Jacob Johnson, welcome both of you. Hey, morning. Hey, Dan. Jason, Jacob, this is your first public venue since earnings a couple of weeks ago, and I thought it would be worthwhile to kick things off by reflecting back on the quarter. What worked well? What didn't work well? Yeah, no, we were really happy with the quarter. 18% organic growth. I think what was really encouraging for us was it was strength across the portfolio, right? There was just a testament to how much diversity we brought and the broad capabilities that we offer, and really saw that everywhere. That was the fourth quarter, I think, straight in a row that over 14% as well. Again, good momentum. Just to keep that momentum going, orders, as we mentioned, were greater than 20% as well. A lot of great standouts. At the margin level, if you looked at gross margin on a year-to-date basis, up greater than 200 basis points year- over- year. Again, really trending in the direction that we'd hope, and a lot of great momentum going in front of us. Did the breadth of the performance surprise you to any degree? Would you expect one business or one product line to recover at a bit of a faster rate as you're still in the recovery curve, I believe, as an industry? I don't know that it's a surprise. I think what we find is that we might be lumpy, right? I mean, we've described that a little bit with the, okay, proteins up in a given quarter or higher procured resin, and those tend to then drive some, I'll say, up and down on the gross margin level. Other than that lumpiness that might come with some key programs or key strengths, it was not a surprise to see that across the board. Even from a customer base, we continue to see strength: pharma, CDMO as well. I think the other thing we highlighted was some green shoots at more of the emerging side of the customer base as well. You can't call it necessarily a trend off of a data point of one, but we finally saw some growth there. There were some specific programs that we were supporting that helped, but also encouraged by the funding and biotech going up as well quarter over quarter. That one will not translate immediately. It is probably six to nine months. Again, a lot of good strength there. Okay. One of the topics that was pretty prevalent in Q3 earnings season that I was happy about was a lot more companies were willing to talk about 2026 than we typically have on a third-quarter earnings season. You framed the forward outlook as well. Could you revisit your high-end framing thoughts, especially since it seemed like that caused a little bit of confusion in the investor community following the call? Yeah, yeah, sure. Look, first, we haven't given guidance, right? There is still almost, I guess, just under four months, three and a half months still to see how things are going to play before we issue a guide. What we've really stuck to and have been consistent with is this framework that we have the ability in multiple ways to grow on average five points above the market, right? We start there. We also did call out, though, that there was the discrete new modality program, right, that we took out of this year, and we see a headwind next year. That may be two points of headwind. You start with five, you deduct two, and you're at a three over market. I think what maybe created some difference of views was kind of the messaging from some of our peers in the broader set on, well, what does the market look like? Kind of coming into 3Q, you might have said, "All right, we're back in that 8-12." Right now it's 10 as a midpoint plus three minus two. If now the messaging is, "Well, the market's more high single digit, 8-9," they have a different jump-off point. I think that's where some of the change may have come from an expectation perspective. If you use that 8-9, then that puts us in this kind of 11-13 range with the 8 or 9 plus 5 minus 2. That's how we're thinking about it today. Certainly, there's a lot more to come from what we can see discreetly, right? Because, of course, we use that as a framework in our ability to grow above market, but then it's what we see and what we have path to, and that's what we'll share in February. From a margin perspective, really, again, a commitment to continuing to expand. We'll, again, put more ranges around that. We've talked about this 100 basis points plus at the gross margin level and being able to get leverage beyond that at the operating margin. That's absolutely still how we're thinking about it for 2026. Okay. I mean, one of the big variables on the market growth rate for the forward year seems to be equipment recovery. As we were talking earlier, it seems like equipment has already recovered for Repligen. Walk me through whether that is or is not true and how your equipment business is doing in relation to what you would consider a normalized demand environment. Yeah, no, it's a great question, Dan. First, I'd start with there are a couple of somewhat unique things that have been helping us this year especially. One is f, right? Again, everyone's aware of the strength we continue to see in ATF and the interest. When we sell ATF, we sell controllers that then help to control and operate the different filtration systems that go with it. That is reported in our equipment piece. As we've seen growth in ATF and new systems, that has been a lift for us. I think it's kind of outside of the broader hardware economic cycle, right? I mean, ATF is very discreet in terms of if the CDMO or the pharma producer have adopted it, then you're making a decision on, "Do I invest in this ATF, and what do I save in terms of either less investment for new lines or faster output?" The economic decisioning is different than the broader sort of system. That's one piece. Second, and we called out this quite a bit in third quarter, was the pickup in the upgrade cycle that we've seen in our analytics business. From our CTEC, we've been starting an upgrade approach to our Solo VPE, to our Solo VPE Plus. We are in early innings on that one. We saw that start. Certainly, we have incentives, and we've been helping to get the word out there that it's an upgrade opportunity. That was another real driver that we saw in the third quarter. Those couple of things, I think, put us maybe a little bit different than the traditional hardware or system equipment. When you look at that piece of our business, we're still not up to where we were, right? The reality is that maybe like the rest of the market, that still has some opportunity to grow and get back to levels that we were used to. These other things have been helping to maybe offset that and still show growth. Okay. If I could play that back, it sounds like you have a couple of very idiosyncratic growth drivers which have shown up as a recovery in your instrumentation. If you thought about your bread and butter flavors of crossflow and such, you're still below where you would expect to be. There's recovery opportunity still going on. Absolutely. Well said. Okay. I'll confess, I hadn't thought a lot about the Solo VPE to Solo VPE Plus replacement cycle or upgrade cycle prior to you talking about that on Q3. How should we as investors frame that opportunity? Yeah, like I said, it's early innings. I mean, we have a lot of a large install base. We've only started to scratch the surface there. Again, this is our at-line product. Again, we still really encourage and have taken the strategy of coupling our inline PAT capabilities with our downstream filtration systems. We're getting, what, four, I think 25%, one in four now are being sold that way. We will continue to really encourage that inline. For the customers that still want the at-line, this is a product that's been around for many years and a natural sort of upgrade cycle. What it's also helping us to think about is are there other products in our portfolio that we can kind of take a similar approach, something that's been around a little while and that could benefit from an upgrade. Again, on this one in particular, it's still early days. I'm sorry, the difference between inline versus at-line? An inline is when they actually take a sample and then go to the lab and make a measurement versus that's the at-line. The inline is you don't have to take a sample. It's just part of the flow. Got it. So it's the at-line part of your analytics business that you're looking at. That we're doing this upgrade cycle. That's right. Opportunity to Solo VPE Plus. That's right. Okay. Another topic worth talking about for Repligen, as ever, is the new modality opportunity. You mentioned when framing the forward year, there's one specific program you're advising caution around. What about everything else in new modalities? Yeah. New modality, right, there's obviously a lot of segments within that. Gene therapy, there's cell therapy, the other pieces. If you again look at gene therapy, where this particular program was, that's still an area that we're watching. All the other areas and modalities within the new modality segment are really the same. They're continuing to grow. We have a lot of opportunities. Particularly excited about cell therapy and what opportunities we can offer there. I think what's really great about Repligen is our offerings are very well suited to that space in terms of the ability to scale, the flexibility we have, and the technologies that we bring. Again, we're still overall very bullish on new modality as a growth driver for us, but obviously a little bit of a reset with this particular program. I'd say the gene therapy is still recovering. Has anything changed from a product development standpoint? I feel that one of the reasons why you have the exposure to gene therapy that you do is you've had very specific product launches for that market, specific types of resins that are good at purifying AVs, that kind of thing. Is that getting the same amount of development effort today as it might have at some period in the past, or have you shifted in any meaningful fashion? Look, still 80% of our business is still mAbs, right? You got to feed and fund and invest, right, for the core part of the business. That still takes precedent. I think what we've done is had a good balance of still, to your point, being able to fund there. When we look at M&A or acquisition pipelines, we're also trying to understand other things within the new modality space and technologies that can be broad and that we can help further develop and couple with our own. There are different ways at getting at new technologies, right? For us, I think we're balanced in the way we're investing across the portfolio. Okay. The only thing I'd add, I think you're right, Dan, on the protein side of things, we do have some specific offerings for that market, and we do have some additional launches coming for new modalities from the protein side of things. I think the broader you think about our portfolio, a lot of our products are modality agnostic. Yes, we do have some specific products for this market, but a lot of it is kind of across the broader portfolio where we're selling into a variety of modalities. To Jason's point, that's why we still think new modalities are strategic and market for us. We understand that sentiment can ebb and flow. What we can control is seeding our products into as many applications as possible. The other thing we've been looking at too is, is there a way you can provide a more enterprise solution, right, more kind of soup to nuts offering for some of those new modality spaces as well? That is another area that we continue to look at. Got it. But the mAbs are still 80% of your revenue, and you've got to feed the mAbs. Absolutely. How would you frame of that 80% of revenue, the difference between the branded versus biosimilars and how you're thinking about the biosimilar MAB opportunity? Because there are some big ones that are patent expirations here pretty soon. No, that's a great point. We like to say that we're only about 10 years young, right, in our journey. The reality is that we missed a lot of the originator drugs when they were launched. Now biosimilars is a space that offers us now, I'll say, the next chance or another chance to get within that. For us, we see biosimilars certainly as a potential upside and a big opportunity base for us. Again, I think as not only with maybe I'll say the competing companies, but even if you go back to then the originators, they now need to compete with biosimilars. That means driving a new level of efficiency or other either speed or reduction in cost. We feel like our products can help them as that as well if they're looking at a next generation to compete with biosimilars. We think we're well positioned. Anything else on the biosimilar? I mean, I think in terms of exposure, it's hard to say. The reality is if it's coming from a CDMO, they're not always telling us what molecule they're working on. I think if you look at kind of like the broader bioprocessing market, biosimilars are probably mid-single digits of that market. They're still relatively small versus the originators. That's probably the best proxy for our exposure, but it's hard to say. I imagine there are big regional differences though between India and elsewhere. Yeah, I think that's probably a fair comment. Okay. A number of these monoclonal antibody companies have been issuing press releases of late about investment intentions within different countries' borders. How are you viewing at Repligen that opportunity? Is it incremental for Repligen? Is it just substitution? Any high-level thoughts you can share? Yeah, and this is a big question, I think, on everybody's mind, especially with onshoring within the U.S., I think it starts with just the first question of, is there really incremental capacity? And we may never really know did a pharma or CDMO plan to invest in country A and now is saying, "Okay, I'm going to shift that to the U.S." What we do think is that, again, just back to that, our 10 years young, that now as we have likely new investment in the U.S., whether it's incremental or not to the system, it gives us another chance, another swing. We're well covered from our production within the U.S.. Again, where other suppliers might need to import, that kind of defeats maybe some of the purpose on the onshoring. We have the benefit of being able to produce most of what we sell within the U.S., That becomes an incremental opportunity for us. I think what people need to consider in their calculus on the consumables pull-through, again, if you've now added another line, unless your drug end use has gone up, that's going to stay the same, and your consumables might be split across the multiple regions or lines. I just think, again, people do the calculus. Even if you add your hardware, you don't get to use, I'll say, the same multiplier. Are your folks in the field seeing initial planning happening for some of these facilities? Is it something you're actively participating in from a quote perspective or any other way? We've seen a lot of activity on RFPs kind of across the system. Some of those may be starting to lean into the onshoring. I think what it tells us though is that because we're being invited to a lot more RFPs, when those onshoring discussions happen or those opportunities come, we will likely be invited to the table as well. I think that's still, I'll say, yet to be seen if it's picking up for the onshoring in particular. I think your timing-wise is if you end up with an RFP, maybe you see an order in 2026, maybe that flips a little bit later, and then you're going to have revenue kind of the following maybe 9-12 months. I think it's still going to be time before anybody's really seeing the volume pick up. We are really encouraged that we are going to be invited to participate in those. Maybe just one thing I'd add quickly there. I mean, I think the reason we're seeing some of these RFPs for previously planned capacity additions is we've really built out a capital equipment portfolio over the last five years with the downstream systems, mixers, ATF, etc. We also launched this key account strategy a couple of years ago, which I think was fortuitous timing. It's focused on going after large pharma and large CDMOs and getting in with the key decision-makers at those accounts. When you put those two things together, that's why we're seeing kind of these RFPs for some of the capacity additions. To lean on that, the breadth of the portfolio, again, I mean, we do think that we outpunch our weight class when it comes to the offering across the workflow, right, compared to some of the other players. That again gives a chance for those producers to be talking to us about a series of products. Fluid management, again, is one as well that's helped even open some doors and both expanded some of the interest as well because now you can start connecting our systems across the workflow. We're just, again, bringing alternatives to what's been maybe some of the same traditional players for a while. Okay. That is a good point, Jacob. There is probably quite a bit of overlap between your key account strategy and the companies putting out the press releases on onshoring and such. We don't comment on customers. To your point on fortuitous timing. Yes. How are you looking at the growth rate in China going forward? Yeah. So we feel like we've certainly bottomed out. We saw some growth in sales this quarter from orders growth that we had last quarter. Now, some of that we do recognize likely were some, I'll say, timing related to some of the import duties and some of the trade discussions that have been going on. For us, China is about our, I'll say, how we're attacking and approaching 2026. We've talked about it briefly that we really feel like there's a need to get more, I'll say, inherently within country and to be able to provide. We're exploring our opportunities there. That, of course, takes time to develop and work through. That likely does not fall through to sales until either later in the year or into 2027. We think overall the market is going to go in the right direction, and we'll be able to follow that as well as with new leadership across our Asia-Pac region, as well as new leadership within China and, I'll say, a new heightened focus and resources that we'll be able to capture some of that. For us, the real sea change becomes more of the 2027 and beyond. Okay. So a couple of years down the road. Yeah. With some, I think, again, changing from a headwind over the last probably 24 months and maybe still a bit more of a tailwind, but not, again, the type of growth that we think we can capture later on. Sounds like 2027 is going to be a good year between the reshoring timing, China, etc. Fair enough. That's what I'm trying to get you to provide 2027 guidance. Anyway, joke. No comment. Moving on to a couple of company-specific questions. Your business mix looks quite a bit different than your peer set between clinical and commercial. I think you're about two-thirds clinical, one-third commercial today-ish. What does that look like in five years, and what are the implications for the business? Yeah, that's a great question. We kind of snap that line once a year. To your point, as we finished up 2024 and we shared that in the beginning of 2025, it was kind of that two-thirds, one-third. We've looked at it, I'll say, initially, and absolutely that needle's moving already in 2025. I don't know that I know exactly the number we get to, but we'll continue to move that. I don't know that there's a reason why we wouldn't get to a similar mix that our peers have over time. I don't know if that's a five-year window or longer, but in the meantime, it remains a great, I'll say, growth opportunity for us as well, right, as we move along the clinical stages and as you get the pickup in the commercial side. I think the other thing to keep in mind that's kind of broken a little bit of that paradigm is the ability to have our ATF products in particular be specced directly into commercial products, right? Just with some of the changes in regulations from the FDA that happened a few years ago and a real focus on the ATF and perfusion and the opportunities that provides, we now find that a customer can, within a year, if they push through it, can have something that's been approved or that they've qualified. Again, that's why you hear us talking about the 50-plus—well, it's commercial and late-stage programs that we're specced into on the ATF side. We've talked about some of the blockbusters. Again, my only point on that is it's different than the, "Oh, I started in the clinical and I'm going to work my way up." That's certainly been helping us to shift some of that mix as well. Fluid management's the other one too that we can get specced into an existing commercial drug relatively quickly. Okay. That's a great segue into my next line of questioning, which is on ATF specifically. How are you thinking about the durability of the ATF growth trends? We are very confident on that. I mean, we've been the ATF player. We've been around for 10 years. It's taken time, of course, to help, I'll say, get awareness and acceptance of the product. We are still going to be really that name in the industry that everyone can rely on. We continue to innovate. We know there's alternatives. TFF is an alternative to ATF. We offer that as well. Frankly, when Olivier came, he made it very clear, "Hey, you don't only have to sell ATF. If a customer is really committed to TFF as a product, then we can provide that as well for intensification purposes." We will continue to, like I said, innovate. That will be in refining our current products. We may be scaling up further to offer more scale and larger sizes. There is a lot of opportunity that we have. Again, I think we still are the very credible and, I'll say, the leader right now that will, I think, help us to continue that trajectory. Can you speak to what ending you feel like we're in in perfusion more generally? It's hard to say. I think, again, from a commercial adoption, it's probably very early innings, right? There's a lot more that can happen. Again, even if it's something that started in the clinical stage, I feel like, again, maybe we're in the middle innings when it comes to the acceptance of perfusion and the use of process intensification. Again, we've talked about this as well. We're primarily specced in in the N-1 stage. So there's a whole opportunity of, can that shift to the end stage? We do have some examples there as well, but less so. I still think there's a lot of runway on this. Again, when you can increase your output and/or get to the output level you want in a much shorter time and ultimately either reduce the need for further CapEx investments, the economic value is very clear. I think it's just we're in an industry that maybe takes time to change. We've seen a lot of that happening. Back to your point earlier, if you're entering biosimilars or other stages of development of drugs, it allows another window of opportunity to jump in and re-look at the process flow. Do you think with reshoring efforts and the time sensitivity of those, would perfusion types of processes compared to Fed-Batch, would perfusion be more favorably viewed as companies are trying to spin up new manufacturing within borders within a certain timeframe? I think it could be. Again, it's still back to what's their planning on how that looks 5, 10 years later and what their growth assumptions are. Because, again, if you can make an early investment in some of the perfusion intensification, then you may prevent the need to have further investments later. I think the economics become very clear pretty quickly. Anything you know there? No. All right. Can you talk a little bit about your in-house resin efforts? I feel like there's a lot of activity there, and you have a pipeline of new resins coming forward. How are you framing that opportunity for Repligen? Yeah. Obviously, we have our partnership with Purolite, but through our in-house efforts as well, that allows us to hold a little bit more of that destiny in our own hands. What we've also gone further with the custom ligands is, as you know, we made the acquisition of Tonty, which offers the beads as well or the underlying base matrix to then attach the ligands to for your resin. What we're finding too is just the speed at which we're able to develop custom resins for customers is, we think, very competitive, actually leading edge, and that we can do that quickly. We are right now in a space of how do we build that business out and be less reliant on the growth through the Purolite. Although, again, we find them to be a great partner. We spend a lot of time with them on development and with commercial relationships, but we really want to have a two-pronged strategy there. The resin businesses of some of your peers are very big parts of their portfolio. They are. Is there a day in the future as part of your strategic plan where the resin business is a very meaningful part of Repligen's business? I would certainly love it to be. My whole line of margin questions would probably be simplified. My life would be a lot easier. I mean, because resins in particular, for many of the, to your point, some of the bigger players, they have overweighted size of the business in that direction at very, very high margins. We will continue to aspire to grow there. I think, again, when we've talked about a couple of the areas that we will be, I'll say, over-indexing our investment for growth, proteins is one of them, as well as certainly ATF as well. Those become some of those areas that we want to continue to really push and grow on. What comes with those are also, like I mentioned, accretive top line as well as accretive bottom line growth as well. That's a good segue into the margin discussion in the last five minutes we have here. You had margin expansion in Q3, but there were some puts and takes and some headwinds you flagged on the call. Can you revisit those in the context of how you're thinking about managing the business and what's the right algorithm for Repligen to drive margin expansion? Yeah. No, great. A couple of things. One, I would just kind of highlight that our quarterly, and if I just look at the gross margin level, which certainly passes through, but at the gross margin level, our quarterly sales mix can have a big impact, right? You have seen that with just sort of the trajectory we have had in the first quarter being north of 53%, 51% in the second, back up to. It can swing with, again, that mix of proteins, that mix of a big ATF. It could swing with, we have highlighted as well, when we procure resin for our customers as well, that can be quite dilutive. That is where there can be volatility. Again, I talked about the year to date. We are absolutely growing year to date. We're over 200 basis points on the gross margin and still in that range that we talked about for the year. Again, I would just ask people to not always expect it to, "Oh, if sales goes up for any given quarter, automatically that margin passes through." At the EBIT level or the EBITDA level, I think the other dynamic to highlight is that we have to continue to balance the investment in our fit for growth journey, which is having the right team and leaders. It's having the right infrastructure in our processes. It's having the right systems. We have to balance that with margin expansion. We're going to do both. I'm not saying it's one or the other, but I could sacrifice some of those investments today to get more EBIT or margin expansion now. I think we're going to see that a year or two or three from now that that will cause more pain. We're just being balanced and want to play the long game on this one to make sure that we're making the investments. Because what it took as a company to go from $100 million 10 years ago to now to then to double, right, like we've talked about over the next five years, it's very different on all those things: the team, the processes, the leadership, and sorry, and the systems. We are tightening and making our ability to grow more robust. That's going to be incredibly important. That's the balance we're trying to drive. Always with the full commitment to expand margin. We're doing it this year. Our framework for next year will indicate the same. Understood. So that margin expansion corridor you talk about, and I think it's been 100 to 200 basis points a year that you've communicated previously, that's purely a function of top line growth. There isn't a pipeline of internal programs you're trying to execute on in order to achieve margin expansion, if I'm playing that back. No, in fact, there aren't. If you think about our biggest levers for margin growth, certainly the top line is one. It's mix, but not just the mix of what we sell, but actually working on margin expansion on the programs or the lines or the franchises that are lower than average, right? If you look at our five-year roadmap where we talked about being able to grow EBITDA kind of north towards that 30%, within that is a roadmap to take, for example, our fluid management business, which we've highlighted is below corporate average, to help that grow. That would be a specific program. We also have a footprint that we believe we can optimize further, right? I mean, we love acquisitions from the technologies they bring, the growth, but every acquisition you do, you get a site or two or three, right, to then optimize. We also have a site optimization as part of that roadmap. There is, again, continuing to get kind of that low single-digit price. We are doing a lot in sourcing. I've been really proud of the team where we've been able to really offset a lot of the inflation that comes with the market with real sourcing initiatives. Again, continuing just to grow our muscle on generating manufacturing productivity year after year. The one thing that's been tricky with growing, and we've seen that this year, is when you have to grow your labor, you need to grow months ahead of when you're actually delivering. There is always sort of that learning curve as well. There are a lot of good levers we have to continue to expand margin. Okay. So it sounds like you have a rich pipeline of internal programs. We do. In flight. Perfect. We'll leave it there. We're out of time. Jason and Jacob, thank you both for joining us today. Thanks everyone. Thanks everyone.