Welcome to our first half 2021 report presentation. Today, our CEO, Edward Hæggström, CFO Albert Hæggström, and Chief Commercial Officer, Christian Jones, will present to you. This presentation is webcasted through Financial Hearings, and there is also the possibility to call in and listen by phone. The slides shown here today can also already be found on our webpage under the investor section. After the presentation, we will hold a Q&A, and it is possible to ask questions by calling in. On top of the presenters today, we also have our Chief of Business Operations, Gonçalo Andrade, and CTO, Niklas Sandler, with us for the Q&A session. We will today start with a short introduction of Nanoform and then move on to the market dynamics and then first half report. Operator, if I may ask you to move to slide three, please. With these words, I would like to introduce our CEO, Professor Edward Hæggström. Please go ahead. Thank you, Henri. This is Edward Hæggström, and I welcome also on my behalf to this. It's my great pleasure to sort of briefly tell you a little bit about the company, and then we're going to go into what we have achieved. As you may or may not, I'm a guy driven by action, so I would like to tell you that we have some intriguing news around the GMP, and we have just gone through a week of very productive meetings with the commercial team who flew in all over the world to meet us here together with the technical guys. I am now at slide number four. Nanoform is a technology platform company that helps the pharma industry and patients by creating small nanoparticles, which means that medicines can be taken up by the body. You can see here on slide number four that we have produced clinical results that validate our value proposition in the human body, and that's something which I think is really important. We're located in Helsinki, Finland, approximately 3,000 sq m on manufacturing site, and we are approximately 110 employees. Many of whom have a PhD degree, and we are currently 25 nationalities. I move to slide number five. What are we doing? Basically, we're taking on and solving one of the big issues in the pharma industry that of low productivity. A lot of money goes in to create new medicines, and too few medicines come out. The reason why too few medicines come out is that the assets created, they show poor bioavailability. What does that mean? It means that molecules which are in as such potent are not taken up by the body. We are addressing this big problem, and as you can see on the slide to the right, it's a problem that is growing worse over time. We are very well-positioned to help here in a significant way. Next slide, please. We talk about three profit pools. Basically, we can give unsuccessful drug candidates a second chance, which means assets that held promise and have failed. By nanoforming them, they can get a second chance. There are a lot of those. The second profit pool is to improve already existing drugs. There are many existing drugs where one know that they can be improved either by reducing, for instance, side effects or by opening up new therapeutic venues. And the third profit pool is to enable entirely new drugs. Of course, this is something where we put a focus because this represents sort of a new hope for a lot of people. Right now, there are 18,000 drugs in development, so there is a lot of opportunities for us to help out both the current patients and the industry. Next slide, please. This slide is a slide which goes to the core of what we do. I start from the right-hand side. Basically, we take medicine powder that's coarse, and we make it fine. Always when we do stuff like this, we are getting paid. Why do we make it small? If you look on the left-hand side, you can see that by going small, basically you increase the surface area of the particles. When you do that, you increase the bioavailability. Those of you who study mathematics see that this is a negative exponential, which means that there is a lot to gain by going small. For instance, going from 1,000 nanometers down to 10 nanometers gives you an enormous amount of increase in surface area, and hence, much improved bioavailability. Next slide, please. I am going to spend a few minutes on this slide. I start up at 12 o'clock. By making the small nanoparticles, we increase the solubility of the drug substance. When we do that, we get increased bioavailability, which meant that the body can take up the drug. When you have this ability to get potent molecule taken up by the body, you can actually pave the way for new drugs. You can make old drugs new drugs. These two are very, very powerful ways to help. When you get improved uptake by the body, you don't have to dose so much extra just in case, which means that you can reduce the dose, which results in smaller pills, which results in fewer side effects, which results in you having to make less of the stuff, which means that you can have a smaller factory. The cool part is also the fact that when you can make new drugs or improve old ones, you can play a patenting game where you can prolong patents that exist or create entirely new ones. This is very, very important for everybody in the industry, but ultimately also for the patient. The intriguing part of our supercritical carbon dioxide-based process is that it can play a game also in the increased environmental sustainability game. Carbon dioxide as such, we use carbon dioxide that is recycled. This carbon dioxide can be a part of increasing the environmental sustainability by not having to produce so much drug and by being part of something that can be recycled. A lot of utility comes out from the effect that we can make this small particle. What we really are good at is making the small particle and turning them into medicine that can help people, hence small is powerful. I move to the next slide, 9. This is now about biologics. Biologics are biological pharmaceutical. Basically, the previous slides talked about small chemical entities, now we talk about larger molecules which are called biological pharmaceuticals. Here are mentioned six potential ways to change the game on biologicals. Why are the biologicals important? Because they are a growing part of the industry. First, potentially, we can improve the delivery route. We can improve the uptake. We can increase the drug loading capacity in formulations, which means that you can basically put more drug into the pill, for instance. We can tailor release profiles, which usually is very important for treating patients. We can enable entirely new drug combinations, potentially. The final ball here is that we can potentially implement lighter infrastructures for drug logistics. A simple example is that maybe we don't need to put -80 degrees Celsius freezers in Africa or in countries that don't have it. These are 6 ways where we see that we potentially can create value by being able to nanoform biologics. Next slide, STARMAP®. STARMAP® is an artificial intelligence. We use this to help our partners pick winners, pick assets that are suitable for nanoforming, where there is a high probability that we actually can add value by nanoforming them successfully. This also helps our partners by telling our engineers how to turn the knobs on the lines, which means that we can faster come to a process setting that is successful. STARMAP® 2.0 is an artificial intelligence that basically learns how to nanoform methods. One could maybe say that this is a digital replica of the hardware ones. I move to slide number 11. STARMAP® needs to do calculations, and basically, one can say that the more, the better. STARMAP® takes in APIs. STARMAP® does its trick and puts out estimates for how to nanoform, what size particles are they crystalline, and so forth. Here you can see that we have already evolved STARMAP®, such that we can do 1,000 evolutions or evaluations per week. It's clear that we are going to be able to increase this a lot going forward. More evaluations, more insight, hopefully more people who get help from this. With this, I conclude my part. I hope I have painted you a picture of a platform technology company, which is unique in the way that it can enable drugs to go to market by making very small granules out of them. Thank you, and over to Ulf. Thank you, Edward. Let's now have a look at the market before we then go into the first half results. If you move to slide 13, please. Here you can see that we are in a very big market. The total pharma market is more than $1 trillion. What you can see on the right-hand side is if you have a successful drug, the sales from one drug can be enormous. We, of course, all know that these numbers even look quite small when you compare to the present ongoing COVID and the sales you can achieve from one drug in this situation. Generally speaking, a blockbuster drug has lots of potential for big business. Go to the next slide, please, slide 14. As Edward said previously, despite the fact that the pharma industry spends more than or roughly EUR 200 billion a year on R&D, the output as new drugs is quite small. Not even 50 new drugs on average during the last 10 years. This is, of course, what we hope that we can help the pharma industry to bring new drugs to the market. Next, please. As you know, as we will show that our target for 2025 is to get more than 70 new APIs coming in every year. Here you can see that ambition, even though it's ambitious target, you can see that the pool of potential APIs is really big and it's growing every year. Only 5 years ago, it was slightly less than 5,000 smaller today. Today, it's more than 18,500 separate drugs in the pipeline. On the following page, on page six, you can see that these 18,500 drugs or new drugs or drug candidates, they belong to more than 5,000 companies. There are many, many companies out there with an API or several APIs that could become clients of Nanoform. If you go to page 17, we have split up the drug development by phase. Here you can see that naturally, the lion share is in preclinical, so more than half of the 18,500 drugs are in preclinical, then 14% in phase I, 15% in phase II, and 6% in phase III, and then you have the rest. Basically, we can have projects, and we can help clients in all these phases. As we showed on the Capital Markets Day, so far, our split has been quite similar to the market situation. Going forward, when we have a bigger sample, it will of course be interesting to see that how does our project base look compared to the market. When you go to page 18, you see that all these growth continued, all these phases or the number of drugs in the different phases grow. You can also see that the preclinical is the one that's growing the fastest. Also phase I has grown really fast. Because there are many failures in phase II, unfortunately, the phase III number has not grown as fast as, for example, the preclinical. As I said, we can cater to projects in all phases. If we then go to page 19, you know that our strategy is to focus at the moment on the U.S. and Europe. Here you can see that of the 5,000 companies, the lion part of them are in U.S. and Europe. There is a big pool of potential clients. When you go to page 20, you can see an interesting dynamic, and that is the fact that many of the new APIs in the drug development pipeline, they are in mid-sized companies. It's not companies that are the really biggest one, because here you can see that the top 10 and top 25 global pharmas, their share of the total amount of APIs have come down, while the really small companies with one or two drugs have stayed roughly the same. What you actually see is that it's the mid-sized from three upwards that has been growing the fastest. This, of course, is of interest to us. Generally speaking, we can work with really small companies that have one or two drugs. We can work with mid-sized, and we can work with the largest, where we already work with several of the biggest pharmas in the world. If we then go to page 22 and look at our business model and value chain. What Nanoform does is we get bulk API in, we nanoform it first on the Non-GMP side, and then in the GMP side. We get paid for the work we do on both, and then we ship it back to the client where they then do the final product. On the following slide, 23, you can see the probabilities of the total industry. Here you can see that on the small molecule side, the probability taking a drug all the way from preclinical to the market is unfortunately only 2%. It's higher in biologics. There, it's 4%. It's much higher when you take a drug that's already on the market and do a so-called 505(b)(2) on that. What this clearly shows is that our strategy where we want to take in many projects and work on many assets is a strategy we really like. Of course, if you work on hundreds of APIs, then the likelihood of at least one or several of them going all the way to market is much better than if you only have one or two assets. You can also from here see the timelines. The traditional thinking in the industry has been that it takes 10 years at least to bring a new drug to market, while the 505(b)(2) is faster. One good thing that the COVID has brought with it is that we have now seen proof that you can do it faster. Hopefully the industry will become faster of bringing new drugs to the market, and then of course we want to help them. When you go to page 24, you see our revenue model. We get paid fixed fee per project on the Non-GMP side, EUR 50,000-EUR 500,000 per project. Then when we move into GMP, we expect the fixed fee per project to be between EUR half million and EUR 10 million. Then finally, when the drugs are on the market, we target to get a royalty on the sales. Again, here for us, it's not important to try to maximize the income from one single project. We want to work with many clients and many projects and get our fair share of the value we create. We want to be a good citizen in that sense. We can go to the first half year report. Edward, please take the highlights on page 26. Thank you. I'm now looking at page 26, and what I really want to single out from this is our movement on the GMP front. For me, the focus has been on taking us to the next level by starting to prepare for producing in the GMP setting. There are two dimensions to this. One is the commercial and one is the technical. I have, together with my directors, been working real hard on this. One of the tangible results that we can talk about is the LOI that came out. It's also very important to say that I'm never betting on only one horse. We are working here on a wide front and this is something which is important for us and which we're also very happy to hear announce that we have made clear progress on this line. What it is, we are prepared to churn out 10 kilos once our partners want it. I expect it to happen next year. To me it is also important to say that this game of course means that we have to take out all the power we have in the house, and this is of course very cool for ACL. I do not want to belittle the fact that we have brought in new customers, and Christian is going to talk more about that. They teach us, we teach them, and this is important for the industry. You can see here that there are as well new APIs, which is important as new projects, as new customers, and both are things that we work on. My own focus has now been on sort of elevating us on the GMP part. If you take a look at this slide here, you can see that we clearly have advancement also on the financial part that Albert will talk about. You can see that we have advancement on the, what I call clinical part, which is really important in the end of the day. We want to help patients. You can see that we have expanded our commercial effort, which is of course very important. If I were to choose one square from this, I think it would be top line center. I move to the next slide. Here you have in a sense a list of what we have achieved. You can see we have achieved a lot. I would like to focus on what we have done in June and July. In June, I think the important part is that we have signed a letter of intent with a European headquarter international company for developing, manufacturing, and commercialization of a nano-formed version of a current blockbuster. Manufacturing, developing, commercialization of a nano-formed improved version of a current blockbuster drug. In July, we signed another client, so while some people were vacating, we were not. I think this is also important for us. Maybe also the last on the list, but absolutely not the least, a high quality company has placed their trust in us and they have signed a master services agreement. The name of the company is Boehringer Ingelheim. Christian, please. Thank you, Edward. We look now at slide 28, you can see our clients' collaborations and co-developments over the past three years. You will see, back in 2019, we had three partners, then we had five additional new clients in 2020, and now we have 11 new relationships already established in 2021.We're growing significantly in our networks with our partners and our relationships. You can see here all different types of relationships as well. We have our existing client base, the classical business development that we've been doing. We have three collaborations that we have added into this mix as well. Our latest is a co-development, as Edward touched on, with a European international company. We remain committed to supporting our global large pharma partners that are in financially stable organizations with broad pipelines of APIs, and we also focus on the mid-size and the specialty pharma and the biotech companies with assets coming through into clinical development. Our technology is still highly focused on enabling new products, addressing the solubility and bioavailability challenges, and broadening and deepening our customers' pipelines. What does this slide really tell? It tells the message that we have more chances of getting products to market. What is the second thing that it says? It tells the message that we are moving further forward to getting GMP manufacturing, and we are very close to this position. That is all I have to say. Thank you. If we move to the next slide. Over to Albert. Thank you, Christian. Now if you look at the numbers, if we start to the left, we have taken one logarithmic step during the last 18 months, six quarters. When in the fourth quarter, we had EUR 15 revenue, now we had EUR 500 in revenue in one quarter. That, of course, means that if we take two more logarithmic steps, this will be a very nice business. One thing I'm very proud of is the fact that we can now show the power of the business model, and I also believe potentially the power of the technology from the gross margin. When I look at all listed companies, gross margin is something that if you have a high gross margin, it enables you, when you get more revenue, to earn much faster also on the bottom line. This is something that we have had when we set the target for the above 90% in the IPO, that felt very ambitious, and I am positively surprised that we have this fast come up to this high level. This is of course only one quarter, and if you look at the rolling 12 months, it's 85%, but if you look at the first half, it's 92%. This clearly shows the power of technology, that basically the only input we have is the CO2, where we now actually is increasing also the capacity a lot by building the big tank instead of using bottles. These numbers clearly show that we are on a good way to achieving our 2025 target of having more than 90% in gross margin. Cash, we had EUR 88 million at the end of the quarter, which is very strong and means that we have enough cash all the way until we are cash flow positive. If you take a look at the right-hand side, you see that we got one new Non-GMP line commissioned, so we now have 12 lines. We had eight at the end of the year. We added two new Non-GMP projects. We have now started eight during this year. We have started 20 from the beginning of the year. Number of employees, 106. We have recruited rapidly. We are very fortunate that we have been able to get people from all over the world to even relocate to Finland to join us. They really see the cutting edge in the technology. Moving to the following slide on page 30. One thing which has also improved our gross margin, but also our other operating expenses, is the fact that in the beginning, we had a lot of functions outsourced, for example, in QC. Now when we have invested in internal capabilities, that means that we don't have to pay outside either for using equipment or for the services of the employees. Both these have sort of helped us to be more cost-conscious. In many cases, if you have a very small organization, you need to use lots of consultants and outside help. In many cases, this is not cheaper than having it in-house. We have been fortunate of being able to hire great people internally, and that is one of the reasons, for example, why the other operating expenses have been trending nicely in the last quarters. One comment on the financial expenses, there is EUR 300,000 that comes. It's a non-cash from the fact that we repaid all our Business Finland loans, so we now have no loans anymore. We have EUR 88 million in cash. All in all, top line comes from 16 different projects. Remember that they are recognized over the lifetime of the project. It's not upfront or so. It's over the lifetime of the project. We want to be conservative and prudent in the way we account for revenue. If we then go to the next slide, on slide 31, you can see that we added two new projects in the second quarter. We have now taken up, started 20 new projects since fourth quarter of 2019. This is, of course, why both Edward and Christian have been talking about GMP is that statistically, when you look at the numbers for the industry, we are now entering a situation both from a time point of view, but also from a probability point of view, where we are clearly moving into a situation where we might, even in the coming year and years, have a situation where we not only have some capacity constraints on the Non-GMP side, but we might even end up having that situation on the GMP side until we get enough lines to serve, hopefully, the lots of projects we will get. On the right-hand side, you can see that we had the target of adding at least three Non-GMP lines for this year. We have already added four and, of course, we want to add more, so we would have between 21 and 28 Non-GMP lines by 2025, and that would enable us to take in more than 70 APIs every year. That 70 can, of course, be compared to 20 at the moment or 12, which is the target for this year, or the 18,500 that are on the market. If you look to page 32, the most important one here is, of course, the last one. We have ordered now the main equipment for the GMP lines two and three, and we expect them to be up and running during next year sometime. That will, of course, triple our GMP capacity. On page 33, the new midterm business targets that we raised on June 2, 2021. We have now reiterated them, of course. Here you can see we want to take in more than 70 new APIs, have 35 lines, have 200 to 250 employees, gross margin above 90%, and potentially, most importantly, we target to have cash flow that is positive by 2025. The final slide before we go into Q&A, selection of our owners, institutional shareholders, and I'm very happy to see that also during the last quarter, some additional names have appeared on this list. We are very proud of to have such an esteemed group of international institutional investors. Excellent. Thank you, Albert. To Henri, yes. Yes. We, operator, we are ready for the Q&A if you want to start taking them one by one, please. Thank you.If you wish to ask a question, please dial zero one on your telephone keypads now to enter the queue. Once your name has been announced, you can ask your question. If you find your question is answered before it's your turn to speak, you can dial zero two to cancel. Our first question comes from the line of Christopher Uhde of SEB. Please go ahead. Your line is open. Hi there. Thanks for taking my questions. My first question is, I guess has a few parts. Up to the end of Q2, you completed eight proof of concept projects. If we assume that you get one proof of process project out of that group as your 2021 target implies, that corresponds to implied 12.5% success rate at proof of concept to proof of process phase transition, if not nanoforming itself. How does your success rate compare with industry averages for the leading particle size reduction technologies? What could trigger you to update the nanoforming success rate guidance from the current 10%-90% range, given how important it is to modeling output? What's your confidence versus Q2? How is it versus Q2 on hitting your target of starting a proof of process in 2021? Would you say that, you're making measurable progress at a rate consistent with that sentiment, or is it more based on the tone of negotiations overall? That's my question. Thanks. If I start and then hand over to Albert and maybe also Christian wants to chip in. As far as I understand, we are executing according to the plan. I think that right now, I can confidently say that what we have put as targets, we are on the way line to achieve them. Albert, would you like to take it from there? Yes. First of all, remember that we have not said that we have closed eight projects. We start the project when the purchase order or the deal is signed. The client has the right to use the line when you start the project. You have also, remember that we do a final report. We go through the report with the client and so forth. Before you have the final closing meeting of the project, the project has not ended. You cannot completely draw the conclusion that we have ended because you take 20 minus 12 and you get eight. That is one thing. We can also start the project, and that means that there is a lag between the start of the project and when we actually start to nanoform on a line. First you do the onboarding of the project, onboarding of the API, all the talks and screen, and all these sort of phases before you start to nanoform it physically on the line. I would say that it's too early to calculate the number like you did. We have previously said that we have closed four projects so far, and we have not changed that officially. When it comes to the probability of nanoforming on a general level, I would put it like this, that the industry number for success for going from preclinical to clinical is 25. The projects we have got so far are both projects where the client have had a real need and a problem. The other one is the one where we have got more from a technological evaluation point of view. In some cases, we have got normal model compounds. In some cases, we have got compounds that are notoriously difficult that nobody has ever been able to do anything smart with them. Our STARMAP is, of course, something that we foresee can improve the probability of success for us. If we screen 1,000 compounds and give three of them as a suggestion to clients that these are the ones we should, for example, put through our lines, then the probability of success will be totally different in that kind of scenario when compared to when clients send us their three most notoriously difficult compounds. I would say that we stick to our thinking that at this moment we are showing you the industry numbers. When the number of projects increases, it goes up. Finally on the PoP and GMP. Remember, we can sign a GMP deal while the PoP is ongoing. It doesn't have to be that you have to wait for the PoP to be ended and then you sign. When you see in the PoP that the tech transfer is going well, then you can already sign the GMP contract with the client. That means that it's not always that you have to take step two and then before taking step three. Some clients want to do it more like in one go. Potentially finally on that, as Edward said and as we said, that we have started to work on 2020. We have talked with several clients on potential GMP contracts where we now have signed the first letter of intent. When you look at all this together, our answer is that we feel comfortable with our near-term target of having the first GMP deal in 2021. Okay, great. That's super helpful. Thanks for a very thorough answer. My next question is, most of the APIs you see are preclinical stage, or at least that's the largest group. Do you expect to be producing GMP-grade material for them once you move beyond proof of process? Why wouldn't they be Non-GMP if they're not to be put in demand during that stage of the project? Okay. Thanks for the question. The short answer is, every pharma company develops assets for use in man. That's where the money is. I don't think that assets are perhaps ever developed for not being put into man or maybe in veterinary cases. Every preclinical asset has been chosen with the target of getting a commercially viable product. Therefore, we are absolutely happy to work on all phases from preclinical to P4 on the assets. We have also so far shown ability to work on all these phases. Okay, great. Thanks. That's it. If I may say, to work on assets in all these phases. Remember also that if you work on a preclinical asset, it might be that it's going to go to clinic. The timetable to go into clinic is, let's say, in the coming four quarters. It can also be that it's in the coming eight quarters. It can be in the coming two quarters. Right. Okay, thanks. Would you please comment on the evolution of your pricing power to date? Yes. If I start and then it goes to Albert, and if Christian wants to top off. As we grow more known in the industry, it is clear that this has a positive effect on the conversations that we are having. People start to talk to us as a peer rather than as to somebody who has just appeared on the block. Pricing power is always about showing utility and value in human biology at the end of the day. We see that as we get more data on the nanoforming and as we get more biological data, this allows us to put forth strong arguments for the utility. This, of course, helps us take a very positive sort of position in these evaluations and discussions about how to price. In the end of the day, pricing power comes from shown or expected value and utility in human biologics. We are becoming more established, which means that this discussion is more balanced. Okay, thanks. At what point in negotiations do you aim generally to agree a royalty rate or equivalent? I'm pretty sure I've asked you that in the past, but I just wanted to see if your thinking has changed over time. Here we are very customer-centric in the way that some customers want to talk about it immediately after the NDA is signed, and other customers clearly want to talk about it later. We are happy to do either way. From a sort of commercial game theoretical point of view, there are advantages both to talk about it early and late. Okay, great. Thanks. Christian, do you want to comment on that a little bit? I mean, usually thanks. Christian. Yes. Albert. I mean, it very much depends on the customer. We've had discussions with some customers, as Edward pointed out, early on before the evaluation takes place. They would like to almost lock in a range of what the royalties could look like. We've had other customers that don't want to have those discussions until they see the value the technology delivers. As Edward pointed out, there's pros and cons for both sides of the negotiating table. For both scenarios. For both scenarios, yeah. Great, thanks. If I could just ask a couple of quick more. Have proof of concept lead times improved over the quarter or over the half? Can you also comment on how many APIs you're working with that are biologics? I mean, is it fair to say that potential customers will want to see more evidence of your capability before trying it? Thank you. That's all my questions. There were many questions, and I see if I can give a general answer, and then maybe Albert and Christian can take up the slack. First of all, every month we are getting better. The reason why we're getting better is that we put in more line hours, so our execution becomes better. That's part of the answer to your first question. The lead time is, of course, also a function of where the asset happens to be in the development. It's a function of where in the organization we sort of start the discussions, and it's a function of what happens in the customer organization. You asked something about the fraction of the biologics. I would say that a little bit tongue in cheek. Last year, we had much fewer discussions about biologics than this year. Since we have opened a biologic shop, the response and the interest in our offering has been clear and present and going up strongly. Albert, Christian, do you want to answer? Yeah, I could just add that it's not that many months ago. A couple of months ago, we said that we showed you that we had started, we had already worked on 140 kilodalton. Then we also said that we are now ready to take on antibodies. We have increased the size from what people saw when we originally, or when we, one year ago or 10 months ago, launched the technology. Now we have already said that we are ready to start to work on antibodies. I know that you are very demanding, but let's give us a little bit more time before so, but the interest, of course, you know as well as we do that today, the Holy Grail in the industry is potentially on the biologic side. Everybody's really interested in these antibodies. Perfect. Thank you so much. Christian, do you want to add something? Yeah, I would just say that we see a significant interest in both areas, both on the small molecules and on the biologics. We're engaged in discussions with partners in those areas. The beauty of having both technologies is we can have existing partners where we've been working on the small molecules but also have biologicals. Now that we have that technology capability in place, we can open up those discussions, and we are doing so with our partners. Maybe I could add one aspect, which I think is very important. COVID has shown that whilst 10 years used to be the norm, one year can be possible. Two years ago, everybody would have said one year is not possible. This sort of faster timeline that has been proven to get drugs to the market through its nanoform very well. We have always wanted to be a company that helps shortening the timeline, because shortening the timeline is a way to make a process more effective. I think that the COVID vaccines have shown that it is possible in a safe way to do this timeline shrinking. This is something that goes into when you said that can we shrink and are we interested in shrinking? Yes, very much so. Are we able to do it? I like to think. All right. Thank you so much. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Lars Hansen of Danske Bank. Please go ahead. Your line is open. Yes. Thank you. First question, can I ask, you mentioned regarding this letter of intent that it will cover an improved version of a Nanoform product. Does that mean it does not relate to a generic, or will it relate to a generic product? Albert, can you take that question, please? I think the answer is both. I would say that it can be both. Okay. It's not set today that it could be more than one formulation, so to say. The way the lawyer crafted, it can be both. On that note, when you will start the shipments related to this compound, do you then need a specific license for the supplies by the regulator? Yes. We have a GMP license to manufacture in Nanoform, of course, this license needs to be upgraded every time you take in a new API. I would add to that, Lars, that for any new API, we would need to inform and request this, an authorization from the Fimea to update our license to include additional API. As this number increases, the requirements for the filing decreases as a function as well. In a separate fee. Yeah. Lars, if I can add to that. Even for an existing API, if you change its therapeutic use, you will need to inform Fimea about that. Okay. Since you characterize these collaborations as a co-development collaboration, and typically you refer to your collaborations as clients rather, does this mean that the revenue model in terms of the project fees of half a million euros up to EUR 10 million et cetera, for supplies to clinical trials, is that still the model for this collaboration, or should it be characterized differently? If I can give a short answer and Albert can provide some meat on the bones. We are still executing according to the business model that we just showed half an hour ago. Albert, would you like to add some meat to the bones? Yes. As it said there that this is a letter of intent, we are of course still negotiating the final outcome for the agreement. The other thing is, of course, that because we call it a co-development, there might be some cost-sharing involved in this co-development. Of course, everything is impacting everything. There is a sort of a correlation between Non-GMP fee, GMP fee, and potential royalties. What is very important is that our business model is very clear that we do not invest large amounts in clinical trials. Any cost-sharing component for you will not be that significant numbers? Yes. Okay. Anything about the timing for proof of concept phase regarding this collaboration? Could you please say anything about that? Always the fastest possible. Okay. Yeah. Remember that a GMP deal can be signed before a proof of process is finalized. That's one thing to remember. Remember that the project starts officially when the deal is signed. Of course, the timeline, as we all know, is getting tighter related to the, will we sign a GMP deal before year-end? Remember also that this is not the only project where we could start the PoP and sign a GMP deal before year-end. Okay. I got it. Lars, I think generally speaking, it is in both parties' interest. To move as swiftly as one can. There is seldom value to be created by waiting. Would you say that this announcement of a letter of intent, would you say that in itself may well trigger other companies to sign similar letters of intent with you? Now you're speculating. Yes. Lars, I think that if we enter the realm of speculation, it's clear that this LOI is a testament that people believe in us, and the more people believe in us, the more people will feel it easier to believe in us. Okay, I got it. Just another question regarding the You mentioned you now have 16 revenue-generating projects and you have started 20 since the launch of the company, I guess. Anything to say about the four that has now been concluded or whatever? Anything about the experiences from these projects? This relates also to Christopher's question. We actually in the first half have recognized revenues from 16. That means that we had closed four. The feedback on those is of course a discussion with the client. One or several of those four could be projects where we also talk about the extensions. All right. Got it. Then finally on, you talked a bit in the past of your own development projects and I guess you did significant work on the piroxicam formulation and other formulation. In terms of your capacity today, how much of that is being used for internal projects, so to say, and how much is being used related to client projects? Could you say anything about that? I start and then Edward Hæggström and Gonçalo Andrade can chip in a little bit. As you know, we are expanding our capacity as fast as we can. We have been, and are to some extent, capacity constrained, and this is also one of the reasons. Remember that we have three collaborations. Those collaborations can be on one or several APIs. We do not disclose these collaborations in the number of projects in our tables. Of course, these also take line capacity. The reason why we don't put them there is that we want to be very clear that the projects where the client projects at the moment brings in top line, those projects are the ones that we report in the table. If we do co-development or collaboration, and we don't recognize revenue from a collaboration because we test the technology together, we don't show that. Of course, it takes line capacity. On the question that how big proportion of the total line capacity are we using for these collaborations? We have not disclosed that. That is of course, something that as a business and from a strategic point of view, we want to give some capacity to these collaborations, but we don't want it to be more than half or too big part of the capacity. Some capacity is given also to these collaborations because we really believe that they can add value as well. Lars, I think I would add to Albert's comment that, especially here on the collaboration. When we're looking at the collaborations, we're looking at the combination of technologies that can deliver better value as a group to the patient and to the product that they are being used upon. On another note, we also as a growing company and technology-enabling company, we still, and will continue always to improve our set technology and continue to develop it further in not only in exploring the limits of the operating condition. For that, we need to distribute and allocate capacity for doing just that. We need to explore beyond what we have explored before to further support better our partners and execute as well against the expectation. Basically delivering better value and high-quality service. Lars, I can help you by saying that the mix between what line time we use for improving our ability to serve, what line time we use to serve, and what line time we use to grow. It's something that is changing all the time, and it's one of the most important things that Gonçalo and I do within sort of the operations realm in Nanoform. Okay. I got it. Many thanks for that. Thank you. Good. Thank you. We have one further person in the queue. That's Max Herrmann of Stifel. Please go ahead. Your line is open. Great. Thanks for taking my questions. Congratulations on the letter of intent. Just had two questions, if I may. Firstly, we're seeing quite an acceleration of the partnering activity that you've been doing this year compared with last year. Obviously, there was a step up last year on the previous year. Are you starting to get more people coming to you rather than perhaps you reaching out to others? Are you starting to see a change in the dynamics? Trying to understand whether there's now a more acceptance of Nanoform as a route to particle size engineering and solving particle size problems. That's the 1st question. I wanted to get a bit of a better understanding of capacity constraint. Sounds like you've got 16 projects ongoing, with other non-collaborations, let's say. You talked about three collaborations. That's about 19 programs ongoing. Had anybody reached your sort of target for Non-GMP lines in this year? Sounds like you need to put more in. Just wanted to get some color on where you are on capacity. Max, thanks for two excellent questions and the short answers to both questions is yes. If we start first by the second question, which was, are we hitting the capacity and is there sort of a fight between putting resources to grow, to put resources to serve, and to put resources to polish? It's clear that it's there. I love to be in a situation where sort of the increasing amount of inbound traffic puts pressure on us to grow our capacity to serve. Internally, we use the expression that we need to take more power out of the engine. I think of it a little bit like a car where you need to become better. This grow, polish, and serve is something which is very much on my table. It's sort of perhaps the most important thing I do together with the GMP focus. This is really about to choose the trajectory with which we go forward. This is, of course, a positive problem. We have a capacity constraint because people want to use us, people want to work with us. When you asked a little bit about the collaborations, to me, there has always been two markets, one where you help the API, and the other one where you help technologies that are associated with API. I think both are equally valid when it comes to creating value for patients. Of course, we look at them carefully. If you start to ask very intricate questions about whether their dynamics are very different, we need to defer to a later moment. In a general setting, I see that we can create value in both these streams, it's something that we really want to explore. To us, it's important to work with partners that are good at what they are doing, because that allows us to be fast. This is something we do. The short answer to both your questions is yes. Great, thanks. What about in terms of the GMP? Just a follow-up question, which is, you've announced now that you've ordered the equipment, the key equipment that's needed for getting the two new GMP lines up and running for next year. What sort of timing do you need? With COVID causing some supply constraints on things, when do you need to have those delivered for you to be able to be in a position to apply for the line to be approved or the line to be approved by the regulator? There are two answers to your question. The first answer is, when would Edward like to have everything here? That's yesterday. What is sort of needed to have a strong accelerating growth, which is under control? The answer to that question is, we are going as fast as we can, and I still think we are exactly on what we have set out in the guidance. This is really my answer to your question. Okay. I could add, if I may add that there was when we talk about capacity constraints on the Non-GMP side, of course, we have 12 lines there and only one on GMP. Our focus very much is to add the capacity on the GMP side, and hence the number two and number three that we want to have up and running next year. There is one big difference when you build additional Non-GMP and GMP lines, and that is the fact that when you buy and build GMP lines, the cost is of course higher, but you get lots of outside help as well. You have lots of people delivering the materials and the components and building the clean rooms and so forth. You are not only relying on your own 100 plus employees. In a sense, it's a good situation on the GMP side that you can have lots of outside help. That, of course, helps you to speed up the process. Great. Thank you. Thank you. As there are no further questions in the queue, I'll hand back to our speakers for the closing comments. Thank you, operator. On behalf of all Nanoformers, I would like to thank you for all participants today. If someone has more additional questions, you are most welcome to contact us, and you will find our details on the webpage. I wish everybody a great Thursday evening. Thank you and goodbye.