempt some data processed in the context of clinical trials, these developments further complicate compliance efforts, and increase legal risk and compliance costs for us and the third parties with whom we work, should we become subject to such laws in the future. Similar laws are being considered in several other states, as well as at the federal and local levels, and we expect more states to pass similar laws in the future. Failure to comply with federal and state laws in the United States regarding privacy and security of personal data could further expose us to penalties under privacy and data protection laws. Even if we are not determined to have violated these laws, government investigations into these issues typically require the expenditure of significant resources and generate negative publicity, which could harm our business.

In the United States, there have been, and continue to be, legislative and regulatory developments regarding the healthcare system that could prevent or delay marketing approval of our product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities, and affect our ability to profitably sell any product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. Additionally, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny in the United States of pharmaceutical pricing practices in light of the rising cost of prescription drugs and biologics. Such scrutiny has resulted in several recent congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, require direct price negotiations for certain high-expenditure, single-source prescription drugs and biologics covered by the Medicare program, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for products. For example, on July 4, 2025, the annual reconciliation bill, the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” or OBBBA, was signed into law which is expected to reduce Medicaid spending and enrollment by implementing work requirements for some beneficiaries, capping state-directed payments, reducing federal funding, and limiting provider taxes used to fund the program. OBBBA also narrows access to Affordable Care Act, or ACA, marketplace exchange enrollment and declines to extend the ACA enhanced advanced premium tax credits, set to expire at the end of 2025, which, among other provisions in the law, are anticipated to reduce the number of Americans with health insurance. In addition, there have been actions and proposals from the Trump administration that include: reducing agency workforce and cutting programs; directing HHS and other agencies to lower prescription drug costs through a variety of initiatives, including by improving upon the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program and establishing Most-Favored-Nation pricing for pharmaceutical products; imposing tariffs on imported pharmaceutical products; directing certain federal agencies to enforce existing law regarding hospital and plan price transparency and by standardizing prices across hospitals and health plans; and as part of the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission’s recent Strategy Report, working across government agencies to increase enforcement on direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising. In addition, on September 30, 2025, the current administration announced the first agreement with a major pharmaceutical company that requires the drug manufacturer to offer, through a direct-to-consumer platform, U.S. patients and Medicaid programs prescription drug Most-Favored Nation pricing equal to or lower than those paid in other developed nations, with additional mandates for direct-to-patient discounts and repatriation of foreign revenues. While many of these proposed measures will require authorization through additional legislation to become effective, Congress and the current administration have each indicated that they will continue to seek new legislative and/or administrative measures to control drug costs. At the state level, legislatures are increasingly passing legislation and

Moreover, in order to obtain reimbursement for our products in some European countries, including some EU Member States, we may be required to compile additional data comparing the cost-effectiveness of our products to other available therapies. This Health Technology Assessment, or HTA, of medicinal products is becoming an increasingly common part of the pricing and reimbursement procedures in some EU Member States, including those representing the larger markets. The HTA process is the procedure to assess therapeutic, economic and societal impact of a given medicinal product in the national healthcare systems of the individual country. The outcome of an HTA will often influence the pricing and reimbursement status granted to these medicinal products by the competent authorities of individual EU Member States. The extent to which pricing and reimbursement decisions are influenced by the HTA of the specific medicinal product currently varies between EU Member States. The HTA Regulation has applied from January 12, 2025, although it will enter into force iteratively and initially apply to new active substances to treat cancer and to all advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs), it will then be expanded to orphan medicinal products in January 2028, and to all centrally authorized medicinal products as of 2030. Selected high-risk medical devices will also be assessed under the HTA Regulation as of 2026. The HTA Regulation is intended to harmonize the clinical benefit assessment of HTA across the EU and permits EU Member States to use common HTA tools, methodologies, and procedures across the EU, working together in four main areas, including joint clinical assessment of the innovative health technologies with the most potential impact for patients, joint scientific consultations whereby developers can seek advice from HTA authorities, identification of emerging health technologies to identify promising technologies early, and continuing voluntary cooperation in other areas. However, there is concern that there are insufficient slots available for joint scientific advice during development. If advice is unavailable during development, there is a higher risk of data gaps and therefore delays in access for patients. Individual EU Member States will continue to be responsible for assessing non-clinical (e.g., economic, social, ethical) aspects of health technologies, and making decisions on pricing and reimbursement. If we are unable to maintain favorable pricing and reimbursement status in EU Member States for product candidates that we may successfully develop and for which we may obtain regulatory approval, any anticipated revenue from and growth prospects for those products in the EU could be negatively affected. In light of the fact that the United Kingdom has left the EU, Regulation No 2021/2282 on HTA does not apply in the United Kingdom. However, MHRA is working with UK HTA bodies and other national organizations, such as the Scottish Medicines Consortium, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, or NICE, and the All-Wales Medicines Strategy Group, to introduce new pathways supporting innovative approaches to the safe, timely and efficient development of medicinal products, including, effective as of 31 March, 2025, relaunching the Innovative Licensing and Access Pathway with more predicable timelines and closer involvement of the National Health Service.

If the patent applications we hold and/or have out-licensed with respect to our product candidates fail to issue or if their breadth or strength of protection is threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to develop product candidates, and threaten our ability to commercialize, future products. We cannot offer any assurances about which, if any, patents will issue or whether any issued patents will be found invalid and unenforceable or will be threatened by third parties. A patent may be challenged through one or more of several administrative proceedings including Inter Partes Review, Post Grant Review, re-examination or opposition before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or the USPTO, or European Patent Office, or the EPO, and by way of similar proceedings in certain other jurisdictions. For example, re-examination of, or oppositions to, patents owned by us have previously been initiated, and while we believe these proceedings did not or will not result in a commercially relevant impact on the individual patents, any successful challenge of patents or any other patents owned by us could deprive us of rights necessary for the successful commercialization of any product candidates that we or our strategic alliance partners may develop. Since patent applications in the United States and most other countries are confidential for a period of up to 18 months after filing, and some remain confidential until issued, we cannot be certain that we were the first to file any patent application related to a product candidate or an siRNA related technology or method. Furthermore, in certain situations, if we and one or more third parties have filed patent applications in the United States claiming the same subject matter, an administrative proceeding, known as a derivation proceeding (previously known as an interference), can be initiated to determine which applicant is entitled to the patent on that subject matter. Such administrative proceedings provoked by third parties or brought by us may be necessary to determine the priority of inventions with respect to our patents or patent applications, or those of our alliance partners. An unfavorable outcome could require us to cease using the related technology or to attempt to license rights to us from the prevailing party. Our business could be harmed if the prevailing party does not offer us a license on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Our defense of a patent or patent application in such a proceeding may not be successful and, even if successful, may result in narrowed claims, which may or may not cover our current or future products and product candidates, and at substantial costs and distraction to our management and other employees.

Silence Therapeutics PLC

Annual report (10-K)

Recent 8-K announcements

Risk Factors (Item 1A)

Top insiders

All filings

Risk Factors (Item 1A)

External resources

Permalink