Welcome to the conference call. For the first part of the conference call, the participants will be in listen-only mode. During the questions- and- answers session, participants are able to ask questions by dialing star five on their telephone keypad. Now I will hand the conference over to the speakers. Please go ahead. Good afternoon all, and a warm welcome to Nanoform's Second Quarter 2025 Report Presentation. My name is Henri von Haartman, and I'm your Director of Investor Relations. Today, our CEO, Edward Hæggström, CFO, Albert Hæggström, Chief Commercial Officer, Christian Jones, and Chief Development Officer, Peter Hänninen, will present to you. This presentation is webcasted through Investor Caller, and there is also the possibility to call in and listen by phone. The presentation slides that are shown throughout the webcast can also be found on our web page in the investors section. After the presentation, we will hold a Q&A, and it's possible to ask questions by calling in. We will today start with an introduction and then key business highlights, then financials, then commercial performance, and we will conclude with our product kernels. With these words, our CEO, founder, Professor Edward Hæggström, please go ahead. Thank you, Henri, and welcome also on my behalf. Next slide, please. And one more, please. I think we want to start by saying that we have made much progress on multiple fronts during this Q2. Nanoform's strategy basically has three boxes. We think that all pharmaceutical ingredients should be star-mapped first in order to figure out which ones are suitable for our technology. We work with customers and partners to enable novel and existing molecules to become new and improved medicines. Customers and partners take part in what we do. In parallel, we show a conservative industry the power of nanoforming, and we do this by creating up to a dozen of product kernels. These are molecules where we show that we can nanoform them, and we show that they potentially will work well in the biology where they are intended for. Next, please. Here you can see that we work with originators, and we also work with these development and commercial partners, as I stated on the previous slide. Our first targeted drug on the market, we place at 2027, 2028. Next, please. We have four technology platforms: one for small molecules, one for large molecules, one for nanoformulation, and one based on AI. Today, we're going to talk about all four. Next, please. Our business model, in a simplistic way, our partners usually own the API. We nanoform it, and basically the way we get paid is either as a service fee, as a farm manufacturing fee, as royalties. We're going to talk about all of these also today. Next, please. Let me spend a little bit of time on this slide. Here we can see six parts. The first is about nanoenzalutamide. We have now, for the second time, put nanoenzalutamide into humans. This was on volunteers in the fasted state. It's clear that we and our partners see this as great progress towards putting our first medicine on the market. We have seen growth in the number of signed projects in revenue, and we have been able to keep our costs in pace and even reduce them. This has improved our cash flow. Already now, customers have paid more than they did last year at this time point of the year. The discussions and work around our product kernels continue, both with existing and prospective partners. We have actually signed the first license and supply agreement, and this was in Germany. FIMEA inspection date is set, and we are right now preparing for them to come on. This is to obtain authorization to sell medicines onto the market. For 2025, all near-term business targets are on track. Next, please. This is where I hand over to Albert with the numbers. Thank you. Thank you, Edward. We are seeing growth in basically everywhere. The growth might, of course, we would expect it to or hope for it to be even faster, but despite the tough situation in the CDMO market and generally among many pharma companies, we are clearly seeing growth and the growing interest in our technology. If you look to the left, you can see that here you have, since we IPO'd, the first half of the year and numbers of proposals sent. We don't send the proposals where we don't believe in a high probability of success. They have grown again this year up to 45. On the right-hand side, you can see the rolling 12 months signed projects, number of projects. Also here, you can see that we have reached a new high, more than 30% projects signed in the last 12 months. If you look at the revenues, they have also grown 23% in the first half compared to last year. We also see growth in the other income. Other income can be includes also milestone payments from clients. They are, however, not booked in full amount when they are received, but they will be booked over the coming quarters. That's why also the cash flow is actually better than indicated by the P&L. Also here, we see growth. This is one slide I would like to talk a little bit more about related to what I just said. Previous years and previous year, you can see to the left, the customer payments and the revenue have gone quite hand in hand. Last year, we received EUR 2.7 million from clients, and the revenues booked were EUR 2.8 million. However, this year, we see clearly faster pace in the payments from clients, while the revenue will come with the lag. There are many reasons for that, but one is, of course, that you get some payments upfront. If you sign a lot of projects, you get more payments. Also, as I said, if we get milestone payments and so forth, then we get more money from the clients without recognizing it immediately. For us, it's, and for me as a CFO, it's very important that we focus on cash flow. Therefore, I'm happy to see that the payments grow faster than the revenue. The revenues will follow. Here you can see the cash burn to the left. We have continued to make progress. There have been improvements. We have been able to lower the costs a little bit, and we have been able to increase the income both from clients, but also, of course, we have got some money from Business Finland. That means that all in all, our annualized cash burn was now below EUR 15 million if you take it from the last quarter when it was EUR 3.7 million. That means that we still continue to have a runway of more than two years. We had EUR 33 million in cash at the end of the quarter. This is the slide we showed for the first time in the first quarter report, the update on deal making around our product kernels. Nanoenzalutamide, the new thing here is, as Edward mentioned, the license and supply agreement signed for Germany. The other discussions are continuing. We have not made any changes to the financial potential we projected for the project, so it's unchanged. We have nanoencorafenib. The discussions are continuing there, and we expect to see the signatures in the near future. We have nanoapalutamide where the term sheet negotiations on all three areas continue. My final slide, near-term business targets for 2025. They're all on track. We expect to sign several license supply agreements on several product kernels during 2025. The first one is already signed. We are now starting to get results from the pivotal bioequivalence clinical study. We have had a good start to the year with 13 new projects signed in the first half, which was much more than last year. We see the cash flow continues to improve during this year versus last year. With that, I hand over to Christian on commercial. Thank you, Albert. Very happy to discuss today our commercial progress for the first half of the year. We've seen a significant growth in customers and projects in what is a very tough CDMO environment currently in the pharma market. We've had six new customers and 13 new projects in H1. I would add to this that whilst our small molecule business has grown, we've also seen a significant interest from major pharma and mid-sized to small biotechs in our biologics platform. This has been spurred by many different reasons. One is because one of our major pharma partners, Takeda, has presented on our technology a couple of times now. Last year in Berlin, in the DDF conference, and that was on the high concentration monoclonal antibody subcutaneous injections that we're able to achieve. This year also at the same conference, it was on inhalation. I'll talk about that a little bit more as we go to the next slide. We've also had great progress on our nano trastuzumab single subcutaneous injection data that was presented again at DDF in Berlin. As Edward and Albert alluded to, we've had progress made on our deal signings for nanoenzalutamide with the first supply agreement signed in Germany and multiple term sheets agreed and multiple term sheets in negotiation. Nanoencorafenib and nanoapalutamide are progressing very well too. Adding to this, I would also say that we've expanded our customer base by exploring Asia and by working with an excellent partner, CBC. That relationship started at the end of last year. We've now been able to bring on several projects already signed from Japan. Given the markets and considerations, as we are currently having a diversity in our geographical customer base, it is a smart thing to do. I'd like to talk about Takeda and the relationship that we have. We first announced the partnership in June 2024, and that was when Takeda presented on high concentration subcutaneous delivery of their plasma-derived therapy, being able to achieve concentrations as much as 400 mg per mL with acceptable injection force and viscosity, and being able to keep the materials stable, which is something that's very difficult to do with dry particles. In August of the same year, we actually announced a formal collaboration on their plasma-derived therapies. In June of this year, we were able to come out again and talk about Takeda wanting to present at the Drug Delivery Formulation Summit in Berlin on respiratory delivery of the A1AT protein. This is the alpha-1 antitrypsin protein that's part of the plasma within the human blood serum. By being able to deliver this to the lungs, current technologies such as spray drying, only 50% fine particle fraction was being able to be delivered into the lungs of the drug that's emitted from the inhaler, only 50%. With our technology, we enabled 95% lung delivery. Additional to this, and quite a critical takeaway from this data, is the ability to have local effectiveness of the protein in the lungs. If a patient was to receive this therapy as they do now, they have regular IV infusions. Most of that material is systemically absorbed, and the exposure is systemic and not local, and only a very, very small percentage actually gets to the lung. By delivering the active to the lungs, 95% of the drug delivered to the lungs would actually have exposure in the lung, and only 5% went systemically. This is a really significant value driver for treatment of this therapy. What does that mean? It means that you're able to use less drug to deliver the dose to a patient. It means that patients don't have to go into hospital for IV infusions. They can have respiratory delivery. Ultimately, it means improved patient convenience, probably efficacy, and also better outcomes and a premium product for the plasma-derived therapy space. Building on that, Takeda in September and October of this year will be presenting at the DDF USA conference and also at the PODD conference in Boston towards the end of October, where I will be doing a joint presentation with Takeda on both the high concentration subcutaneous delivery and also the respiratory delivery. Having customers talk about you is great. To be honest, it's one of the best things that you can ask for in this space. It's also great when customers come and visit us. As you can see here, this is just a few snapshots, not all of the customers that we've had on site in the first half of this year. We've had European partners, we've had Japanese partners, we've had South Korean partners visit us, and we've also had partners from the U.S. visit us. As you can see, bottom right, we've also had Jefferies from New York and Stockholm visiting us. Top right is Dr. Andreas Liebminger from Takeda presenting on Nanoform and the value it can deliver. In the center is myself and my U.S. team presenting at DCAT in New York in March. It has been a very active first half to the year, and the second half will be just as active as we move into what is commonly the conference season. Now I'll hand over to Peter to talk a little bit more about the products that we have in development. Thank you, Christian, and welcome to all on the call on my behalf as well. To start first on the strategy around our product kernels, in order for us to further accelerate the adoption of our technology offering by the industry, we've initiated internally the development of a number of nanoparticle-enabled reformulations. This is to show in practice to the industry what our technology can enable for their products across a range of delivery routes and for both small and large molecules alike. Each of these have also the possibility to become a commercially attractive partnering opportunity for us in their own world. We are very, very pleased with the progress of our projects across the board, and in particular with the recent updates from our partners in the ONConcept consortium on the results from the fasted arm of the clinical study of nanoenzalutamide, we're taking clear steps towards having Nanoform products reach patients. These preliminary results indicate that nanoenzalutamide in fasted study subjects showed matching plasma concentration in terms of the area under the curve compared to the reference product and slightly low peak plasma concentration. Nanoform and the ONConcept consortium's initial assessment is that these results are supportive for nanoenzalutamide to progress to the market. While the clinical study will progress towards the fed arm of the study, we'll, of course, continue assessing the results together with the consortium or commercialization partners and the relevant authorities. I think importantly for Nanoform, these new clinical results strengthen our understanding of how the nanoforming technology performs in human biology and its potential to deliver patient-centric therapies. The indication from the study is that by using nanoforming, it's possible to reduce high initial plasma concentrations while still achieving similar bioavailability as amorphous solid dispersions is noteworthy as it can be a benefit for many products in development. We also continue to progress well with our nanoenzalutamide project towards GMP and the first human study, as well as in parallel with a number of the partnering discussions. This work was accelerated by the positive decision from Business Finland to support the project with a significant R&D loan. This EUR 5 million loan covers up to 50% of the cost associated with the clinical development program through to the pivotal bioequivalence study. As a reminder, amorphous solid dispersions, or ASDs as they are commonly known, is really the technology that has enabled a past generation of poorly soluble drugs. ASD-based medicines is a group of approximately 50 products on the market, selling for an estimated $50 billion annually, and with hundreds of products estimated to be in development currently. One of the drawbacks with ASDs is the low drug load, which leads to a high pill burden. This is an area we can effectively address with our nanocrystalline formulations as shown on this slide. We remain very excited about our offering for biologics, and as my colleagues on the call have said, the substantial interest this gets from our customers. Subcutaneous delivery provides evident benefits for patients and healthcare systems, but has been a difficult thing to enable for biologics. We are now one of the few companies and technologies in the world that can enable this for higher dose biological products through high concentration suspensions. In June, as Christian told, our colleagues showcased at the DDF Summit in Berlin our recent data on nano trastuzumab, a high concentration formulation of trastuzumab. The presentation was very well received, and we showed that nanoforming enables concentrations of more than 500 mg per mL with acceptable injection forces using a standard syringe. This enables uronidase-free subcutaneous delivery in a single 2 mL syringe. Now I will turn back over to Henri. Thank you, Peter. On slide 24, you can see where we are meeting the pharma industry and the investor community. Here's a selection of events. If you are at any of these and want to meet us, just let us know. I will start the Q&A session now. If you wish to ask a question, please dial star five on your telephone keypad to enter the queue. If you wish to withdraw your question, please dial star five again on your telephone keypad. The next question comes from Christopher from SEB. Please go ahead. Hi there. Christopher Uhde at SEB. Thanks for taking my questions. I think I'd like to start on nanoenzalutamide. I guess it's formally possible that the lower peak could be pharmacodynamically important. With a lower Cmax, might you need a non-inferiority efficacy trial to secure approval? That's my first question. Christopher, thanks for your question. The short answer is might, yes. Peter, do you want to give some more flavor? Yeah. Thanks. Happy to provide some thoughts on that. I think that would be highly unlikely in this case, due to the fact that the therapeutic window for the concentration for this specific product is so much higher than the Cmax on the single dose, and also due to the fact that, as said, we showed matching area under the curve as the ASD-based formulation. I think even though we mentioned that there might be a sort of tweaking of the regulatory strategy, there is no expectation that there would be that type of a drastic change to what the clinical program would look like. At least in the discussions with our partners, that's not something that anyone has seemed to be a sort of relevant sort of concern, if we will put it like that. Great. Thanks. Very helpful. There are two ways to ask this, and I'll ask it in the simple way first. If you were to do it again, would it be possible to, or let's say easy enough to redesign the formulation using just the tools that you did to avoid that lower Cmax? The more important question behind it is, when plotting your strategy for the other kernels, how do the data play into your formulation design or trial design considerations? Christopher, thank you very much. This is, of course, an important one. To me, it's clear that we have in our nanoformulation toolbox the tools necessary to improve even further. It's also clear that within our partners, there are people with deep understanding of these assets. That could also be very helpful in a redo, if you want. It is also clear that we have done three human studies so far, one on piroxicam and two on nanoenzalutamide. For each of these studies, especially on the nanoformulation domain, we learn more and more about how our technologies work in human biology. The short answer to your question is, if we were to redo it, there is a certain probability that we could get improved results. The question is, what does improved actually mean? To me, improved means we need to get this to the market, and what we have is already good enough for that. Peter, do you want to put something extra on this? No, I think that summarizes it well. I think for us, the key takeaway here is that our partners in the consortium, who are very experienced, were happy with the results. I think we should be happy for that reason as well and see a clear path forward for the product. Okay, great. Thanks. Just on, I guess, the financials. The gross margin, 98%, looks pretty darn good for, I think, any company. Is this what we should be expecting from now on? You remember that we reached a 90% target already a few years back, but then because we had to do a lot of the GMP-related QC work outside our company before we got the license from FIMEA, the gross margin fell. We had the GMP campaign, meaning that we were still sort of using partially internal and partially external resources. This was the first quarter where we had sort of nothing distorting it. I would say that 98% is perhaps a little bit higher than what we are believing is sustainable, but we have the target of being above 90%. Of course, we are happy with 98%, but above 90% is what we are sort of targeting. Okay, great. Thanks. When you did the IPO, you had some long-term targets. Those were 2025. Are you going to release some long-term targets again at some point in the near future? If so, what might those look like? How would you think about what to target? We like to be within our targets, and we're going to continue to be so. Albert, do you want to put some flavor to all in one? Yeah. What we have said is that we are planning to hold a Capital Markets Day during this year, and then we would release the targets for 2030 during that CM D. That's still the case. Okay. Thanks. Would it be likely, financial targets or operational kind of KPI type targets? I think you could assume that it would be both. Okay, because as we have said that we are now getting more and more info related to product kernels and launches, and also we are seeing more and we understand much more than five years ago. It's natural then that we can start to have financial targets as well. Terrific. Thank you so much. That's all for me. Thank you, Christian. The next question comes from Christian Glennie from Stifel. Please go ahead. Hi, guys. Good afternoon. Thanks for the questions. I guess a follow-up on the pivotal study data or the first arm so far. I don't know how hot off the press that data is, but maybe any insights you can share in terms of how that's been received. You talked about obviously the consortium being happy, but in terms of the partnerships, obviously those ones that are under discussion and/or even the one that the Germany partner that you have, what's the sort of feedback to that data, if possible? Here I want to go a little bit careful as a trained scientist. These are preliminary readouts. We want to be a little bit careful to speak more when we have the final and stamped readouts. It is clear that people read our PRs, and at least my understanding is that we have gotten positive comments of the ones that have reached out to us. Peter, do you have anything else on this? Yeah. These are quite hot off the press, so to say. I would put it like this that we have not heard anything negative, at least from our partners, maybe as a sort of Finnish understatement. Okay. Thank you. In terms of the sort of proposals sent out, a step up there in the first half, any a bit more insight if we can around maybe the mix of those proposals, whether it's sort of there's a significant proportion around biologics. Also, you know, presumably these are people who have requested your proposals. That shows an encouraging trend maybe versus what you're saying more generally about sort of tough CDMO and/or funding environment and therefore demand for CDMO services. Just a little bit more about mixing that and then also what it says about demand. Before I let Christian lose, generally, we don't send proposals unless people want to receive them. Secondly, in a situation where we have heard a lot of companies facing headwinds, we have been very, very pleased with the fact that we have been able to grow in that sense. When it comes to the mix, it's clear that five years ago, we had only small molecules, and now we are starting to have a mix which is fairly equal. Christian, maybe you want to give more details on this. Sure. I think you're absolutely right, Christian, to point out that it's a very positive trend given the current climate. We know of many companies that are really struggling in the CDMO sector right now. We haven't seen that to date. We've just seen increased growth, which is, I think, testimony to perhaps the value that people perceive in our technologies. It also speaks to our ability to weather the storm. Having two platform technologies, both small molecules and large molecules, helps. Also, having a diversified client base helps. Being able to have not just large pharma clients, but also small biotechs, is important. When it's a difficult funding environment, you still have your larger pharma clients that are able to support investment into the technology. At the same time, having customers on three different continents in the U.S., Europe, and Asia, I think is really helping as well to sort of take us through this challenging period and still continue to grow. We're delighted with the momentum that we've been able to maintain year to date. Christian, any thoughts on the mix between biologics and small molecules? We don't normally give that level of detail. However, what I can say is that the biologics technology is really starting to gain more interest in the marketplace in general. We're starting to see a greater proportion of biologics projects coming through this year than we saw last year. I would say that we still have probably a majority of small molecule projects, but we're starting to get real traction on the small molecule, on the biologics side as well. Thank you. That's helpful. Maybe finally, in terms of the financials, the cost in terms of what to expect around, obviously, you have been controlling and/or paring back some costs. Is there significantly more to go here in terms of that general initiative? How would you sort of phrase your position in terms of how you're managing OpEx? Thanks. Albert, do you want to take this? Yeah. I think we have been very good at being frugal. What we have seen is that if you think about it, we have been able to do multiple product kernels in pre-clinic. We have been able to take one of them through a pivotal clinical, both pilot and pivotal. At the same time, you have not increased the costs. We have actually seen the costs coming down. I think that comparing with many other companies that do this, this is a very good achievement from us and our partners. We have been fortunate to have good partners with large networks. There has also been a trend in the industry because of the sort of tougher market that the price levels of services have not increased. They increased a lot during the COVID era and the free money era. During the last year, you have seen potentially lower prices for, you know, pivotal studies or stuff like that. When it comes to the cost in general, our personnel is, of course, the biggest one. Then we have the other costs that include outside services and so forth. Here we have had from the beginning a strategy where we have wanted to have a somewhat vertically integrated company. We have wanted to bring the QC in-house. We have wanted to have the AI skill in-house. We have wanted to build and keep the knowledge around nanoforming and nanotechnology in-house. We have now plateaued on a level where we have, you know, 170+ people. Luckily, in Finland, the inflation, the salary inflation, and the deals made by the unions and the employers have been quite low. All this has helped. I think that we can still continue to be more productive. We can still be more efficient. Here, automation is one thing we have invested in. As you know, if you compare GMP line number one, where we have several people in the beginning, almost 10 people on a line, compare it to line two and three, where we basically can run it with one or one and a half or two persons per line. All these automations and productivity, also when it comes to throughput, have helped us. I think that what I can say is that we expect the trend of slightly lower costs to continue because of productivity improvements. It's, of course, never easy, but we are quite good at it. Okay. Thank you. That's great. The next question comes from Sami Sarkamies from Danske Bank Markets. Please go ahead. Okay. Hi. Thanks for taking my questions. I want to still go back to four topics. We'll take this one by one. Starting from the regulatory approval for nanoenzalutamide, you mentioned that you may need to amend the regulatory approach due to lower Cmax when it comes to the U.S. and Japanese markets. Do you think this could impact the targeted launch dates? I guess we're talking about 2027 for the U.S. and 2028 for other geographies. Thanks, Sami, for the question. The short answer is no. I think that the carefully worded response would be that so far, we have several strategies for launch that we are keeping on the table in parallel. As we move forward together with our partners, we will figure out which one is most effective for us. As it comes to the timings, we don't see any reason for fixing timings so far. Peter, any details that you want to add? No, I think that's what we said also in the release, that we don't see any effect on the timelines. It's more about assessing now based on the data we have and the data we will still be generating from the ongoing clinical study, what is the most appropriate regulatory pathway in each relevant geography. No foreseen effect on the timelines. Okay. Looking ahead, if we think about the remaining steps, do you foresee a need to tweak the product or the pivotal study or make further clinical studies in order to reach regulatory approvals for nanoenzalutamide? This is one of these crystal ball questions which are a little bit hard to answer, but let me try to give you one answer. We believe that we have something that can go all the way out to the markets. Of course, the regulatory bodies, they have a say, and their say is law. I think that we prepare for a situation where they basically say, "Yes, you can go as you are." We also prepare for a situation where they say, "Look, you may want to do some other kind of studies." I think in the big picture, both these scenarios are such that we can execute on what we need to do, which is to put a product on the market as soon as possible. Christian and Peter, anything you want to add, details on this? I would just emphasize this, as we've said, I think what we see and what our partners see in the results we mentioned today is that the current product and the current formulation can move forward. I think based on that, I don't see a reason why we would need to go back and make any tweaks to the formulation itself. Of course, the study is still ongoing, and this was a preliminary readout, so nothing in this world is certain. I think the results today, at least, don't give rise to that type of sort of acute planning for a reformulation. Yeah, I would. I echo what Peter said. I also would like to emphasize the point that the results that we've got are actually quite interesting from a technology perspective. I think Peter mentioned this earlier with respect to the broader view of Nanoform's technology from an innovative perspective. You know, a lot of companies develop drugs and they have to use amorphous solid dispersions to try and overcome difficult polysolubility. It comes with its side effects, right? It comes with these high plasma peak concentrations, which are often unwanted in product development. The ability for Nanoform's technology to get a lower plasma peak concentration, a lower Cmax, and get the same bioavailability as an AUC is a highly desired feature and something which I think our innovative partners will really be very interested in for their products, as well as, of course, the high drug loading that we can also achieve. I don't think we talked about Cmax after the earlier study. I mean, was this somehow a new finding or results a bit different from the previous study? No, the results we have here are not different than the previous study. In a gross picture, the details are different. I think we here have a formulation which is actually a little bit better than the one we had before, you know, along the dimensions that both Peter and Christian have been talking about. Peter, do you want to add something on the formulation aspects here? No, of course. The pilot speakers study that we mentioned before was a pilot study, and this is a sort of a first arm of a pivotal study. Of course, we learn more when we get more data. This was the third clinical study in total for a Nanoform product. In that sense as well, this is hugely important for the validation of the technology overall, I would say. I think echoing fully what Christian emphasized earlier, a big positive for the technology overall is that the nanocrystalline product can actually match an amorphous solid dispersion in terms of bioavailability, which is something that many experts globally would have probably felt is questionable. I think we're very, very happy on that. Overall, the results are, I think, sort of within what can be expected. Okay. The second topic would be the commercial progress with ASD projects. You have signed a lot of term sheets during the first half of the year. What is your expectation regarding when these term sheets will be converting into binding agreements? Is it something you expect to happen during the rest of the year? Is it going to be happening sooner, or will it take more time than that? Christian, please. Yes, we certainly expect them to be signed within the rest of the year. There's no question about that. We want them to be signed as soon as possible. There's a lot of pressure on our partners to make sure that we can get these deals signed and over the line. It may well be that we have news to tell sooner than that, but certainly by the end of the year, that's our expectation. Okay. I have a couple of questions regarding manufacturing. Could you give us an update on what you're actually doing in manufacturing at the moment? Have you completed manufacturing of the registration batch, for example, and what's going to be the next project there? Yes, I'm happy to. First, I will answer your second question. We have completed the registration batch, and we are using the registration batch now in this pivotal study studies. Manufacturing is right now very, very focused on preparing for the FIMEA inspection. Basically, we need to make sure that the process, the people, the plant is in shape. They're going to come over. The inspectors have been here during the last five years, three or four times. Now it's for real because this is for putting medicines for sale onto the market. I like very much that they come here and they have this integral because it drives patient safety. In the end of the day, it's in everybody's interest that they don't come and see something for the first time. A lot of bandwidth right now as we speak is going into this. Okay. My last question would be on that FIMEA approval process. Are you expecting a stamp following this September visit, or is this something that will take a longer time? The answer to your question is our job is to make sure that we get the stamp. FIMEA is very much in control of how long it takes before they want to award it. Normally they come in, they take a little bit of time, they write up findings, and then they say whether they are going to award it immediately or whether there is work to be carried out. I don't want to forego their conclusions. Of course, we work towards a situation where they feel comfortable to hand out the stamps pretty soon rather than later. Okay. Thank you. I don't have any further questions. Thank you. There are no more questions at this time. I hand the conference back to the speakers for any closing comments. Thank you, operator. On behalf of Nanoform, I would like to thank all participants for today. If you have any more questions, just please reach out to us. We wish everybody a great Thursday afternoon and evening. Thank you and goodbye.