Good morning, welcome to the Novavax First Quarter 2026 Financial Results and Operational Highlights conference call. All participants will be in a listen-only mode. Should you need assistance, please signal the conference specialist by pressing the star key followed by zero. After today's presentation there will be an opportunity to ask questions. To ask a question, you may press the star followed by the digit one on your touch-tone. To withdraw your question, please press star and then digit one once again. Please note, this event is being recorded. It is now my pleasure to turn the conference over to Jim Kelly, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. Please go ahead. The floor is yours, sir. Good morning, and thank you for joining us today to discuss our First Quarter 2026 Financial Results and Operational Highlights. A press release announcing our results is available on our website at novavax.com. An audio archive of this conference call will be available on our website later today. Please turn to slide two. Before we begin with prepared remarks, I need to remind you that this presentation includes forward-looking statements, including, but not limited to, statements related to Novavax's corporate strategy and operating plans, its strategic priorities, its partnerships, and expectations with respect to potential royalties, milestones, cost reimbursements, the current macro and regulatory environment, the development of Novavax's clinical and preclinical product candidates, the timing and results of clinical trials, timing of regulatory filings and actions, its APA agreements and related negotiations, projected market opportunity, full year 2026 financial guidance and revenue framework, and Novavax's future financial or business performance, including long-term growth, cost savings, and profitability targets. Each forward-looking statement contained in this presentation is subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those projected in such statements. Additional information regarding these factors appears under the heading Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements in the presentation we issued this morning and under the heading Risk Factors in our most recent Form 10-K and subsequent Form 10-Qs filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission available at www.sec.gov and on our website at www.novavax.com. The forward-looking statements in this presentation are only as of the original date of this presentation, and we undertake no obligation to update or revise any of these statements. Please turn to slide three. This presentation also includes references to non-GAAP financial measures, including total adjusted revenue and combined R&D and SG&A expenses, less partner reimbursements and non-GAAP profitability. Please turn to slide four. Joining me today is John Jacobs, our President and CEO; Elaine O'Hara, Chief Strategy Officer; and Bob Walker, Head of R&D. Please turn to slide five. I would now like to hand the call over to John. Thank you, Jim. I'm excited to be here today with members of our executive team to share our First Quarter 2026 Financial Results and Operational Highlights. Novavax ended the first quarter having made significant progress against our top priorities and growth strategy, which is designed to deliver value via three key strategic pillars: partnering our technology, capital-efficient R&D innovation, and a lean and efficient operating model supporting our efforts. Please turn to slide six. Our ambition is clear: to build a future Novavax with multiple partners, both large global pharmaceutical companies and smaller, highly innovative biotechs, using our technology platform to develop and commercialize multiple vaccines across a wide array of infectious disease and oncology targets. We intend to build upon the business from our current base of existing partners. That includes near-term milestone and royalty opportunities from Sanofi related to NUVAXOVID and their CIC programs, royalties from Takeda, and potential milestones from our new partnership with Pfizer. As we advance this strategy, the opportunity is vast. We are targeting the combined global market for infectious disease and oncology vaccines and immunotherapeutics, which is projected to grow to over $100 billion by the early 2030s. I am pleased to say that since we launched our new strategy in 2025, we are seeing significant progress, and we continue building on that momentum. In January, we announced a new partnership with Pfizer for a non-exclusive license to utilize Matrix-M in two infectious disease areas, with one already named. Our partnerships with Sanofi and Pfizer have the potential on their own to generate billions in revenue from milestone and royalty opportunities. Specific to Sanofi, to date, our partnership has delivered over $800 million in revenue while enabling us to remove the cost burden of maintaining a global commercial infrastructure. In the last week, we signed a new MTA with another top 10 pharma company who is also a global leader in oncology. To explore Matrix-M in a broad array of oncology targets, as well as antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections and other infectious diseases. Beyond this exciting new collaboration, we also deepened two of our relationships with current Matrix-M licensees, resulting in one, a new MTA to enable access to Matrix-M for preclinical testing in up to nine additional identified infectious disease areas, and two, an expanded MTA collaboration to explore an additional field. Finally, we signed a new MTA with a small innovative oncology company earlier in the quarter. We now have either licensing partnerships or MTA collaborations with four of the top 10 global pharma companies and several other innovative companies who collectively have the rights to explore over 30 unique indications or fields across both infectious diseases and oncology. Together, these partnerships target diseases that make up more than half of the projected $100 billion combined infectious disease and oncology vaccines and immunotherapeutics market. Given the breadth of the near-term opportunities before us with Sanofi and Pfizer, and the potential additional opportunities currently being contemplated by our partners and via our many MTA collaborations, we believe our business model has the potential to deliver billions of dollars in revenue over time. One of the things that makes this strategy compelling, in our opinion, is its capital efficiency. Rather than maintaining our own costly infrastructure, we leverage the scale and investment of world-class partners in oncology and infectious disease while potentially generating cash flow earlier for Novavax through upfront payments and development milestones well ahead of what a traditional development to launch path would enable. Of course, our third pillar is to execute this strategy with a lean operating model that retains our core capabilities in R&D. This R&D work will be led by Dr. Bob Walker, who is, as we announced recently, our new Head of R&D. Bob most recently served as Novavax's Chief Medical Officer. We are confident that he's the right leader for our R&D efforts. As we look further into 2026, we remain focused on several key priorities. First, executing on existing partnerships, including supporting Sanofi's efforts for the fall season and supporting Pfizer's efforts to advance their first field to clinical readiness. Second, pulling through progress on MTA collaborations into potential future licensing agreements. Third, advancing capital-efficient R&D innovation as an engine for future partnerships. Fourth, continuing to drive down our costs while maintaining key capabilities. We believe the future is bright for Novavax as we continue to execute on our strategy. With that, I'll turn it over to Elaine to talk more about our partnering efforts. Elaine? Thank you, John. Please turn to slide seven. We've made significant progress this year leveraging our business model to advance additional business development opportunities. Please turn to slide eight. As John mentioned, we signed four new material transfer agreements for Matrix-M. We're very excited about the new MTA with a top 10 global pharmaceutical company who is also a global oncology leader. This marks our third oncology-focused collaboration via an MTA, and the first with a top 10 global pharmaceutical company. These collaborations have the potential to address some of the most difficult oncology targets existing today, such as colorectal, pancreatic, and head and neck cancers. These MTAs highlight the significant interest we continue to see in Matrix-M as a potentially differentiated adjuvant, not only for major infectious disease manufacturers, but increasingly among oncology companies as well. Our technology platform and partnership approach have the potential for tremendous value generation. Matrix's ability to significantly increase antibody titers for both viral and bacterial antigens, its broad applicability across disease areas and vaccine platforms, and its saponin-based profile relative to traditional aluminum-based adjuvants make it very attractive to partners. We have developed a model that is successfully delivering a growing number of partnerships utilizing Matrix-M. What we're seeing is that when a partner initially accesses Matrix-M under an MTA, they often come back to request expanded access for additional fields and/or to request a collaborative license agreement. The cumulative impact of this is significant, as John stated. More than 30 unique fields are currently identified for preclinical evaluation by partners. In fact, the broad utility of our technology has resulted in several companies exploring Matrix-M for applications in the same high-potential markets, including infectious diseases areas such as cytomegalovirus, Epstein-Barr virus, pneumococcal disease, and RSV. This also includes overlap across oncology in areas such as colorectal, pancreatic, and head and neck cancer. In addition to broader use across and within disease areas, our technology is increasingly being used in programs that have previously failed or shown an inability to get an efficacious and safe vaccine to market. Because our Matrix agreements are non-exclusive, we are not limited to a single product or partner in any disease area and creating the potential for a higher probability of success and for potential revenue across multiple partners in a given disease area. Let me take this opportunity to provide you with an illustrative example of the opportunities ahead of us. Please turn to slide nine. Novavax's growth strategy is focused on tapping into the approximately $100 billion future global market for infectious diseases vaccine, approximately $60 billion, and the oncology vaccine and immunotherapeutics market, expected to grow to over $40 billion by the early 2030s. Please turn to slide 10. Put simply, on the left-hand side of the slide, you'll see that our growth strategy is focused on tapping into the potential $100 billion market I just described. Existing license partners and MTA collaborations currently have the rights to explore over 50% of that potential market opportunity based on current agreements. This has the potential to result in billions of dollars in revenue from a diversified set of products and partners in the form of upfront payments, milestone payments, and royalties from both Matrix-M and product licensing agreements. Please turn to slide 11. Let's look at our Pfizer agreement to further emphasize the value of a single Matrix-M agreement. In addition to the $30 million upfront payment we received, plus up to $250 million in future development and sales milestones, Novavax is eligible to receive royalties for up to 20 years from first launch in a given country. This means that for each $1 billion in average annual sales per asset by Pfizer over the 20-year term, Novavax would be eligible to receive over $1 billion in cumulative royalty payments with no incremental investment in clinical or commercial development. The significant scale of the value creation opportunity becomes clear when you imagine the potential for a portfolio of marketed partner products utilizing our Matrix-M adjuvant technology. Please turn to slide 12. Finally, in addition to advancing our business development work, we continue to execute on our partnership agreements. Regarding Sanofi, we were pleased to see the results of their positive phase IV head-to-head study comparing our COVID-19 vaccine and Moderna's next-generation mNEXSPIKE, which Bob will talk about shortly. In our opinion, this thoughtful investment further underscores Sanofi's commitment and is consistent with a methodical approach we have seen them take in building other respiratory markets. For Pfizer, we continue to work with their teams post-CLA to enable utilization of our Matrix-M technology according to the remit of that agreement. As we continue discussions with interested potential partners on the value of Matrix-M in their portfolios, we are also addressing our own pipeline of assets. We're very excited about the potential for our C. diff vaccine candidate, for which we continue to see a significant unmet need and a differentiated commercial opportunity. The combination of strong C. diff preclinical data generated to date, which Bob will expand on shortly, and the significant market opportunity were the driving factors behind its prioritization towards the clinic as early as 2027. With that, I'll transition the call to Bob. Thank you, Elaine. Please turn to slide 13. Let me begin by saying how excited I am to take on the role of Head of R&D at such a transformational time for the company. I'm fully committed to leading our R&D team in close alignment with Elaine's BD and strategy team as we continue to realize the full potential of our Matrix adjuvant and apply our scientific knowledge and expertise to enhance both partner pipelines as well as our own early-stage assets. Please turn to slide 14. As John and Elaine have said, we have some exciting updates coming out of the first quarter. One of the 1st significant decisions I made in my new role was to prioritize our C. diff bacterial vaccine candidate from among our early pipeline work as the next asset for advancement into the clinic. We are targeting entry into the clinic as early as 2027. I'm particularly excited about our C. diff asset for a number of reasons. First, C. diff illness is a major public health threat with no currently available vaccine. Second, we've had the opportunity to learn from prior vaccine development failures of others. Finally, our vaccine candidate offers the potential to address a significant unmet need through a strongly differentiated approach. Please turn to slide 15. Our candidate uses a multivalent antigen approach designed to go beyond toxin neutralization alone and further target a vast majority of circulating clades and ribotypes. As shown on the slide and shared here for the first time in the public domain. We are seeing positive early data in terms of anti-toxin IgG responses supporting our decision to prioritize this vaccine candidate to the clinic. In a robust preclinical development program that also includes assessment of mucosal immunity that may be important in controlling this disease, as well as other endpoints, including survival from lethal challenge with both toxin and spores and gut pathology. Our vaccine candidate consistently outperformed an inactivated two toxin alone comparator. Based on the accumulated encouraging data, we have progressed this candidate to an IND-enabling repeat dose toxicity study with plans, as mentioned, to be in the clinic pending successful regulatory interactions. We believe our C. diff work presents an incredible opportunity from both a business and clinical standpoint. Please turn to slide 16. Additionally, the preclinical data we have generated on our RSV and VZV early-stage assets are positive and extremely instructive for advancing our science. Our R&D model allows us to continue to build on our established technology platform that has already produced the highly efficacious and well-tolerated malaria and COVID-19 vaccines. Combining our deep bench of expertise with AI and machine learning has enabled us to rapidly advance our work in designing superior vaccine antigens for both RSV and related respiratory viruses such as HPIV-3 and for VZV. The scientific knowledge gained from these low cost, high throughput exploratory efforts has been substantial and highly impactful and will continue to inform our antigen design and adjuvant work of the future. Please turn to slide 17. The work I've just described also feeds directly into the progress we're making on another key pillar of our R&D strategy, expanding the utility of our Matrix-M adjuvant and creating additional potential matrix-based adjuvants. Matrix-M, as it stands today, is an outstanding adjuvant with extremely broad utility, as is evidenced by the partnering activity Elaine already described. Our ongoing innovation may enable us to do even more and is aimed at designing adjuvants tailored to foster specific differentiated immune properties for new indications, including, for example, prevention of hard-to-treat infections and select areas within oncology. Some of this early work, I should note, is already underway with partners, and early research being conducted by our R&D teams on our matrix adjuvant indicates that tailored modifications do indeed have the potential to drive specific immune responses that could be harnessed and directed towards specific therapeutic goals, such as induction of highly antigen-specific T cell responses in targeted T cell subpopulations. Please turn to slide 18. We are also committed to retaining the appropriate capabilities to execute on and remain focused on our stated areas of R&D innovation, generating data for partner discussions, expanding the utility of our matrix technology platform, and creating new innovative vaccine candidates with our Matrix-M and nanoparticle technology platforms to facilitate partnership discussions. We view our data as an asset, our efforts are focused on expanding our library of data and knowledge regarding our adjuvant and nanoparticle technology platform to better facilitate potential partnering discussions. This also means that we expect to use certain early candidates as test platforms for both Matrix-M and new potential matrix-based adjuvants, generating data in the lab to outline how these adjuvants can enhance immunogenicity while also assessing cytokine induction as potential markers of reactogenicity. We also plan to characterize a number of additional antigens. While we will be selective as to which antigens move into clinical development, we have found this detailed examination of how different antigens interact with Matrix-M has yielded valuable insights that can be directly applied across programs. We may choose to advance select candidates such as C. diff into human trials when the burden of disease, significant business opportunity, and potential for our technology to deliver a differentiated and transformational impact exist. Please turn to slide 19. Before passing the call to Jim, I want to make some final comments on data generated by our partners. In April, we were pleased to see that Sanofi announced the results of their investment in the first head-to-head randomized phase IV study comparing the tolerability profiles of our COVID-19 vaccine and Moderna's next generation COVID-19 vaccine, mNEXSPIKE. The study, known as COMPARE, was recently presented at the ESPID conference and showed that NUVAXOVID demonstrated statistically fewer side effects compared to mNEXSPIKE across all pre-specified endpoints. Participants who received NUVAXOVID were twice as likely as mNEXSPIKE recipients to say they would definitely choose the same vaccine type again the following year. Additionally, publication of real-world evidence in partnership with the University of Utah showed participants in the SHIELD study who received NUVAXOVID reported fewer side effects and half as many hours of lost work two days after vaccination compared to those who received an mRNA vaccine. Combined, these data support the well-established reactogenicity profile of our vaccine. We believe a more favorable side effect profile for a COVID-19 vaccine has the potential to enhance vaccine preference by healthcare providers and individuals, in addition to adding to the body of evidence supporting use of Matrix-M in vaccines by potential partners. In closing, let me reiterate that I'm excited about taking on the role of head of R&D and about where we're taking the company with our new strategy and look forward to sharing future updates. I'll hand it over to Jim now to discuss our financial results. Thank you, Bob. Please turn to slide 20. This morning, we announced our financial results for the first quarter of 2026. Details of our results can be found in our press release issued today and in our Form 10-Q filed with the SEC. Please turn to slide 21. We are pleased to reiterate our full-year 2026 revenue framework and R&D and SG&A expense guidance and believe that our first quarter 2026 financial results underscore that we are on track to achieve our financial and operational objectives to drive shareholder value by monetizing our technology. First, a reminder that our prior year first quarter 2025 NUVAXOVID product sales included $603 million in non-cash revenue recognition from the closeout of a NUVAXOVID APA agreements. While a great outcome, this non-cash item has the effect of distorting our year-over-year trends in the first quarter of 2026. For the first quarter of 2026, we reported total revenue of $140 million, a 79% decrease compared to the same period in 2025. In addition, we saw significant revenue growth from partner-related sources in the first quarter of 2026, reflecting continued progress as Novavax executes on our new partner business model. Both our Supply Sales and Licensing Royalties and Other Revenue were up over 100% year-over-year. During the first quarter of 2026, we continued to drive down our combined R&D and SG&A expenses. On a non-GAAP and net of reimbursement basis, we reduced these costs by 23% in the period. Novavax ended the first quarter of 2026 with $818 million in cash and accounts receivables. We added $80 million of non-dilutive cash in the first quarter of 2026, including a $30 million Pfizer agreement upfront payment and a $50 million initial draw from the new $330 million credit facility. Based on the combination of our ending first quarter 2026 cash plus anticipated partner reimbursements, we believe we can fund our operations into 2028 without contemplating any new cash flow to Novavax from upfront payments, milestones, or royalties. That said, we do anticipate the addition of significant cash flow from partners over time. Please turn to slide 22 for a detailed review of our first quarter revenue results. Our revenue mix in the first quarter reflects the evolution of our new business model with lower emphasis on NUVAXOVID product sales and an increase to partner-related revenue sources. NUVAXOVID product sales of $10 million was primarily driven by sales into Germany for the 2025-2026 season and reflects the completion of Novavax's commercial activity in Europe as we have now transitioned that market over to Sanofi as they prepare for the upcoming 2026-2027 season. We look forward to Sanofi's NUVAXOVID commercial efforts in 2026 and beyond. For the first quarter of 2026, we reported $33 million in Supply Sales, a 139% increase compared to prior year and reflecting higher demand for our Matrix-M adjuvant to our partners plus COVID-19 Supply Sales to Sanofi. For the first quarter of 2026, licensing royalties and other revenues of $97 million saw a 116% increase on a broad set of partner activities. These results underscore our intent to build a diverse set of revenue streams from partners and products by monetizing our technology. Please turn to slide 23. We made significant progress improving our cost structure in the first quarter of 2026. Combined R&D and SG&A on a non-GAAP basis decreased by 23%. Non-GAAP R&D decreased by 13%, and our GAAP SG&A spend decreased by 40%. We believe these improvements to our operating efficiency highlight that we're on track to continue reducing our overall expense profile in line with our full-year expense guidance. On a quarterly basis, we anticipate higher combined R&D and SG&A expenses in the first half of 2026 on both a GAAP and non-GAAP basis as Novavax provides support to Sanofi with clinical studies, and we execute on the NUVAXOVID manufacturing-related activities for the 2026, 2027 season. We anticipate these costs to materially decline in the second half of 2026 and be fully completed in early 2027. Please turn to slide 24. Since we have already covered most of the first quarter of 2026 financial highlights already, I will emphasize that we reported a relatively small $9 million net loss in the first quarter of 2026. We believe this reflects important progress as we improve our financial performance on our intended path towards profitability. Please turn to slide 25. Taking a moment to recap accomplishments made towards improving Novavax's financial strength and performance. A key takeaway from this work is that we have put Novavax in the position to have an estimated cash runway into 2028 as we drive towards our goal of non-GAAP P&L profitability as early as 2028. Keys to the timing of our path to non-GAAP P&L profitability are the successful development and regulatory approval of the Sanofi flu COVID-19 combination program and successful commercial execution by Sanofi on both the COVID-19 and combination programs. This could be further supported by any additional cash flow from new business development agreements and further cost reductions. Please turn to slide 26 for a review of our multi-year combined R&D and SG&A expense guidance. Today, we are reiterating our 2026 and 2027 non-GAAP R&D and SG&A expense guidance of $325 million and $225 million, respectively, at midpoint. Importantly, in 2026, we anticipate operating at an approximately $200 million core spend profile when excluding costs tied to completion of partner and APA performance obligations. These include non-reimbursed Sanofi R&D support in COVID strain change and commercial manufacturing support of approximately $125 million and $25 million in 2026 and 2027, respectively. As these near-term activities are completed, we expect to be in a position to further decrease our cost. Our 2028 non-GAAP R&D and SG&A expense targets call for an over $200 million and an over 50% decrease compared to 2025. Today, we're refining and improving our 2028 expense guidance to a range of $150 million-$200 million. Our core R&D spend and growth strategy is focused on capital-efficient value creation. The significant progress highlighted today would not have been possible without recent R&D innovation and data generation. We continuously evaluate all options to create long-term shareholder value, including the potential to efficiently return capital to shareholders if and when returning cash would be the best use of capital. Please turn to slide 27. Today, we are reiterating our full-year 2026 revenue framework and expect to achieve adjusted total revenues of between $230 million and $270 million. As a reminder, for 2026, we are following an approach similar to the 2025 revenue framework in that our non-GAAP adjusted total revenue excludes Sanofi Supply Sales, Royalties, and Milestones. This means there may be revenues in 2026 that are additive to our expectations for adjusted licensing royalties and other revenue. That said, we believe that in the 2026 season, NUVAXOVID royalties will grow significantly as compared to 2025. At midpoint, our full-year 2026 revenue framework for adjusted total revenue is $250 million. Through the first quarter of 2026, we've recorded $119 million, meaning at the midpoint, there's $131 million remaining revenue to be recognized over the next three quarters of the year or approximately $44 million per quarter on average in 2026. Today, we're also reiterating our full-year 2026 combined R&D and SG&A expense guidance on a GAAP and non-GAAP basis. We expect to achieve GAAP results of between $380 million and $420 million. On a non-GAAP basis and net of partner reimbursements for R&D, we expect to achieve non-GAAP 2026 combined R&D and SG&A expenses of between $310 million and $340 million. We look forward to sharing additional updates as we improve Novavax's financial performance, cost structure, and strength to deliver shareholder value. Please turn to slide 28. With that, I'd like to turn the call back over to John for some closing remarks. Thank you, Jim. Before I close, I want to spend a moment on the slide in front of you because I think it tells a powerful story. Please turn to slide 29. 24 months ago, our company's opportunity was highly concentrated. We had 1 primary revenue driver, our COVID-19 vaccine. 1 fully integrated operating model working largely on our own, and a cost structure that needed to change. Our technology platform and our science were proven, yet we lacked the full opportunity to realize their potential at scale. Today, that picture is fundamentally different. 4 of the top 10 global pharma companies are now working with our technology. Our partner, Sanofi, has 2 combination vaccine candidates in clinical development. We have realized over $800 million in revenue from our Sanofi and Pfizer agreements to date. We have more than 30 unique fields that are currently identified for preclinical evaluation by partners. To date, we have reduced our GAAP R&D and SG&A annual expenses by approximately $1.2 billion and over 70% since 2022. In addition, we have reduced our current liabilities by approximately $2 billion and over 80% since 2022. We went from focusing on one market, COVID-19, to now having the potential to address, via our new model, a significant portion of the over $100 billion potential combined global market for infectious disease and oncology vaccines and immunotherapeutics. To paraphrase a wise saying, "If you want to go fast, go alone. But if you want to go fast and far, go together." At Novavax, we've chosen to do both. Together with world-class partners who bring scale and reach. Together with our own R&D capabilities, advancing next-generation matrix adjuvants and new innovative vaccine candidates like our C. difficile asset. We believe these metrics are indicative of the progress we're making to transform Novavax under our new strategy. Assuming continued successful execution, the future for Novavax is bright. I'd now like to turn the call over to our operator for Q&A. Operator? Ladies and gentlemen, we will now begin the question and answer session. To ask a question, you may press star and one on your telephone keypad. A reminder, if you're using a speakerphone, please pick up your handset before pressing star and one to be sure that your signal does reach our equipment. We'll take our first question today from Pete Stavropoulos at Cantor Fitzgerald. Please go ahead. Your line is open. Yeah. Hi, John, Jim, and team. Congrats on the progress. A couple of questions from us. You know, you're exploring over 30 unique fields of experimentation across both infectious disease and oncology. Just trying to understand how much of this exploration is being conducted at or by Novavax and what's being conducted by the companies you're partnered with or signed an MTA. Can you just comment on what proportion are novel vaccines and what proportion is Matrix-M being tested with vaccines that are approved or on the market? A second question for me is also, you know, for C. diff vaccine candidate, one of the design attributes is creating mucosal immunity. Just curious to hear what from the preclinical data sort of gives you confidence that you will be able to develop mucosal immunity, which correct me if I'm wrong, I assume is IgA response, which would be a key differentiator from prior candidates. You know, what are the gate? Yeah, that's it. Thank you. Pete, excellent question. To address your first question, of the 30-plus fields of experimentation and disease areas that we noted collectively, those are via partners. That's 1 thing we really like about our model right now, is that we can leverage the scale and the resources of partner companies to drive, you know, a significant portfolio of experimentation with our technology that reaches into over 50% of the potential market that we're trying to penetrate, that $100 billion market mentioned in our prepared comments. We also have disclosed our preclinical pipeline and our intentions on C. diff. Bob Walker can handle that question in just a moment on our C. difficile candidate and why we feel confident about it right now. Your second component of the question, if I heard you correctly, was the mix, Pete, between novel and existing assets with our partners and how we might or what portion of those experiments involve. I would just say what we can say in guarding the confidentiality of our partners, either licensees and/or through MTA collaboration. We can't give specifics, but we can say there is a mix. There is a mix across our full partner set of existing assets as well as new areas of exploration that they're assessing with our technology. We're very excited about that for many reasons, as you can imagine. Bob, if you might be able to handle that third question on what gives us confidence, to paraphrase Pete, in our C. diff program based on what we've seen so far. Great. No, as you allude to mucosal immunity, mucosal IgA is definitely one of the most important readouts that we are evaluating in the preclinical models. As I mentioned also, you know, the gut histopathology would be another key indicator for us. It's an area that we're very excited about and we think could be significantly differentiating for our candidate. All right. Thank you for taking our questions. Our next question will come from Roger Song at Jefferies. Hey, team. Thanks for taking the question. Maybe just on the commercial side, any, you know, comments you can say about the new season, progress and then particularly for the supply readiness. Also related to, you know, we heard Pfizer announce the 35 valent PCV vaccine yesterday. Just curious, have you tested the pneumococcal vaccine with them? What's the possibility you can use on top of the traditional aluminum adjuvant for pneumococcal vaccine? Thank you. Yeah, very interesting, Roger. Why don't I take the question first. Obviously, we can't speak on behalf of partners or give any allusion to what they may be doing, but it was interesting to hear Pfizer make that announcement. What I can say is that we have shared data in the public domain on several targets where Matrix can make a difference. One of those that we put out in the public domain many earnings calls ago was on pneumococcal. We know that's one of the areas our technology had some positive effect. Our method is to approach potential partners by generating data across a suite of assets that they may already have selectively and also on targets they might be interested in. Bob Walker and our R&D team, it's one of the reasons we keep that capability dear to Novavax. It's very important that we maintain our R&D capabilities to generate data, so we can go into potential partners and have clear conversations about what our technology might be able to achieve with some of the results we're able to show them with early experimentation. Exciting to see vaccine portfolios advancing in any company and certainly excited to see partners that we have advancing candidates forward. Your second part of the question, Roger Song, was about commercial preparedness for the fall. On that front, you know, what I would emphasize based on some of the guidance we're seeing from other players in the marketplace like Pfizer and Moderna. We're seeing guidance from others that are anticipating, call it a flattish market year-over-year after the 2025, 2026 season, where some of the new, especially in the U.S., recommendations found their way into the marketplace. I would start on a macro level with at least what we're seeing and hearing, which is an expectations for a flattish market. When you think about Sanofi this season, I tell you what, we are thrilled to have them as a partner. You know, one of the things that you heard from both Elaine and from Bob is we have so much respect for their methodical method of building markets. An evidence of that is that COMPARE study that they invested in to get the right information out there to best position NUVAXOVID on a go-forward basis. That in particular is something that really caught our attention, and we look forward to what they're able to accomplish. Thank you. Our next question today will come from Geoff Meacham at Citi. Great. Morning, guys. Thanks for the question. A couple maybe bigger picture questions. You guys have MTA or license relationships with a lot of the top 10 biopharmas. How are you thinking about conversion rate from MTA to formal license announcement, and how are you guys managing the field overlap across some of your MTA partners? The second question is just the $75 million Sanofi tech transfer. Just give us an update on kind of where that stands and timing-wise. Thank you very much. Thank you, Geoff. Elaine, would you like to take the first question about potential conversion rate and your thoughts on moving from MTA collaborations to potential full licensure partnerships? Yeah. Thank you very much. I think actually the question is twofold, or the answer is twofold. We've got a very, you know, unique process working with our potential partners from the perspective of giving them access to Matrix-M. A lot of the time forward then is dependent on how they execute their preclinical models, what the results show, and then if they're happy with the results, typically we are seeing that these partners will come back to engage in a collaborative license agreement to move whatever they're studying ahead into the clinic and then also with the expectation that it will have a commercial launch in the foreseeable future. Again, a lot of it depends very much on the timing of their preclinical models, those experiments running forward, being successful, and then coming to fruition. I think any of these can happen as early as 4 to 6 months into the timeframe, again, depending on the results that the partner is going to see, with then obviously stepping into a potential collaborative license agreement in the future, post that six-month period. That's the way I would address the first question in terms of the conversion rate. In terms of field overlap, I think I said this earlier, given the fact that we do not have exclusive licenses, these are non-exclusive licenses that we ultimately enter into, we're delighted to have overlap because it gives us greater probability of success if we have multiple partners engaged with the study of our Matrix-M in overlapping fields. All right. Geoff, I'll take the question about the milestones. You know, what I want to refer our listeners to is a nice overview slide that Elaine had, slide 12, that outlined the milestones that we have eligibility for from both Sanofi and Pfizer. She highlighted the $425 million in milestones that we're eligible for from Sanofi, including the $75 million for, as you had referenced, the completion of tech transfer, a $125 million upon initiation of a CIC phase III study, and another $225 million upon U.S. launch, right? Of one or perhaps both, right, of CIC studies that Sanofi is currently working on. On the Pfizer side, based upon the terms we announced in January, you're hearing $250 million in milestones each for each of the two products that they might develop vaccines for. You are seeing with our strategy, we're able to pull forward and monetize cash flows via milestones versus, you know, a traditional biotech that might have to wait years, right, to develop revenues and profit. That is core to our operating strategy. Now, I haven't forgotten your initial question, which is, "Hey, where are we with the $75 million tech transfer?" What I'll tell you is that while we are not guiding to that timing, I can tell you our manufacturing for Sanofi ends with the 2026, 2027 season, meaning they have to be fully ready for the 2027, 2028 to be able to advance our programs. We have every confidence they will, and that this milestone will fall, you know, as it will within that period of preparedness. Great. Thank you, guys. Our next question will come from Mayank Mamtani at B. Riley Securities. Please go ahead. Good morning, team. Thanks for taking our questions. Appreciate the detail on partnership process and pipeline development. Maybe just a follow-up on prior question. You know, how you see the MTAs to licensed cycle time kind of evolve? Is there a particular disease state where you're seeing, you know, strategic interest concentrate more than less? Just a final point on second part there. Heard a lot more oncology today from you, specifically maybe some of the harder to treat pancreatic and colorectal cancers where, you know, for instance, in adjuvant setting there could be a better biological rationale versus maybe another modality. I was just curious what sort of mono versus combination work that, you know, is happening pre-clinically there, you know, which could inform maybe a formal deal execution there. I have a quick financial follow-up question. Thank you, Mayank. Elaine, did you wanna take Mayank's question? I think two parts, Mayank, if we heard you correctly. The first part had to do with any additional color or context that we may be able to add on converting MTA collaborations into full licensure partnerships. Then the second part of your question on oncology, right? Why don't we have Elaine take those. Absolutely. Thanks for the question. I think again, just it really depends on the success rate of the preclinical testing that each partner has. Typically, those studies run between four and six months, and then dependent on the success rate or what the partner sees, if they like what they see for in terms of the data that they're generating in these preclinical studies, then the turnaround time is moving potentially to a collaborative license agreement where a partner would then enter into the clinic with whatever they're studying, as well as our Matrix-M technology, right? The combination of their antigen plus our Matrix-M. I think then, you know, again, the range there is between six months to a year to translate that turnaround time from pre-clinic into clinic. Dependent on the rate of the advancement that the partner wants to take on board. That's the way I would answer that question. With respect to oncology, can't get into a whole lot of specific details because of the confidentiality of the preclinical plans, but yes, you accurately described the utility of Matrix-M in some of these oncology models, more difficult to treat, cold and/or warm, what we call cold and warm tumors. A little too early to tell yet, but we are very excited about the prospect of Matrix-M and its ability to solve some of these problems in the field of oncology. Thank you. I- Thank you, Elaine. Mayank, before you ask your financial follow-up question, just one additional comment. Obviously, we launched our new strategy at the beginning of last year, just in the last 4 months or so, just in the first trimester of 2026, we've had 4 new MTAs signed, we had an existing partner, one of those came back to us for 9 additional fields. We're really getting into a rhythm. This is the most interest we've ever seen in our technology from third parties. Despite whatever's happening in the macro environment, there seems to be a very strong interest. We're not surprised because we know what our technology can do, others are really waking up to that. That being said, we're still in now this new phase of s tarting to convert all of this interest into potential licensed partnerships, that'll be our intention. It's very hard to put specific metrics on that right now. It's going to depend on any given company, and I think each company is a little bit different on how they may want to approach this. Some may be looking at nine or 10 fields, others may be looking at one or two fields. Others may be diving deep into a category and exploring deep within certain disease areas. It just depends. It's our intention to do that as quickly as we can. As Novavax, we're small, we're nimble, we're very responsive to potential partners and to partners. We can move very quickly. They need to move at the pace they need to uncover what they're looking for and then act. We do have confidence that in many situations, our technology has a chance to work and a chance to make things better. That makes it exciting for the future. The key thing to think about now is how much we've really put in place since the launch of this new strategy and the way that's accelerating from an interest standpoint and from filling the top of that funnel with actual data that we're sharing with partners, potential partners coming back to us, signing agreements to get access to Matrix-M, running their own experiments to the point of over 50% of that global market opportunity we talked about. When you look at the disease areas that these partners and MTA collaborators have the rights to assess right now, that's fairly substantial. We're very excited. The sooner we can pull it in, we're excited about that as well. We can't put a specific timestamp on it because it's not 100% within our control. Thanks. Yeah. Thanks, John. Actually, I was curious about that, you know, April existing partner expansion, you know, that could lead to a single or, like, multiple separate deals. I'll ask my financial question quickly. The target 2028 OpEx spend, you know, being aggressively pushed down. Was just curious how much of this was, you know, you were just having more visibility into digging in versus maybe some, you know, external pressure. There's the activist campaign and also the, you know, top-line revs uncertainty a little bit. I don't know if any visibility you have with the new leadership, you know, with your partner and, you know, obviously, CIC approval in EU we saw for the first time. Obviously very curious how Novavax kind of fits in the tech, late-stage development paradigm, now that, you know, the regulatory environment's looking more predictable on both sides of the Atlantic. Thanks for taking the question. All right. Mayank, of course, appreciate you highlighting, what is, I think, just another very methodical and thoughtful quarter of improving our cost structure. One of the things that we emphasized in our prepared remarks here is that, you know, you're seeing a 23% reduction year-over-year in non-GAAP R&D and SG&A. In particular, that 40% reduction, and that's on a GAAP and non-GAAP basis to SG&A, just shows that continued progress that we're making. I am gonna take an opportunity to just kinda reinforce some of the key themes that we shared, and this is on slide 26, about the evolution of our cost structure, and that importantly, one, these deals, this momentum in our business development effort comes on the heels of data generation, and that our investment, our target investment in R&D is all about creating significant value. A lot of the momentum you're seeing here today comes on the heels of smart and targeted R&D investment. I've been emphasizing that in 2026 and 2027, beyond the part that we're already operating at a core approximately $200 million spend, we do have some legacy obligations, about $125 million in 2026 and $25 million in 2027 related to non-reimbursed R&D and certain strain change activities, as we support our partners. As we move to 2028, we chose to refine it. I mean, at least personally, the last update, which was below $200 million, you know, it kinda left a lot for the imagination. The act of offering up $150-$200 was just sort of a professional refinement more than anything. I do think it gives folks a really good picture of the evolution of our cost structure. More importantly, I think when combined with Bob's comments on where we're investing and then Elaine's comments about how that's translated that data into tangible momentum on our BD efforts, I think that's our story. Our focus has been to become as lean as possible while maintaining capabilities and meeting our trailing obligations to close out APAs and other things as we completely transform the company over the last 24 to 36 months, Mayank. Nothing has changed in our desire to reduce those costs, regardless of external commentary or thought from anyone. We're all aligned that the most lean operating model is the best place to be, and we're doing that in a responsible and thoughtful way as a management team while meeting our obligations, driving a new strategy that's starting to show remarkable results and momentum, right, and maintaining the key capabilities that make that possible. Our next question today will come from Tom Shrader at BTIG. Good morning. Congrats on the remarkable Matrix-M progress. Thank you, Tom. I have a question on deal structure. You've always given us a $200 million trigger for Sanofi to choose a vaccine without a lot of structure. Should we think about that as kind of the same structure as the Pfizer deal, something like $30 million upfront? Can you give us any sense of what triggers Sanofi? I have a follow-up from a comment that was just made that I think is interesting, that you expect partners might go from getting Matrix-M to being in the clinic in a year. Can we conclude these are mostly very mature vaccines? These are people who are almost ready to go or maybe have been in the clinic and maybe need a little more oomph so that these are kind of simple additions to formulated vaccines. Is that how we should think about a lot of your partnerships? Thanks. Yeah, Tom, let me address your second question first, and then I'll hand it over to Jim for the first part of your question. I wouldn't put a timestamp on anything related to converting an MTA to partnership or how quickly a partner can get into the clinic. What we were trying to say before is that we have this significant momentum, you know, since we launched the strategy in 2025, and especially in the first four months of this year, where you see 4 new MTAs signed and a lot of this collaboration going on. 30+ fields of experimentation that these partners and MTA collaborations enable these companies to do now representing over half of the global $100 billion market that we're targeting as described in our prepared comments. It's very difficult to put, and we would ask you not to put any kind of a standard framework around that on how quickly anyone can get to clinic, et cetera. There will be a mix. I think it was Pete Stavropoulos had asked earlier about, you know, what's the mix between existing assets and brand-new programs. Obviously you can look at typical biotech benchmarks if that's helpful, Tom, and say, "Hey, if you're taking an asset from preclinical right into early stage all the way through development, that's X type of timeframe with typical types of PoS's." We have a proven tech, by the way, right? That's an important component of that thought process. Then if there are, and there is a mix, some existing assets and companies are approaching lifecycle management opportunities using Matrix-M- Yep That would be a faster pathway potentially for it, assuming success, right? We really are loath to put a specific timeframe on that. Some will move faster than others based on the nature of which asset they're exploring or trying to work on, whether it's existing lifecycle management, whether it's new from scratch, right? Others may move more quickly or slowly from MTA to full partnership. What we're really excited about is the level of interest that we're seeing in our tech and the action that potential partners and partners who are coming back and saying, "Hey, let's explore nine more fields with Matrix-M, please. We'd like to sign another MTA." Already have a license with us, that particular company, right? They've seen something, they like it, they want to explore it much more broadly in a portfolio. We'll work as diligently as we can, and we'll be nimble and fast in our responses to enable those as soon as possible and as often as possible to convert to full licensure. Jim, did you want to take the first part of Tom's question? Yeah. Tom, my answer to your question around upfronts may be something more of a clarification. While the new Pfizer agreement, and this is for the ability to develop two new vaccines, came with the $30 million upfront payment, it's not something you're gonna be able to COMPARE to our existing Sanofi agreement and their access to Matrix-M. What I mean by that is because, hey, we had a $500 million upfront payment from Sanofi, but it covered many attributes, many dimensions of value, there's not a apples-to-apples comparison for the Matrix piece. Hopefully that's clear. Do you say what triggers $200 million for Sanofi? Is that clinical, or do you not say at all? Yeah. We say it's a combination of each. It's both development and sales-based milestones. Perfect. Okay. Thanks for all the clarity. Yep. We'll hear next from Alec Stranahan at Bank of America. Hey, guys. This is Matthew on for Alec. Thanks for taking our questions, congrats on the progress. On the pipeline and the decision to prioritize C. diff over shingles RSV, you know, appreciate why C. diff looks attractive, but curious if you can speak to why shingles RSV didn't fit that framework. Was it, you know, preclinical profile, competitive landscape, unmet need? Could you still bring these forward in their current form? I guess second question, just a brief one. Has your view of the combination vaccine market changed after, you know, Moderna's progress with their combination vaccine ex US? Just curious on your thoughts there. Thanks. Thank you. Elaine, did you want to take that question on the, you know, our thought process around which assets to advance further into potential human trials out of our preclinical asset portfolio? Yeah. Just very succinctly, hopefully, our decision was predicated on unmet need as well as the actual market opportunity. There are relatively few potential competitors in this space developing a Clostridioides difficile vaccine, Pfizer being one. We believe, again, based upon the data that Bob shared earlier on in our presentation today, that we have the ability to make significant advancements in this market, obviously, depending on our data and our study, but we're very excited about the program, both in terms of the unmet need as well as the actual market size, potentially generating over a billion dollars in revenue. That was our decision to prioritize this particular program. I think, Elaine, also the question relates to RSV and shingles. You know, would there be any thought to advance those? In general, are we intending to bring forward, you know, everything from our preclinical pipeline? How do we think about that in general, I think is part of the question. Sure. We were also very excited about RSV as well as VZV and what we've seen in our preclinical testing. We have a very well-characterized candidate for RSV, and we will be potentially looking to have discussions with partners in the future around the RSV candidate that we have developed in-house. We're very excited about that. With respect to our VZV program, what's also interesting there are some of the data that we've generated with VZV. As Bob had stated earlier on, we'll continue to learn with respect to those programs and leverage that data for other programs that we may decide to bring into the clinic at a later point in time. Yeah, just one thing to add. Thank you, Elaine. One thing to add to that would be, you know, we may or may not need to or want to advance certain assets into human trials. We're gonna rotate different targets into our preclinical workflow, if you will, as a learning platform, as a testing platform for new adjuvants that we're working on and other things to generate data for conversations with partners. It is not our intention at Novavax to bring every one of those assets forward, and the data was good preclinically for both of those assets. We're actually excited about it and learned a lot, and we could bring them forward. In our current model, we don't see that as a major value inflection that would benefit the company and our stakeholders to bring those into more expensive human trials as they stand. They could be partnered now. They're good learning platforms. C. diff offers the best opportunity from that first set of partner target or target assets that we put in there to work on to bring forward into human trials. We see that as the best value inflection opportunity. Jim, did you want to add anything to that? Well, I think one of the keys to the investment process is both our ability to create differentiated, right, programs and assets in high unmet need markets, but also have an eye towards, hey, what are our partners doing, and are our partners already advancing assets, leveraging our technology at those same, and how might the differentiation work? All of those factors go into our thinking as we both experiment and advance. What you're hearing is not only are we really happy with the data we're seeing as we're working on these assets, but the update you heard from Elaine is that we've got multiple assets with partner overlap where they're carrying the investment burden and driving programs forward. That is the full context of the investment. Once again, to our phone audience today, that is star and one. We'll hear next from Chris LoBianco at TD Securities. Hi, team. Congrats on all the progress in the quarter. I had two questions both on your C. diff candidate. Can you remind us what are the key IND filing requirements for this vaccine, and have you had any initial dialogue with FDA? Bob, do you wanna take that one? Our, as I mentioned, during the prepared remarks, we're currently conducting the IND-enabling repeat dose toxicity study. When those data become available, we would seek to follow that up with an IND. We are intending to engage in pre-IND discussions with FDA and expect that the results of those conversations will probably inform some of the thinking about next steps. Great. I had a second question on the commercial opportunity. You highlighted that C. diff accounts for $5 billion in annual healthcare costs. Is that a reasonable way of thinking about the peak sales potential for a C. diff vaccine? Thank you. Elaine, do you wanna take that one for Chris? Yeah, absolutely. I mean, it's, as I mentioned, there are potentially other competitors coming into the marketplace, Pfizer being one, I think that is, you know, the way we look at this opportunity from a commercial perspective is that it's at least between one and a half to two and a half billion dollars, making the assumption that there will be other competitors on the market by the time a potential vaccine that we would bring through clinic and then partner would come to market. That's how I would, you know, round up the sales opportunity. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you, Chris. Matthew, you also had a question on the combination market. Jim, did you wanna just make a brief comment on the combination market COVID-19 flu? Well, certainly. Reminder to folks that, you know, when we look at both the COVID and the flu market, you know, they're each approximately $6 billion, $5 billion-$6 billion apiece. We're talking about a $10 billion-$12 billion marketplace. That is poised to really merge together, right? Because of the significant importance of combination treatments, especially in that setting. I think that was one of the questions we heard a little bit earlier was, "Hey, what's the importance of combination treatments in the adult market?" The answer is, you know, we expect it to follow a path you saw in the pediatric marketplace, where, you know, the efficiency of getting vaccination is critical, right, to health policy and outcomes. With respect to the combination of flu and COVID market, hey, we continue to see investment. We continue to see a high unmet need. We're really looking forward to that next update from Sanofi on their plans for not one, but perhaps two, late-stage programs with NUVAXOVID plus their market-leading flu products. Hey, we'll wait to learn more. I think, you know, while I can't speak for them, I guess I can repeat what they've said. You know, they met with the agency in the first quarter. They're awaiting alignment and updates for next steps. I think you saw just recently Moderna getting approval in Europe. You're certainly seeing the competitive nature of that industry, its importance rising. Hey, we can't wait to be a part of it through our partners. I'd say that's the update. Jim, we were also really pleased to see Sanofi's investment in the COMPARE study to show against mNEXSPIKE, you know, the tolerability of our NUVAXOVID, which would be a component of a potential combo they bring forward, right? Really excited to see our partner Sanofi leaning in, making investments to show data and really start to kick off the season already for the coming year with some interesting data comparatively so. At this time, we have no further questions from our phone audience. Mr. Jacobs, I'll turn it back to you, sir, for any additional or closing remarks that you have. Just want to say thank you to all of our employees for their constant diligence and effort to help drive Novavax forward toward our vision. Thank all of our investors and stakeholders for supporting us, and wish everyone a wonderful day. Thank you for your attendance. Ladies and gentlemen, this does conclude today's Novavax First Quarter 2026 Financial Results Conference Call. We thank you all for your participation. You may now disconnect your lines.