Welcome to BioInvent's year-end report 2025. During the Q&A session, participants are able to ask questions by dialing pound key five on their telephone keypad. I will hand the conference over to the speakers, CEO Martin Welschof and CFO Stefan Ericsson. Please go ahead. Thank you, and welcome everybody to our year-end report. Today is February 26, 2026, and as usual, I will start with the summary. We had a couple of key events in the Q4. First of all, the two ASH data sets. With BI-1808, our lead candidate, targeting TNF receptor two, we saw very strong data in T-cell lymphoma, and we presented that at ASH 2025, and I'll come back to the data a little bit more in detail later. We had another ASH presentation about BI-1206, which is our lead targeting FcγRIIB, in combination with rituximab and Calquence in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. That was also presented at ASH 2025 and also very, very strong data set. I should mention that BI-1808, that was a monotherapy, single-agent therapy. We also started our phase IIa trial, evaluating BI-1206 in combination with pembrolizumab in treatment-naive, advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer and uveal melanoma. This is really the first-line setting. This is, as I will explain later, based on data that we have seen in end-of-the-line patients, and that data actually convinced Merck to go together with us into first line under a supply and collaboration agreement. Last but not least, we also got orphan drug designation from EMA for BI-1808, another very important milestone for the treatment of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, CTCL. We had a couple of events after the end of the period. number one, obviously, a very promising data set in our ongoing phase IIa study for BI-1808 with KEYTRUDA for the treatment of recurrent ovarian cancer. We published that ahead of J.P. Morgan. I will also discuss that data set a little bit more in detail. We had here in the report, and maybe not everybody is aware about this, but I will highlight it, updated clinical data sets for 1808 and pembro in combination in ovarian cancer, as well as the BI-1206 study for the treatment of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. We have additional patients there, and I will mention it again when we discuss specifically those two data sets. Also, very happy that we could nominate two new board members. Of course, they still need to be confirmed and elected on the annual general meeting. Number one, Kristine Hamann, a very experienced and seasoned business person in the pharma and biotech industry. Scott Zinober, who was for roughly 20 years, the portfolio manager at Viking. Both two very, very strong U.S. profiles, and we're very happy to welcome them to our board. Before I go into a little bit more in detail, just to have a quick look at our clinical pipeline. As usual, I always emphasize here, we have multiple value drivers. As you know, in August, we focused on the two more mature programs, BI-1808 and BI-1206. BI-1808 is currently running with in combination with pembrolizumab in recurrent ovarian cancer. There we have this very nice data set that is actually continuing to generate good data. We have planned, so this has not been started yet, a combination with BI-1808 pembrolizumab and paclitaxel, based on the very interesting data that Merck published at ESMO. This is actually quite exciting because it could lead to a very interesting development in recurring ovarian cancer. Obviously, as you already know, CTCL single agent, go briefly over the data that we presented at ASH. We are currently running this also in combination with pembrolizumab. Although we already have very strong single-agent data in CTCL of BI-1808, we still want to see how it looks in combination with pembro. BI-1206, you know, the triplet targeting non-Hodgkin lymphoma, specifically follicular lymphoma, mantle cell lymphoma, and marginal zone lymphoma. There we also have an update. The data set is maturing further and basically confirming the trend as we see also the BI-1808 data set in ovarian cancer in combination with pembrolizumab. That is really very, very encouraging. As already mentioned on the previous slide, we kicked off first-line combination, in combination with pembrolizumab, BI-1206 in non-small cell lung cancer and uveal melanoma, and there we will see the first readout already during the H2 of this year. But I will come back to the milestones this year and also an outlook into 2027 later at the end of the presentation. Here, I just want to mention that we see basically complete and partial responses in all clinical programs, which is really, really confirming the two single-agent having activity in liquid as well as in solid cancer, which is I think is very giving a lot of comfort, and that's what you want to see at this stage. Going a little bit more into detail, first, our anti-TNFR2 program, 1808 in solid tumors, and then, the same in T-cell lymphoma. We have, as already mentioned, very promising efficacy in ovarian cancer, and that is kind of building on the single-agent activity that we have seen in ovarian cancer. But obviously, if you want to treat something like recurring ovarian cancer, you have to go into combination. Since we knew, preclinically already that we have strong single-agent activity, but also very good synergy with pembrolizumab, it was a no-brainer, and that's why we did this. In addition to the data that we have shown ahead of JP Morgan, we have one additional partial response. One stable disease has turned now into a partial response, and one additional stable disease that corresponds to 24% ORR and disease control rate of 57%. Basically, the data set that we have shown ahead of JP Morgan is kind of confirmed and is maturing further into the right direction. Again, 24% overall response, 57% disease control, and 21 available ovarian cancer patients, which I think is very encouraging and is showing the right trend. Also when we look on the next slide at the spider plot, you can also see how immunotherapy is working, and we have the firm belief that BI-1808 could be potentially the next KEYTRUDA. You see here two dotted lines, so a pink one, which is basically, if you're above this, is progressive disease, if you're below this, it's stable disease. Then you have a yellow line, PR, which is basically, if you then go beyond this or below this, then you have a partial response, and you can see how immuno therapy is working. You have patients at stable disease, and then they're there for a while, the immune system works, and then it gets pushed down into partial response. This is actually very, very interesting because also when you look at KEYTRUDA alone, is around 80% ORR, in combination with our drug, it's 24%. I think this is actually a very interesting and strong data set, and of course, further maturing. Switching to CTCL and PTCL, our T-cell lymphoma data that we presented at ASH 2025. There we have shown 46% ORR, 92% disease control in 13 evaluable CTCL patients. A very strong data set, I should mention here also at this place, both data sets, the one in ovarian cancer, as well as the one in T-cell lymphoma, has also a very excellent safety profile. It's very, very well tolerated, which is important, especially when you think about the combination in ovarian cancer with pembrolizumab, because if you are only able to do this in case you have a good safety profile, which we have. Going back to T-cell lymphoma here on this slide. What is important, besides the good safety profile, is that we see immune activation early on with depletion of regulatory T-cells and the influx of CD8-positive T-cells into the skin. We have a clear skin component, and very briefly on the spider plot, plots, here you can also see nice duration already. In this case, the black line, this is basically below that, is stable disease, and then, you see the dotted line is below, is partial response. You can see that we already have a complete response now in Sézary syndrome, which is really continuing for more than a year. Also you can see that duration is coming into play here, as you could see also for the more early ovarian cancer data set. It really looks very promising. Switching to our other program, our anti-FcγRIIB program, BI-1206 in Hodgkin's lymphoma, as well as in solid tumors, starting with the non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. This is the combination with rituximab and acalabrutinib, so it's a triplet. This is a little bit different slide that we have shown so far. We'll be splitting up now into follicular lymphoma, marginal zone lymphoma, and mantle cell lymphoma. We see good responses in both. Dark green is complete, light green is partial. We have actually compared to the data set that we have shown at the end of last year, four additional partial responses and one additional stable disease, keeping basically the very good 80% ORR and the disease control rate of 100%, which is, I think, excellent. You can see activity in all three subsets. We are focusing more on follicular lymphoma because this is also more interesting for our supply and collaboration partner, AstraZeneca, because they don't have a follicular lymphoma on the label of acalabrutinib. Again, a spider plot here as well. You know, everything that is below the dotted line is good because that means it's either partial response or complete response. You see also quite a number of stable diseases, and you see here also that, you know, the data matures. That means you see first a stable disease, then it goes into partial response, and then eventually into complete response. We also have here very, very good duration. We have some idea about the duration from our doublet study that we did before, that was just BI-1206 in combination with rituximab. Of course, the patient population that we're focusing on is our patients that do not respond anymore to any CD20-based therapy. There we have now, a couple of patients that actually are in complete response for several years after the end of the study. On the solid cancer side, for BI-1206, this is a data set, that is from the dose escalation, where we were targeting patients, end-of-the-line patients that do not respond anymore to either anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1, where we also had some very interesting signals. We had very interesting, complete, and partial responses. Based on that, we went back to Merck, and our partner here for the supply and collaboration on, combination with KEYTRUDA. We agreed that we should go into a phase IIa first-line non-small cell lung cancer and melanoma with BI-1206 and pembrolizumab, and this is now ongoing. As I said, the first readout will be during the H2 of this year, which is pretty soon anyway. I will hand over to Stefan. Thank you, Martin. I will present the financial overview for Q4 and the 12-month period, January to December. All amounts are in SEK million, unless otherwise mentioned. Net sales were SEK 3 million in Q4 2025, compared to SEK 21.4 million in Q4 2024. That's SEK 18 million lower in Q4 2025. That decrease is related to the production of antibodies for customers, was lower in 2025. Net sales for January to December 2025 were at SEK 226 million. For the same period in 2024, net sales were SEK 45 million. That's an increase of SEK 182 million. The increase is mainly related to that, the $20 million payment we received when XOMA Royalty acquired future royalty and milestones interest for mezagitamab. Before that, we got a $1 million milestone in that collaboration. For production of antibodies for customers was SEK 19 million lower in 2025. Operating costs decreased from SEK 147 million in Q4 2024 to SEK 132 million in Q4 2025. That's a decrease of SEK 15 million. We had quite higher cost in BI-1808, and quite lower cost in BI-1607, and lower cost in BI-1206 and BI-1910. We had somewhat higher personnel cost in Q4 2025. For January to December, the increase of operating costs was SEK 62 million, from SEK 516 million in 2024 to SEK 578 million in 2025. We had quite higher cost in BI-1808 and BI-1206, quite lower cost in BI-1607, and lower cost for production of antibodies for customers. Personnel costs in 2025 were quite higher compared to 2024. The result for Q4 2025 was -SEK 125.8 million. The result for January to December 2025 was SEK 332.9 million. Liquid funds and current investments, end of December 2025, amounted to, in total, SEK 593 million. Finally, based on ongoing studies, BioInvent is assessed to be financed for the coming 12-month period. Over to you, Martin. Thank you, Stefan. At the end of the presentation, I want to go over the key catalysts for the remaining part of this year, as well as give you an outlook for 2027. As you will see, this is actually a quite dense picture here. We have a lot of interesting news this and next year. Starting with BI-1808 in T-cell lymphoma, already by mid this year, we'll have first phase IIa data in combination with pembro, but also additional monotherapy data, since we do dose optimization at the moment. For BI-1808 in solid tumors, H2 of this year, we should have further phase IIa data in combination with pembro. As you could see, already here, the data is maturing to the right direction, that should be also a very interesting milestone to looking forward to. Switching to BI-1206, or FcγRIIB platform, we'll have mid-year already, the additional phase IIa data with, in combination with rituximab and acalabrutinib. Last but not least, BI-1206 in solid tumors, first-line non-small cell lung cancer and melanoma. We'll have the first readout of that data during the H2 of this year. Looking into 2027, again, starting from the top, first, our TNFR2 platform, BI-1808, in T-cell lymphoma. During the H1, we'll complete the phase IIa dose optimization, that is, the monotherapy. During the H2, we could potentially start the pivotal study. BI-1808 and solid tumors, at during the H2 of next year, would have potentially the first phase IIa data, the triplet in combination with pembro and paclitaxel. This is actually quite interesting because, in case we really see a nice uplift there, and maybe we can later discuss it during the Q&A in more detail, this could also then lead immediately, of course, data-driven, to a pivotal study. Very interesting program to follow. FcγRIIB, BI-1206 in non-Hodgkin lymphoma. At during the H1 of 2027, we potentially could start the pivotal triplet study. In the solid cancer, first-line non-small cell lung cancer and uveal melanoma, during the H1 of 2027, we complete the phase IIa data, and could potentially start during the H2, phase IIb, BI-1206 plus pembro in non-small cell lung cancer. As I mentioned, a very dense news flow, very interesting milestones, and that should be something I'm really looking forward to. I think I will end here my presentation, and happy to talk to take questions. Thank you. If you wish to ask a question, please dial pound key five on your telephone keypad to enter the queue. If you wish to withdraw your question, please dial pound key six on your telephone keypad. The next question comes from Richard Ramanius from Redeye. Please go ahead. Good afternoon. Why not start off on the last slide? When do you think it would make sense to take in a partner to conduct any of these studies? I guess, would be some of the studies in 2027. Yeah. Basically, what I can say to that, we are in interesting discussions, as you know, we have a very active approach in business development partnering anyway, and we are, you know, in discussions with some company for some time. Obviously, we have AstraZeneca and Merck already at the table in a way, through those supply and collaboration agreements, and they follow the programs very closely. I think we might already see some activity around partnering, potential partnering, deal-making during the H2 of this year. Of course, you can never promise. It's always then dependent on the data, on, you know, what the market environment is, et cetera, et cetera. We will be keen to partner one or the other, you know, hopefully, large pharma companies such as Merck and AstraZeneca. Yeah, right. Could you just clarify, more in detail exactly what more do you need to accomplish with BI-1206 in NHL to make the triplet ready for a pivotal trial? Basically, we will have, as I already mentioned, the 30 patients in the current ongoing study. That's enough, we can discuss with the regulators and start preparing for potential pivotal study. I think that will take the rest of the year. O nce we have the data by mid this year, could start that potentially next year. Also, to mention it here, our main focus, currently from a strategic perspective is more on the solid cancer side because that is a much stronger value driver. We are committed to get the TCL as well as the NHL that you are talking about, ready for potential pivotal study. The last question: What funding options do you have for 2027? Yeah, obviously, we will look at everything all the time. Number one, we're looking at partnering. Number two, of course, there's always a financing option because I think if you have good data, as we have, you have always both possibilities, but we have a strong focus on partnering. Right. Thanks for taking my questions. Thank you, Richard. The next question comes from Sebastiaan van der Schoot from Kempen. Please go ahead. Hello, thanks for taking my question. I'm Chiara Montironi on behalf of Sebastian. A couple from me, if I may, again, regarding potential partnering discussion. Could you go over whether BI-1206 or BI-1808 is one of the more logical options to outlicense? The second question will be around uveal melanoma and first-line non-small cell lung cancer dataset for BI-1206. Can you provide some insight into what magnitude of efficacy would give you enough comfort to continue forward with the program? Thank you. Thank you very much for those questions, and very nice to meet you. Regarding partnering, we are currently discussing both 1808 and 1206. We have discussions around both programs, and that's also what you should do as a biotech company because you can't be picky. You have to see what opportunity turns up, and then, you know, you go from there. My dream scenario would be, though, that we keep 1808 a little bit longer and partner 1206 first. As I said, we have discussions around both at the moment. Regarding the data set of BI-1206 in first-line non-small cell lung cancer, I think what we would like to see as a target is, 60% ORR. I think then we will be in good shape. Okay. Thank you. The next question comes from Arvid Necander from DNB Carnegie. Please go ahead. Good afternoon. Thanks for taking my questions. I came a bit late here, so sorry if the questions have already been answered. The first one on BI-1206, so really good to see the breakdown of responses by subtype in NHL. On the back of this analysis, I just wanted to ask if follicular lymphoma is the indication that makes most sense to pursue in a registration-directed trial. Then I guess secondly, on the non-small cell lung cancer data targeted for H2 of the year, which will provide an important new signal, how should we think about the expectations here? What would mark a strong outcome in your view? Yeah. Start there. Thanks. Thank you for your questions. Maybe I start with the last one first because there was a little bit of an overlap regarding that already. What we hope to see, our expectation is that we see an ORR, so that's about BI-1206 in combination with pembrolizumab in first-line non-small cell lung cancer of 60%. I think if you see that will be a strong signal. In that sense, also, it's a very good clinical trial because we really put it to the test. If you see this kind of response, I think we are very happy. I think that would be also something that is super interesting for Merck or should be super interesting for Merck. Regarding BI-1206 in non-Hodgkin lymphoma, yes, I think the activity is in all three, and we had a stronger focus on follicular lymphoma, and I think I mentioned it during the presentation. Maybe you didn't hear this. This is a little bit driven by our supply and collaboration partner, AstraZeneca, because acalabrutinib doesn't have follicular lymphoma on the label. Since we think that might be a potential partnering possibility, we were focusing on follicular lymphoma a little bit more than on the other two. What we were trying to do is have a focus on follicular lymphoma, at the same time point, also showing that it works for marginal zone as well as mantle cell lymphoma, which I think we clearly did. Of course, also for the audience here, when you look at non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the largest, by far largest, population is follicular lymphoma. I think also from a commercial perspective, it makes a lot of sense. Perfect. Thank you, Martin. I'll jump back in the queue. Thank you. The next question comes from Dan Akschuti from Pareto Securities. Please go ahead. Hi, Martin, congrats on the progress now with potentially two pivotal programs next year. I think there's been now lots of discussion about partnering and, yeah, the both drugs work in multiple settings. I'm thinking a bit, like, how are you going into these negotiations, if you can share a bit more? Because follicular lymphoma, for instance, as with any approved immune oncology drug, it, they never stay approved in only one indication. So it's kind of a mechanism, proof of concept that you have. Are you marketing this specifically, or do you see interest from that, from the pharma side to basically not just do a deal on the indication, but more broader on the drug or on the mechanism? How you approach that for both drugs, so 1808 and 1206. If you have gotten this kind of interest from pharma or has it been very indication-specific? Thank you. Yeah. Thank you, Dan. I think in general, you can say, and that's, you see it also here on this slide, you know, BI-1808 is our TNFR2 platform, and BI-1206 is our FcγRIIB platform. Both mechanism, as you say, are broad, and of course, what you do in early clinical development, you try to find a signal that you can follow in order to generate some more, comprehensive data sets, and that's what we're doing. Especially as a small company, you have to be very prudent, because you can't go too broad at the beginning. Just to go through maybe, step by step, when you look at BI-1808 first, maybe there you can clearly see that we already have established a very broad efficacy range. Remember, probably the single-agent activity in GIST, in ovarian cancer, but also in lung cancer, and now the strong data set in combination with pembrolizumab. At the same time point, we also see a strong single-agent activity in T-cell lymphoma. They already can go and see the broad potential application range that you have for that compound. Talking about BI-1808 first, maybe, yes, the discussions that we have, of course, initially indication-driven, because wherever you have the first more comprehensive data set, that's what drives it. Of course, that we had with TCL. Now since we have the ovarian cancer data set since early this year, we also have interesting discussions around ovarian cancer, obviously. Absolutely broad, and the same is true for 1206. We have this in non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and of course, the study that we run is very targeted towards AstraZeneca in a way. We'll see how that works out, and we will know that probably already quite soon. You have the solid tumor side where we work in combination with pembrolizumab. Especially 1206 is quite interesting because there we have a supply and collaboration going with AstraZeneca regarding acalabrutinib for non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and of course, then the same. Not the same, but also a supply and collaboration going with Merck for the solid cancer side. On the solid cancer side, for both compounds, I also would say, starting again with BI-1808, if we continue to see what we see, then it will not be only interesting for ovarian cancer, it will be also interesting for other cancers, like maybe triple-negative breast cancer, for example, and maybe other solid cancers. I think very broad application potential, but we go one step at a time. Current focus is clearly on ovarian cancer, which is already a quite interesting market. The same is true for BI-1206 in solid tumors. If it should work as we hope, so around 60% ORR in first-line non-small cell lung cancer, then it's there's as no reason why it should not work with other solid cancer indications in combination with pembrolizumab first line. Both have a platform. It's a platform potential and platform application, and that's how also our discussions are driven. Obviously, they start with the first data sets, and once you have done the other data sets, that continues to grow. And of course, what we are trying to do is to see that we also reach that stage. With 1808, we have that now with the ovarian cancer data, and there will be further ovarian cancer data already during the H2 of this year. For BI-1206, with the H2 of this year, the first readout for the combination with pembro in first-line non-small cell lung cancer also will initiate this type of discussions. Great, thank you. Just a follow-up, if I may, and maybe you cannot answer it, but do you can share if you see a willingness from pharma to value these assets broadly and, like, if they're interested in broader patterns beyond composition of matter or like broader preclinical data that you have? Do you see signs that are really indicating that they're interested really in the platform? Maybe you cannot share that with us, but, if-. Well, I can talk about it in of course, general ways, and I can refer a little bit to the discussions that we had during JP Morgan. We had one discussion, which was really interesting, where exactly what you were describing was the case. You know, they obviously were super intrigued by the T-cell lymphoma data, but then also say you have this very beautiful ovarian cancer data. Plus, also, I think interesting for the audience, we just uploaded also a publication, that is really describing in detail how it works. I think a lot of partners or potential partners really value the depth that we have regarding the science. We can really, and have described in this publication, how 1808 works in detail. I think, the clinical data in hand with the preclinical data and science data and mechanistic data, basically, is important, to drive, good and fruitful partnering discussions. We have that. Cool. Thank you very much. Thank you, Dan. The next question comes from Oscar Haffen Lamm from Stifel. Please go ahead. Hi, Simon. Thank you for taking my questions. My first one will be on 1808 in TCL. I mean, with data expected, in combo with pembro in mid-2026 and, you know, potential start of a pivotal trial by next year, I was just wondering on what we'll basically decide whether to use the monotherapy or the combo with pembro in the pivotal trial. I mean, will it be purely based on efficacy? Will it be safety as well? Just curious to hear your thoughts on that. Basically, just as a background also to the audience, currently, and coming back to the milestone that you were just referring to, it will not be only the pembro data. There will be also additional pembro combination data, but also additional mono data. Because what we're currently doing is we run it in combination with pembro, but we also do already dose optimization in mono, or with the single agent, basically. A driver, of course, will be that you have to see a significant better ORR, and of course, at the end, also, it's a little bit early for that, but duration, of course, is also important. Then, of course, also safety. We did some analysis with some external help. The expectation would really, if you combine it with pembro, that you see an uptick in efficacy. Of course, you don't want to have safety problems, because at the moment, safety is really good. I think that is also a very important aspect of our monotherapy data that we have so far, because since we have such a good safety, we could also go into earlier lines of the disease, you know, since we have no toxicity. I think that is also quite important and, of course, would make also the patient population who might be possible to treat would widen this up, basically. We really want to see an uptick, and the reason why we do it is basically just to see whether we can have a better efficacy. I think the efficacy that we already have as a monotherapy is good, is exceptional, especially in combination with the safety that we see. Okay, thank you. Just to follow up on that, how many patients do you target to have in CTCL before the end of phase II meeting with the FDA? Yeah, it will be the full data set. I don't have that at the moment in front of me. I think what we have shown so far was 15 plus patients, so will be kind of roughly the double amount. I think for the now I'm talking about the monotherapy data, and then for the pembro data, it's something around 15 patients, right? In combination with pembro. Okay. Thank you. Just one last question for me. It's still on BI-1808, but this time in ovarian cancer. Is decision to add paclitaxel to the combo of BI-1808 and KEYTRUDA done in the back of some conversations with Merck? I mean, maybe they've hinted to what they want to see in the data. Maybe as a follow-up on that, how many patients will you recruit for that arm? Yeah. Basically that was triggered, that thought was triggered much, much earlier, and it was already part of our protocol when we started the doublet. We first just wanted to see how it works in combination with pembrolizumab, and this we know now. It's 18% ORR, 8% ORR compared to 24 in the combination. Since we were following the field quite closely, we had already in the protocol that we could go with a triplet, and we also have done already some preclinical work, and we know BI-1808 works also very well with paclitaxel. Once we saw the ESMO data published by Merck, and then the only thing that was missing, we were actually already quite convinced by that, but the only thing that we're missing then for us to really plan this more seriously was then the approval of pembro and paclitaxel. And we expect, you know, a super cool safety profile, at least no other safety issues compared to, you know, KEYTRUDA combined with paclitaxel. Plus, of course, a very nice uptick in overall response rate. Here again, I don't have the patient numbers in front of me, but I think it was around 30 patients that we want to do in the triplet, maybe a little bit more, at least, the amount of patients that will be needed in order to have, as a next step, a potential pivotal study. Okay, thank you. Very clear. Thank you, Oscar. As a reminder, if you wish to ask a question, please dial pound key five on your telephone keypad. There are no more questions at this time. I hand the conference back to the speakers for any closing comments. Yeah. Thanks, everybody, for participating in our call, plus also the very good questions. I think that discussion around those questions helped a lot to really demonstrate and show that we are at a very important and interesting time of the company. The slide of the key expected clinical milestones is still up on this presentation. I think with that, you can clearly see a very dense news flow, as I already mentioned, and each of those program can drive a very interesting value development for the company. Stay tuned, and already by mid this year, there should be more, and then, you know, we will see where we land. I'm very optimistic for the company, and I think for me, from my perspective, the most important thing is the data, and the data is good, and we knew that already, also it's maturing in the right direction. I think that gives me a lot of hope and confidence. Thank you very much.