Good afternoon. Thank you for attending AbCellera Biologics Inc. FY 2023 Earnings Results and Business Update Call. My name is Matt, and I will be your moderator for today's call. [Operator Instructions] I would now like to pass the conference call over to our host Tryn Stimart, Chief Legal and Compliance Officer with AbCellera. Tryn, please go ahead.

Thank you. Good morning, good afternoon, good evening to everyone listening around the world. Thank you for joining us for AbCellera's full year 2023 earnings call. I'm Tryn Stimart, AbCellera's Chief Legal and Compliance Officer. Joining me on today's call are Dr. Carl Hansen, AbCellera's President and Chief Executive Officer; and Andrew Booth, AbCellera's Chief Financial Officer. During this call, we anticipate making projections and forward-looking statements based on our current expectations and pursuant to the Safe Harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Our actual results could differ materially due to several factors as set forth in our latest form 10-K and subsequent forms 10-Q and 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. AbCellera does not undertake any obligation to update any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. Our presentation today, including our earnings press release issued earlier today and our SEC filings are available on our Investor Relations website. The information we provide about our pipeline is for the benefit of the investment community and is not intended to be promotional. As we transition to our prepared remarks, please note that all dollars referred to during the call are in U.S. dollars. After our prepared remarks, we will open the lines for questions and answers. Now I'll turn the call over to Carl.

Thank you, Tryn, and thanks everyone for joining us today. On today's call, I'll share some perspective on the state of sellers business, review the progress we made last year and lay out our priorities for 2024. First, the state of the business, as we enter 2024 and after nearly 12 years of investment, we are now in the final stages of building our engine with the remaining efforts concentrated on our manufacturing capabilities. Through this work, we have built a competitive advantage in the discovery and preclinical development of antibody therapies and we will soon be fully integrated from target through to the clinic. We have tested and proven our capabilities across more than 100 programs and we have done this in partnerships with the top tier of biotech and pharma companies. Through these partnerships, we have built a portfolio of passive royalty positions in therapeutic programs. We believe this portfolio represents a growing and unrecognized store of value that will mature into future high margin revenue streams. Over the past 3 years, we have increasingly focused on only those partnerships that we see as strategic and that we believe will yield the highest value. This has included the addition of multiple co development programs in which we have the option to maintain a 50% ownership stake. Alongside of our partnership business, we have made internal R&D investments over the last 5 years to unlock difficult target classes including GPCRs and ion channels. This work is now bearing fruit. And last year, we announced our fist internal program from this effort that has advanced into IND enabling studies. We believe this is just the beginning and that it foreshadows a series of potential first-in-class therapies over the coming years. In 2021, we launched a second long range R&D effort…

Thanks, Carl. As Carl pointed out, AbCellera continues to be in a strong liquidity position with over $780 million in cash and equivalents and over $200 million in available government funding to execute on our strategy. Over the past several years, AbCellera has been in building mode. As we enter 2024, we are nearing the end of that build. Our team is largely in place, and we expect our departmental expenses in R&D and in SG&A in 2024 to be similar to what we saw in 2023. 2024 will also be our last major capital expenditure year of this multiyear build as we complete our CMC and GMP manufacturing investments. 2024 investments in CapEx are expected to be similar to what they were in 2023 and be significantly reduced thereafter as we move from building these capabilities to using them on our own programs and programs with our strategic partners. Looking at results. First, let me highlight some progress made on and changes to our key business metrics as we have detailed in our 10-K submission. In Q4, we added 21 new programs under contract and ended 2023 with 203 programs under contract with 46 unique partners. All new programs include downstream participation. Consistent with our direction over the past number of years, we are focusing on strategic partnerships and high quality programs rather than deal volume in our partnering activity. In addition, we expect to increasingly drive value from our pipeline of internal and co-development programs. We believe that the focus of our execution is not well represented with the number of discovery partners and programs under contract metrics. As such, going forward, we will no longer be reporting on these metrics. We will keep reporting on program starts. In 2023, we started work on 12 partner initiated programs,…

The first question is from the line of Robyn Karnauskas with Truist.

I think I'm really focused on how you're moving toward going to IND and building out that platform. Can you help us focus on how to monetize that revenue stream and how to think about the amount of royalties you may get doing that and when we could learn about what drugs you may are you going to highlight them? Are you going to say what they are as you go through that process? I think that would help the biotech investors actually understand how to monetize that and model those?

First, let me just frame this with the strategy that we've been communicating since becoming a public company and long before, which is first to invest in building capabilities that allow us to repeatedly generate molecules that have potential to be first in class and best in class therapies and then to use that platform with partners to work on programs that build a portfolio of physicians in future therapeutic programs. Now within that broader frame, we have a growing portfolio of programs that we've done through what we would call partner-initiated programs. These are now converting, as Andrew detailed into potential passive royalty streams that are going to mature over time. Over the past 3 years, we've started to evolve that business model to include co development programs. We have a bigger stake. And for the last 5 years, we have been working consistently on technology projects that are now yielding wholly-owned potential 1st in class and best in class assets that we're taking forward into the clinic. So, on the portfolio side, there is, let's say, single-digit royalty positions that add up in aggregate to what we believe will be long term predictable and high margin cash flow. On the programs that we are bringing forward ourselves, we would view that like you would view a typical integrated biotech. So each of these has the potential to generate huge upside and value and we have taken our time to find the opportunities that we're excited about and we believe there's an excellent chance of getting to value inflections. Now for those, we're going to look at each of them independently decide how we're going to prosecute those moving forward into the clinic. Both we are committed to take forward into Phase 1. As I mentioned in my prepared remarks for 635, we are very excited about that program and we see the potential to take that beyond Phase 1 given the nature of development. For ABCL575 in the area of atopic dermatitis and other inflammation autoimmune conditions, we think the VIAVAT program would benefit from a partnership. So to your question, as you bring molecules forward, you get them closer to revenue, you get them derisked at IND and then past Phase 1. Obviously, the potential terms for out licensing are going to grow commensurately and we're making a decision on every program based on capital allocation and based on options to maximize the value for that. So, we expect that ABCL575 could be a very valuable program for out licensing. But right now, we're focused on getting that through to Phase 1.

Two follow ups. Attrition rate is beyond I think it's around 40% if I recall. Do you expect it to become similar or higher over the period? And more color on, you have this discontinued program. Could you take that in-house? You can develop that. Now you have capabilities. Could you opine on that? And like what would you do with those programs?

Hey, Robin. Andrew here. To the first part of that question, yes, we're showing what we believe is going to be an annual disclosure now on the progress of the pipeline in the hands of our partners. We've been able to provide that because of investments over the last number of years in Alliance Management. So we have much better visibility, much stronger connections with those partners. And you were saying that the attrition rate of about 40%, what do we expect it to be going forward? I mean, I think we're quite optimistic about the remaining ones in that pipeline. And like I said… pardon me?

But the tuition rate, it should go higher, correct? Like it will go lower? That's right.

I think I mean, of course, we would be delighted if the attrition rate was only 40% and the rest of those made it to the clinic. So we would expect some additional attrition on top of that. So when we said in the prepared remarks, it's within our expectations. And of course, it's still there's some time before those other ones are matured and invested in by the partners and make it to the clinic. So we would expect not all of the rest of them to make it to the clinic. But we'll continue to report on that on an annual basis.

And discontinued programs, like how do you think about those? Would you take them in-house?

Karl here Robin. So for most of the programs that are not being advanced, we don't have a contractual right to take those in-house. And I would also highlight that as Andrew said, we expect there to be considerable attrition between the initiation of discovery and clinical development. Certainly, anyone with experience in the industry would expect well below 50% of programs will actually make it into clinical development. Those programs will fail for a whole variety of reasons. There could be scientific data that comes in based on animal models. There could be competing programs out there. For some companies, it will be a matter of pipeline prioritization and capital allocation. Thus far of the ones that we've seen that are not advancing, we have not contemplated taking them in-house and we honestly have high conviction in the programs that we've generated internally and that's where our focus is for our internal pipeline.

Next question is from the line of Andrea Tan with Goldman Sachs.

Carl, maybe first, can you speak a little bit more about what you think will be necessary to show for the TCE platform such that it will enable a major partnership?

As I said in my prepared remarks, we launched that in about 2021. And we are very pleased with the progress of the science and the data that we've been able to bring forward. So we've been attending ACR and SITC and we're able to raise the bar at every one of those conferences. At this point, what we really have in hand is the broadest most well characterized panel of CD3. We've shown we compare those with different TAAs to tune in the combination of cell killing and cytokine release. And we have shown that we can use our platform to generate highly specific TCR mimetic antibodies that bind MHC peptide targets. That work has been done in large part through internal R&D and work on a series of targets that we have been advancing. And as that work matures and gets close to the clinic, we're seeing the appetite from industry increase. I think it's difficult to know when that will get to the point where we consummate a deal. Every indication is that we're talking to the right people and the response from scientists at really I'd say that some of the top if not the top firms in the space has been universally positive and so we're hopeful that that will continue to move forward. But I wouldn't speculate on what is going to be the key piece of data that makes that happen because it's a combination of science and priorities of the partner and of course business terms.

And then Andrew maybe one for you just given the 40% capital allocation that you laid out for the build out of your engine and manufacturing. Just curious, if you would ever look to monetize the latter via contract manufacturing?

So I think in the first two programs that we're talking about, so 635 and 575, we are actually using contract manufacturers in order to move those through to IND enabling study. And if you're talking about would we be using our own internal and contract them contracted out. That's it is not our intention to be a service organization or a CDMO. We are expecting to use this facility for our own internal programs, prioritizing internal programs, co development programs and the programs of our partners. And I think given the scale of the facility that and the pipeline that we have there, that'll be sufficient to keep the facility active.

Next question is from the line of Allison Bratzel with Piper Sandler.

So two from me. First, on the That cell engager platform, I'm hoping you could characterize interest in this approach for autoimmune indications relative to oncology indications and just overall, what kind of updates or disclosures, we can expect out of this platform over the next year or so? And then second, just kind of a follow-up on, a prior question about the new business metrics you'll be providing. Could you clarify just the metrics you'll provide going forward on a quarterly and annual basis? And also, just how we should think about research fees and milestone revenues, both near and longer term? Thank you.

Thanks, Allison. Maybe I'll start and I'll hand it over to Andrew for the metrics and the financials. So I think the first question was about interest in T cell engagers for autoimmune. That has been, I'd say, over the last year, a hot topic of discussion with a variety of partners. As you're probably aware, there's been some exciting data in the CAR T space, particularly on CD19 for autoimmune conditions and lupus. And many people have recognized that if CAR T can work in this indication, then there's a real opportunity to bring bispecifics as a substitute that would have all the advantages of being much more like a drug and easier to get to patients and easier to make a business out of. So we think that's a very exciting opportunity, one that we are well positioned to move on. Beyond that, I don't have much to add on autoimmune conditions. Second, you asked about updates on the TCE platform. As I said, we are continuing to advance that platform and get proof points on internal programs that are being done with the TCE platform. We currently have four abstracts that have been submitted to AACR. We're hopeful that those will all be accepted and that we'll be able to share data shortly in public there. And I think that was the scientific part. Maybe I'll hand over to Andrew for the last pieces.

Yes. Hey, Allison. So thanks for the question on the business metrics. So going forward on a quarterly basis, we'll continue to report out on our program starts and our molecules in the clinic. And on an annual basis, we will be continuing to report out on the royalty rate, sort of our average royalty rates and aggregate milestones that we've accumulated, which are reported also in our 10-K as well as it would be our intention to report on this attrition graph on what the progression of molecules are that we've handed back to our partners.

Next question is from the line of Stephen Willey with Stifel.

Maybe a couple. So I guess now that you just have a line of sight into completing this forward integration process via the completion of manufacturing. I think you're talking about having pilot runs going before the end of this year. Can you start engaging potential partners or even co-development partners on the BD front with kind of a proposed workflow that now contemplates the manufacturing of an end product? Or do you have to wait till those pilot runs are done before you can start engaging on those kinds of deals?

Hi, Steve. Carl here. No, I think you're exactly right. So once a development candidate has been picked, the first step is to move that into the generation of cell lines and then start to develop a process ahead of the manufacturing. So we have been building RPD teams ahead of that and we are certainly in a position this year to begin working on process development leading to manufacturing and have every confidence that the pilot runs and the facility will be online to support that. So those are conversations that we can begin having right now. I'll also add that as I mentioned in my prepared remarks, we do, we are targeting to bring at least one additional development candidate forward ourselves this year and it is our expectation that we'd be able to do the manufacturing from on that one from start to finish.

And maybe just on the TCE partnership, just to follow-up. I guess, have any of the BD conversations as you've had to date either, I guess, shaped the kind of deal you want to do and/or the type of deal that you think you can do just kind of given the data that you shared today to the progress that you've made with this panel of CD3 variants? And is it your preference to do something exclusive versus nonexclusive? I'm just kind of curious as to how you're thinking about this.

Yes. I mean, it's always dangerous to speculate on deals and what exactly the structure is going to be. You're exactly right that if you're talking to the companies that have a strong interest in this, then that will certainly help you get smarter about the types of deals that you should do and how you should think about maximizing value on the platform. And those conversations have been helpful. The real question, I think and Andrea asked something similar like what is the key data. It's really a combination of moving enough and finding the right partner with a good alignment and then making sure that you're doing a deal that really captures the value of the platform. If we wanted to execute TCE deals, we could have done several TCE deals last year and we passed because we think that that's not in the best interest of the long-term value of that platform. And so that's an issue that we're continually evaluating and that we'll navigate going forward. And while we do want to get that deal out and have the validation, it's much more important for the long-term state of the business that we do the right deal and make sure we're not selling this cheap.

And then maybe just one quick follow-up. I guess the 1 or maybe 2 additional candidates that you might be moving forward kind of past discovery this year in addition to 575 and I think it's 635. Do those also kind of fall into the either TCE or GPCR Ion Channels bucket in terms of being, I guess, higher value?

Sure. So I don't think that I mentioned it, but probably the most likely source of those candidates is going to be from our work in GPCRs and Ion Channels. 635, we are wildly excited about. We love that program. I'm probably every bit as excited about the prospect of that effort that's been going for a long time to start to generate some very exciting molecules. So we're hoping that we'll be able to deliver on at least 1 perhaps 2 out of that platform. There is I think a side chance that it could also come from a TCE program and that's really on our side about prioritization and deciding where we like the data and the opportunity the best.

Next question is from the line of Steve [indiscernible] with KeyCorp.

Is there any additional color you can provide on the 3 new partner initiative programs that were started in the fourth quarter?

Only that I would say most often you can see we had some BD activity in the second half of the year. Most often the starts are following recent deal activity, but we don't normally go into any detail there, Steve, on what quarter to quarter are the specific deals and starts that we have.

Next question is from the line of Puneet Souda with Leerink Partners.

Hi. Yeah. You have Michael on for Puneet. I was just wondering, so with this, pickup in the pucks, later in this year, I was wondering if that's like a typical seasonality in BD activity or if you're seeing a pickup now that there's been a decent amount of biopharma M&A and if that influences kind of your outlook for how much co-development or asset sale you might have kind of in the near term?

Hey, Michael. Thanks for joining for Puneet there. No, I think it's just there's no sort of predictable seasonality with the BD deal flow. It's just it can be irregular, and it has been in the past also irregular. So we don't I wouldn't read into anything regarding that quite robust quarter. And as I mentioned, we're going to, we don't consider the programs under contract to be really the meaningful business metric we're people turning people's attention to going forward, and we're going to stop reporting on that on a quarterly basis.

And then I was wondering if you had any visibility on whether those five preclinical assets, if they might be getting into the clinic sometime in 2024 or 2025?

Hi. Thanks for the follow-up. I mean, we would hope so, but they're in the hands of our partners and they're moving them at their own pace. I would say, like the progression, as we have seen in the past can take any number of years. Ones that we are particularly excited about because they have or we could expect in 2024, let's say, because they have already disclosed this themselves is Abdera, the company we worked with on radioisotope conjugates. They have indicated that, I think, at least one would come into the clinic in 2024. So we're definitely keeping our eye out for that. For other ones, we don't have any particular insight on what their schedules are.

Next question is from the line of Steven Mah with Cowen.

Andrew, how should we think about the R&D expense going forward in 2024, especially in light of you advancing two internal programs into IND enabling studies? And then, second part of the question, given the cadence of INDs in 2024 of one or two. Could you give us some color on what's driving that cadence? And could you do more if you had enough if you had multiple compelling candidates? It seems like you have the cash and the manufacturing capacity to accelerate if you wanted. Is that a fair statement?

So I'll take each of those and I think Tryn will chime in on the second one as well at the end. So on the R&D expense in 2024, as I mentioned in the prepared remarks, we'd consider it to be, we would expect it to be relatively flat versus last year's expense. Last year, we did have some expenses related to clinical development, of a certain number of programs certainly bringing 575 and 635 to where it is in IND enabling studies. And we would expect it to actually be similar in 2024, so relatively flat overall. Regarding the second question, as what Carl mentioned is that we would expect 2 additional programs getting into development candidate and towards IND enabling studies in 2024. And actually that 635 and 575 would reach IND in 2025 and then that's when their Phase 1 would be expected to start. We're on a pace of roughly that than those 2 development candidates from this year would have INDs or go into IND enabling studies with expected INDs in 2026. That appears to be the pace and cadence that we're getting into. I'll let Carl talk about whether what the capacity is and what are maybe the limiting features on that.

I'm sure happy to do that. So maybe just first emphasizing as I did in my prepared remarks that we believe advancing internal portfolio is going to be the biggest value driver in the long run for AbCellera. Now our focus is on making sure that we're building that portfolio and moving it forward effectively. This is not about numbers. It's not about putting a certain number of INDs on the board. It is completely about being able to look at the data, look at the opportunity, look at the commercial case and get excited that you have a much better than average chance of bringing forward a molecule that's going to be a drug that helps patients. So the fundamental bottleneck here is in finding the opportunities and getting the science to the point where you really have conviction and believe that this is a program that deserves to be added to the portfolio. That's by far the bottleneck. Now the other piece is, if in the event that you're working on many programs as we are and a lot of them happened to hit in the same year, I could imagine that there is a number at which we would run into a bottleneck operationally in being able to manage the manufacturing, get the IND packages together due to preclinical work. Frankly, that would be a problem that we would welcome. And given the nature of what we're working on, we could pace those out. Most of these programs are against targets that the industry has known about for many years and where we're not seeing antibodies move forward, because people have not been able to solve those problems. So we would love to have a backup of exciting first in class molecules to move forward. That's not currently the place, but we are putting our necks out a little bit and saying, hey, this year we're hoping to get at least 1 breakthrough and perhaps 2 and add 2 more programs in development candidates.

And then last one is a follow-up question on manufacturing. Given the recent discussions by the U.S. Government on the bioeconomy and securing domestic and allied supply chains, are you guys applying for any U.S. government funding for biomanufacturing or bioproduction?

As you probably know, we have had some close interactions with DARPA and the U.S. government in the past, and we certainly would welcome that again. We're not currently engaged in those types of conversations. What has been interesting is, I'm sure you've seen is that there is there are some geopolitical factors that are making it more and more important to have manufacturing in-house and have them in North America. So we think that that's really playing well into the strategy. And we believe that in the long run, if you have the ability to continue to generate first-in-class assets, it is highly strategic to be able to control the supply chain through PD and manufacturing. And so we view the GMP manufacturing not so much as a revenue center as a key strategic asset to execute on the vision of building a vertically integrated clinical stage biotech.

Next question is from the line of Evan Seigerman with BMO.

Bigger picture one that I want to ask one on 635. The bigger picture, as you think about kind of your transition to this, more of a drug development type company, how do you decide what assets you're going to put through a Phase 1, maybe it's a Phase 2 versus partnering out? Is it really just the sheer size of resources, the economics? Walk me through kind of that thinking. And then maybe on 635, can you walk us through kind of the genesis of this? I know you're not going to disclose the target or kind of what you're going after here, but metabolic is obviously very hot. What do you see as differentiated about 635? And maybe how does that fit into kind of a rapidly evolving metabolic space? Thank you very much.

Sure. Happy to take those questions in turn. So the first question was about how do you decide which programs you're working on, how far you take them and when you look to partner out. So first of all, deciding at every point in development, do we further invest in a program, we're looking at four key dimensions. We're looking at science. We're looking at the commercial opportunity. We're looking at the potential for differentiation. And we're looking at a practical path for development. So every asset, every opportunity needs to be looked at through those four dimensions at each step. Now, as you start to get further into clinical development, I think one of the big questions as to whether it's better to keep it in-house or better to look for partnerships depends on the scale of resources you need to commit. So we are definitely not in the game of betting everything on a single asset. We have been diversifying our portfolio from the beginning and we're going to continue to do that. But it's also the clinical development capability and for some indications, particularly indications that are competitive in terms of patient enrollment, these are much better done by a large and established company. I think atopic dermatitis is probably a pretty good example of that. So there's some combination of resource allocation and just what is practical and do you believe that you can do it effectively and that you're going to create the most value for patients and for the company by keeping it in your own hands or by finding the right partner. And then when you find the right partner, then the question is what exactly is the nature of that partnership? And those are the things that need to be evaluated not as a omnibus strategy, but rather on a case by case basis based on the best information you have at the time.

And then I guess more on to two fiber kind of what else you'd want to share?

Yes. I don't have too much more to share on 635. I mean the highlights are, we think this is a potentially first-in-class antibody therapy against the GPCR or ion channel target. It's in the area of metabolic and endocrine disorders and we have compelling data in non-human primates that we believe has high likelihood of translating to humans. And the nature of the indication is that we believe we can get both safety and efficacy data early in clinical development. That's the focus right now. Once we get to that point, we'll have to reevaluate what's the next best step.

So as you think about kind of rightsizing or kind of reconciling your business priorities, what's driven by, I don't want to say pressure from the government, but kind of priorities from the Canadian government versus investors and pushing forward kind of assets that you think could be most profitable? How do you balance that? Because it's clearly an important strategic priority for the Canadian government, which is great, but we also want to make sure you're balancing that resource allocation with high potential assets?

I think important that, of course, the government has been the Government of Canada and the Government of British Columbia have been excellent funding partners here. Importantly, we still have full operational control of the company, and we're making the decisions, which are best for the company to advance our assets and establish ourselves as an anchor company here in Canada. And that is exactly what the Canadian government and the government of British Columbia are looking for. So I think our interests are very well aligned there. And of course, we have certain commitments for to the Canadian government, which are highlighted in some of the documents that we've provided previously on the nature of that funding. But I think the strategic objectives are of the company. So I think we find ourselves not at odds with any sort of competing, let's say, motivation between what we're doing that's right for the company and for shareholders and what the Government of Canada funding is allowing us to do.

I would go even further and say, the government of Canada and British Columbia, I think the top priority is to make sure that here we are building an anchor company that is building an ecosystem in clinical trials and clinical development and that accelerate is successful. So we are 100% aligned in maximizing shareholder value, bringing great drugs to patients and building programs that really make a difference and move the needle for the industry. So there is no misalignment. This is all one thing.

There are no additional questions waiting at this time, so I'll pass the call back to the management team for any closing remarks.

Thank you everyone for joining the call. We are very pleased to share progress and look forward to speaking with you again.

That concludes the conference call. Thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect your lines.