Hi, good afternoon, everyone. Hi, welcome to the Jefferies Healthcare Conference here in London. My name is Michel Phaedonos. I'm part of the healthcare investment banking team here at Jefferies. I'm here with Andrew Booth, CFO of AbCellera, who will walk you through a presentation. Let's see how long it takes, and then with some Q&A at the end. Thank you very much. Thanks very much, and thanks to Jefferies for inviting us to present here at the conference. As was mentioned, my name is Andrew Booth. I'm the CFO at AbCellera. It'll be my pleasure to introduce you to AbCellera. Just a reminder, I may make some forward-looking statements here, and there's a regular disclaimer. There's additional details, of course, in our SEC documentation. So first of all, the thesis of AbCellera was that we would rebuild the front end of drug discovery as related to antibodies, from the what has been the mainstay of antibody drug discovery since the 1970s, of course, is hybridoma. And the belief was that a lot has changed since the 1970s, and from investment in technology, we can make possible what has been thus far intractable by conventional antibody discovery technology and bring forward the ability to find antibodies against previously intractable targets, and that we could improve ultimately on the productivity of drug development as it relates to antibodies, and that we would create the value from that capability, but in the portfolio of royalty positions or stakes in the future success of antibody-based therapeutics. That has been quite successful, and we started the company back in 2012 and have been investing in that capability for over 10 years now, and now are in a position where we are bringing these best-in-class therapeutics closer and closer to the clinic. Now, taking a bit of a step back in looking at drug development very simplistically, we see what the market that we play in is not in the services market, for example, but with the market we're really playing in is the very large antibody-based therapeutics market, which is estimated to be close to $200 billion today and estimated to grow to about $400 billion by 2030. Antibodies, of course, are a very effective therapeutic modality. And if you look and take a step back at the larger drug development process, at the beginning of the process, you have your biological insight. So where you've come up with some novel biology for in the target, in identifying a target, and believe that if you find a therapeutic or a molecule, potentially an antibody, against a certain target with certain characteristics, that maybe that could be a big a good drug. Those are your requirements in order to do antibody-based therapeutics. We then take those requirements and do product development, and this is where it is one of the more complicated product development cycles out there in industry. There is 1,000 things that need to go right, and there is no such thing as advancing a minimum viable product into what is then therapeutic testing. You have to get it all right with the antibody that then goes into 8-10 years of clinical development. So our thesis as well at AbCellera was, it doesn't make any sense to pull any punches in the technology that you're using to advance the productivity of the product development stage of antibody drug discovery, and that this is where productivity and technology can really play a role in getting best-in-class molecules and best-in-class therapeutics closer to the clinic for our partners and ultimately to patients. And that is where we have been focused, and we take that technology to market in a number of different ways. The idea is we make those investments in technology, and the value accrues to a portfolio of positions we have in the benefit of the success of those future therapeutics. It started by selling originally access to that technology in what we would call discovery programs. So this is where our partners would come to us with their insight into biology. They would ask us that with, with our development capabilities, could we find an antibody against a certain target? And in, in return for that, we would get paid some money upfront, but we would also participate in the downstream success of those molecules through downstream milestones and royalties. We have signed up for over 100 such programs that we have done using our capabilities or our engine, and that continues to be a way for us to do these strategic deals, typically with large pharma companies or companies that have come to us with some insight into biology that we otherwise wouldn't have had or some capabilities. It also has made us a bit of a central repository for information for us to then build and practice our capabilities and refine our capabilities for our partners. As the business has evolved, naturally, our technology improves. We've managed to negotiate further and deeper and deeper positions in those molecules, and what came next was co-development. So again, where a partner comes with unique insight or capabilities that we would not have, we believe that our technology position is so strong that we managed to negotiate complete co-ownership of those molecules and the invest, s o starting out from the beginning of the drug discovery, we will have co-ownership of the drug, and we have the right, but not the obligation, to invest, to maintain that co-ownership position as it advances through to the clinic and ultimately through to clinical trials. Should we elect to not invest, we also have the opportunity to divert to a royalty position, which still involves us in the success of those molecules, but certainly at a rate that is accretive to what would have normally been the regular partnership business. The logical extension of that, of course, is when we have invested in these capabilities, we believe from our experience of working with this technology, that we can find antibodies against some of the most difficult targets out there, and I will talk about them in a minute. It doesn't make any sense to sit back and wait for someone to ask you to work on some of those programs. It makes a lot of sense to continue to test the technology, to prove the limits of the to advance the limits of what you're able to do by initiating those discovery programs on our own, and that is our internal pipeline. So these are wholly owned assets that we have started on our own, on our own steam and are progressing through preclinical development and ultimately into clinical development. So I'll spend a little bit of time talking about each of these. This discovery programs, these are initiated by our partners, as I mentioned. You think here about a fairly large, diversified portfolio of these positions. The average royalty in the past years, we disclose it annually in our 10-K. It's been about 4%-5% in recent years. I believe it's 4.2% with an interquartile range of between 2.5% and about 8%. So we have that position on these. It involves upfronts, but we're not solving for the upfronts. We do recognize them as revenue in our quarterly numbers, but that is not what we're solving for. What we're solving for here are molecules or programs that we really have conviction in and believe in, that we will then spend our time to advance with our partners. As I mentioned already, we have these co-development programs. There are a number that we have done. One most recently is with a company called Prelude, where they have brought in an ADC technology and a degrader technology, where we're advancing a number of programs together, and we have done some of these in the past. Also in internal programs, so at the end of last year, so the end of 2022, of course, we actually only disclose on an annual basis how many programs we have worked on. We've worked on 12 programs in here. These typically are very difficult targets, very difficult problems where we believe our technology is uniquely positioned for us to succeed. Largely, generally speaking, these have been in three groups. One is in T-cell engagers, where we have developed and characterized what we believe is the largest panel of diversified anti-CD3 antibodies used for T-cell engagers to not only engage but activate T-cells without a large cytokine release, which has been a problem that has been in this field for many, many years. We've presented a lot of scientific data at AACR and most recently at SITC, just a week or so ago. This is a panel where we believe we can outlicense these anti-CD3 antibodies in combination with our bispecific technology to a large number of partners, and we're really optimistic about where this is going in the future. The other is in the, what we call the difficult target space or the complex membrane protein target space, ion channels and GPCRs. Here, these have previously been very difficult or impossible or intractable for antibody to find antibodies against these. We believe we are succeeding here. I would perhaps include in the T-cell engager problem also MHC peptide targets, which we have repeatedly cracked and been very successful at producing antibodies against. And in the ion channel and GPCR, we believe we can systematically crack these targets. Thinking back to the larger term frame of antibody drug discovery, there's really no insight into biology required in order to initiate these programs. This is typically well-validated biology in this complex membrane protein target space that has failed in the, typically validated by small molecules, that has failed for other reasons in the clinic, typically around toxicity, where antibodies would be a very good solution if only you could find antibodies against these targets. So we've had some great success there, and I would be, the program would be or the presentation would be incomplete without mentioning our success in pandemic response. In 2017, somewhat clairvoyantly, DARPA had awarded a number of grants to build out platforms. We were the recipient of some of those DARPA programs and were the discoverers of the antibodies against COVID that were ultimately commercialized by Eli Lilly, and that was a very successful program for us in not once but twice finding the first antibody against COVID and the last standing antibody against the Omicron while there was still a pandemic and still an emergency use authorization possible with the FDA. If you look across the portfolio, we're in a number of different disease areas. This on the left, you will see the areas that we are partnered with. So broadly representing the span of antibodies out there in industry, in oncology, neurodegenerative disease, and a good number, you see 148 different programs. So this is something we're doing at some scale. Although this is not an indexed fund on biologics, we curate every opportunity that we take into this portfolio. We're very specific about the partners that we work with, and actually, I'll talk about that on the next slide. On the right-hand side, GPCRs are ion channels, about 50% of that portfolio, the work in T-cell and space and of course, some work in infectious disease. So the portfolio we have, we consider ourselves very fortunate in working with some of the best partners out there in the industry. Very well and capable groups, such as Regeneron, Lilly, AbbVie, and others that have very well-established clinical development and, sorry, antibody development capabilities. We are happy to work with them, and you can see the number of partner programs and the number of co-development programs that have been initiated across this portfolio. We would consider all these partners very strategic, not only because they bring something unique to the programs, but also we develop these relationships with them for our internal assets, where we may want to partner them in the longer term. The logical place for us to partner them would be with some of these larger pharma companies that could do the later-stage clinical development and then ultimately commercialization. I mentioned already that portfolio is accreting in value, and as we progress, we see what you would hope to see. We are not solving for volume in this business. We are actually solving for quality and the amount of work and where we can add, something, a unique differentiation. We see that in the economic terms that we're able to negotiate, and that they're increasing over time. Lastly, I'll just talk about the progress that we've made on the internal pipeline. We have started, as you saw, about 12 or so programs in this pipeline. We were quite pleased in our last earnings call to highlight a couple of these programs that have advanced to development candidate and that we're taking into IND-enabling studies. The first of which is an antibody against OX40 ligand. This was first in, initiated by our partner, co-development partner, EQRx. We signed a co-development agreement with them. They had elected the target, and we had initiated the discovery program. Of course, EQRx recently had some tougher times in the market, and they recently sold to Revolution Medicines, which they were not interested in advancing. So fortunately, fortuitously for AbCellera, this program reverted to us, and we were in a good position with this molecule. It is, to our knowledge, the molecule right behind Sanofi, who had an OX40 ligand readout in phase II against atopic dermatitis. And this pathway we're particularly excited about because of its role more broadly in inflammation, in conditions such as ulcerative colitis and rheumatoid arthritis, MS. So we're quite excited about this. It is a large indication, a large market, as you well know. The second molecule we're even more excited about, but unfortunately, we don't disclose any more details. We believe it would not be strategic to do so. There's a molecule against in the difficult target space, the ion channel and GPCR space, right in line with our theory of that we have made these investments in technology, which we believe will allow us to systematically crack these difficult targets. This happens to be in metabolic and endocrine condition, and with an estimated peak sales of over $2 billion. A biology already well-validated out there in the market, and we're quite excited as we move this product, this molecule, through IND-enabling studies to an IND and into the clinic. For both of these molecules, we would expect to get to an IND in early 2025 and start the clinical development. Probably worth mentioning that we have secured quite cost-effective funding to advance molecules into the clinic with some funding agreements that we've entered into with the Government of Canada. I didn't mention, but Vancouver, AbCellera is based in Vancouver, Canada, on the West Coast. We have been successful at securing funding, including a recently announced in May of this past year announced funding with the Government of Canada to the tune of CAD 225 million, where they will co-fund the advancement of up to 17 programs from target all the way through to the end of phase I. So not only are we able to develop these molecules at a very capital-efficient way, having built out the capability, and we can, we can find these molecules for the marginal cost of doing one incremental program. We can also move them through into the, into phase I, where the Government of Canada and the Government of British Columbia are co-funding these molecules, through to the end of phase I for up to 17 different programs. And that actually brings me to just the talk about how we allocate capital. So we're very deliberate about our allocation of capital. About 1/3 of our R&D spending is spent on advancing the discovery programs of our partners, so those would be the, the partner-led drug discovery programs that we talked about. And about 2/3 is directed towards, our internal R&D. That is split between advancing our own internal pipeline, as well as advancing and exploring more the platform. The platform there, it not only is our internal pipeline, but it is, we are vertically integrating into the CMC and GMP capabilities, so we will be able to do that all under our own shop to go from target to the clinic with best-in-class molecules, and in what we would think is the shortest amount of time, having vertically integrated all of those capabilities together. This is something we intend to use not only with our own programs, but with the programs of our partners, where we believe there's real benefit in having all of that capability put into under one roof. Last but not least, we enter into this in a very strong liquidity position, both from the capital that we've raised in the past, but notably also from the royalty revenue we received from the success of our COVID antibodies, has put us in a position with over $800 million of cash and cash equivalents. When you add to that, the committed capital from the Government of Canada funding that I've talked about before, it puts us in a position with well over $1 billion in available capital, which is an enviable position, certainly in these markets today, and allows us to really put our shoulder to continuing our investments in the platform and continuing our internal pipeline. I would say that our internal pipeline specifically is ahead, well ahead of where we thought it would be maybe at this time last year, and we are putting our shoulder to that, and we expect that, with those investments, we will continue on about the pace that we have been at the, the pace of two INDs or two clinical development candidates per year and really focused on that difficult target space and, and in those areas that I, that I mentioned. So with that, I've got left a little bit of time for any questions, and I'm happy to open up the field. Any questions? Yes. Here. Thank you very much for the presentation. I had a question in terms of kind of your long-term strategy, in terms of having both branches of the business. One is the platform, and one is kind of the asset-driven pipeline. Mm-hmm. How do you see that kind of within the business? Is it, like, 50/50, and how do you see that evolve over time? Yeah, I think our investments in the platform and the capability, many of those we've made. The last piece is that vertical integration piece that I've mentioned. But with that capability, the focus is really on using that capability for generating these stakes in future antibody therapeutics. So we'll always have to invest some to keep that at state-of-the-art, I would say. But over time, you would expect that to shift more into the investments we would make in those internal assets. And then the big question is, well, how far along are we going to take those internal assets? Going into a phase I is certainly one thing, and then understanding when exactly is the right time to partner those assets. As you're probably aware, it's on a program-by-program basis, but we definitely have the conviction and the capital to be advancing multiple of these through to phase I. Then we'll think about what are the right ones, who are the right partners to partner with, and to and at what economics, and we want to make sure we always have options when we look at that. But in the future, that could take certainly more of our capital. It would shift more logically to that. We'll continue to do the partnership business, but only when there's strategic reasons to do so. So that was that other 1/3 of the R&D spend, where we're advancing those programs of our partners. And so hopefully, that gave you a sense of how we think about how this is going to evolve. Any other questions? Yes. No one else has one. Yeah, yeah. I had another question in terms of, given that you're specializing in the asset, are you going to then specialize into indication areas a little bit more. Yeah. Or are you going to stay kind of agnostic and play in the oncology majoritarily and then neurology and then so on and so forth? That's a great question. So, actually, the way to address that, I think, I've mentioned we have these assets in T-cell engaging, so specifically in the work we've done around CD3. We are looking right now with a number of oncology departments in partnering out that as a platform because it is a very difficult hill to climb to build out a full clinical development company in oncology, and I don't think that's where our capital is best spent. So where we have in our technology a unique capability to find something that has held, we believe, held the field back, like a broad and diversified panel of CD3 antibodies that can engage and activate tumor killing without cytokine release, which has been a real problem. We believe we have really decoupled that, and that is of giant value. We will be partnering those assets because it is not gonna be a great use of our capital to try and build up an oncology clinical development company. There are other areas where we might choose to pick our shots, but right now we haven't been pressure tested on what area would we want to specialize in. But oncology would be one where we've said, "No, that's probably better in the hands of somebody else," just because it of the amount of capital it takes to really make a d we don't have an angle on how we could do the clinical development any better than already exists out there. We would take that approach with any other indication, as we think about what we might work through past phase I. For phase I, it's actually quite simple for us to do that, so we're, but we'll be, I think, quite thoughtful about where we're gonna pick our shots. Yeah, hi. Sorry, just building on the first question. How many INDs do you expect to have, like, in the next couple of years of your own programs? And maybe you answered that, but what is your thinking? Mainly out licensing at phase II, or do you plan to. Yeah. Put capital into phase III development, which becomes expensive, I guess? So I would say when it comes to how many INDs, as I mentioned, we have two clinical development candidates that we're moving through. We expect two INDs in 2025. I think continuing at that kind of pace would be the right pace for us. That is us, I think, exercising a bit of discipline. We have this problem where the capability we have that we've built, we definitely have the ability to generate more assets than we have management bandwidth and capital to pursue into the clinic. So partnering is always gonna be a very important part of our strategy and at what stage can we partner is a big question. We do have the resources and the conviction to take some into phase I, as we've seen with OX40 and with our other GPCR target. I think it will depend on the, w ith OX40 ligand, I think we will be looking to partner that perhaps at the end of phase I, not looking to, to take that through to a phase II. I don't think we really have an angle there. There are others who would do that better than us, and we would want to get that into the right hands. But that might not be the case in all indications. So if there's an indication, where we believe we have an angle on why we could succeed in phase II, we would want to make sure we're in a position to be able to do that. So we don't want to find ourselves backed into a corner. Hopefully, that answers. That we would take it on a case-by-case basis. There are some assets which naturally are amenable to partnering with someone to get them into the hands of someone who can actually move it faster and towards patients. That will always be how we kind of stay honest about getting these molecules to patients more quickly. Thank you. I'm Miroslav Gasparek, CEO and Co-founder of Sensible Biotechnologies, and we are building a cell-based mRNA production platform, and your business model actually quite inspires me. And I actually had a question, as you very nicely described these internal life programs, co-development partnerships, and the discovery partnering. And I was wondering, although you have shown the kind of a raise in the revenue royalties you're getting- Mm-hmm. Have you seen, because of the difficult funding environment, any kind of a pushback or depression in terms of the upfront payments or anything like that? Like, is it harder to negotiate that for the co-development deals or? Well, we're not solving for the upfront payments, we're solving for, normally, the upfront payments for us is making sure that the partner also has conviction in the program. So if we're gonna hand them back the molecule, we wanna know that they're gonna pursue it through to the clinic, and nothing says, "I'm serious about this program," than, like, $2 million upfront. You know, it's not just a fishing expedition to see if you can find an antibody against a target. So that's very important to us. Unfortunately, it gets recognized as revenue, and it confuses people in our quarterly revenue numbers, but it's not what we're solving for. I would say we're much more interested in having conviction in the target and partnering with someone who has some unique insight that they're bringing. And what happens is, if we really are bringing a lot of value, we're able to negotiate the co-development deal where we're in that together with the partner, and we are not earning revenue, short-term revenue on that, but we have negotiated a full co-ownership position of the molecule. And to us, we think that is the right long-term economic choice to make, where we didn't come with the insight into the biology. The partner had come with that insight, or they'd come with some other capability, like the Prelude example I mentioned, or Rallyb io, who has exquisite knowledge and about orphan disease, is another co-development partner. So that's where we think about that, and we're not solving for the short-term revenue, and we would much rather be in a position to celebrate in the long-term success of the drugs that we discover. Thank you. We've run out of time. Yeah. Thank you, all. Thank you.