MPSYF MorphoSys AG (PK)

STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL POSITION DATA ¹

Not applicable.

Not applicable.

4

Our business faces significant risks. You should carefully consider all of the information set forth in this annual report and in our other filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, or the SEC, including the following risk factors which we face and which are faced by our industry. Our business, financial condition, or results of operations could be materially adversely affected by any of these risks. This report also contains forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. Our results could materially differ from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements as a result of certain factors including the risks described below and elsewhere in this annual report and our other SEC filings. See “Special Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements” above.

Risks Related to Our Financial Condition

We cannot assure you of the adequacy of our capital resources to successfully complete the development and commercialization of our product candidates, and a failure to obtain additional capital, if needed, could force us to delay, limit, reduce or terminate one or more of our product development programs or commercialization efforts.

As of December 31, 2019, we had cash and cash equivalents, financial assets at fair value, with changes recognized in profit or loss, and current and non-current financial assets at amortized cost of € 357.4 million. We believe that we will continue to expend substantial resources for the foreseeable future developing our proprietary product candidates and in particular tafasitamab. These expenditures will include costs associated with research and development, conducting preclinical studies and clinical trials, seeking regulatory approvals, as well as launching and commercializing of products approved for sale, if any, and potentially acquiring new products. In addition, other unanticipated costs may arise. Because the outcome of our anticipated clinical trials is highly uncertain, we cannot reasonably estimate the actual amounts necessary to successfully complete the development and commercialization of our proprietary product candidates.

Our future funding requirements will depend on many factors, including but not limited to:

5

In addition, our operating plan may change as a result of many factors currently unknown to us. As a result of these factors, we may need additional funds sooner than planned. We expect to finance future cash needs primarily through a combination of public or private equity offerings, strategic collaborations and non-dilutive funding. If sufficient funds on acceptable terms are not available when needed, or at all, we could be forced to significantly reduce operating expenses and delay, limit, reduce or terminate one or more of our product development programs or commercialization efforts.

We have incurred significant losses since inception and anticipate that we will continue to incur losses in the future.

We are a late-stage biopharmaceutical company. We have incurred significant losses since our inception. Our consolidated net loss for the year ended December 31, 2019 was €103.0 million. As of December 31, 2019, our accumulated deficit was approximately €255.8 million. The probability of being profitable strongly depends on the successful launch of tafasitamab and we may continue to incur losses in the next years as we continue our research and development of, and seek regulatory approvals for, our product candidates, prepare for and begin to commercialize any approved product candidates and add infrastructure and personnel to support our product development efforts and operations as a public company in the United States. The net losses and negative cash flows incurred to date, together with expected future losses, have had, and likely will continue to have, an adverse effect on our shareholders’ deficit and working capital. The amount of future net losses will depend, in part, on the rate of future growth of our expenses and our ability to generate revenue.

Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with biopharmaceutical product development, we are unable to accurately predict the timing or amount of expenses or when, or if, we will be able to achieve profitability. For example, our expenses could increase if we are required by the FDA or the EMA to perform trials in addition to those that we currently expect to perform, or if there are any delays in completing our currently planned clinical trials, the partnering process for our proprietary product candidates or in the development of any of our proprietary product candidates.

Our revenue to date has been primarily revenue from the license of our proprietary technology platforms, and milestone and royalty payments for our product candidates against targets provided by our collaborators. Our ability to generate revenue and achieve profitability in the future depends in large part on our ability, alone or with our collaborators, to achieve milestones and to successfully complete the development of, obtain the necessary regulatory approvals for, and commercialize, product candidates. This will require us to be successful in a range of challenging activities, including developing product candidates, obtaining regulatory approval for such product candidates, and manufacturing, marketing and selling those product candidates for which we may obtain regulatory approval. We may never succeed in these activities and may never generate revenue from product sales that is significant enough to achieve profitability. In addition, our revenues depend on the activities of our partners, over which we have no control, in respect of pursuing research and clinical trial activities and, where marketing approval has been granted, commercialization of our product candidates. Even if we achieve profitability in the future, we may not be able to sustain profitability in subsequent periods. Our failure to become or remain profitable would depress our market value and could impair our ability to raise capital, expand our business, develop other product candidates, or continue our operations. A decline in the value of our company could also cause you to lose all or part of your investment.

Our operating results may fluctuate significantly in the future.

Our results of operations may fluctuate significantly in the future due to a variety of factors, many of which are outside of our control. The revenues we generate, if any, and our operating results will be affected by numerous factors, including, but not limited to:

6

If our operating results fall below the expectations of investors or securities analysts, the price of our ordinary shares could decline substantially and any fluctuations in our operating results and cash flows may, in turn, cause the price of our shares to fluctuate substantially.

Raising additional capital may cause dilution to our shareholders, restrict our operations or require us to relinquish rights to our technologies or product candidates.

Identifying and acquiring rights to develop potential product candidates and conducting preclinical testing and clinical trials is a time-consuming, expensive and uncertain process that may take years to complete. We may never generate the necessary data or results required to obtain regulatory approval and achieve product sales, and even if one or more of our product candidates is approved, they may not achieve commercial success. Accordingly, we will need to continue to rely on additional financing to achieve our business objectives. Adequate additional financing may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all.

We may seek additional funding through a combination of equity offerings, debt financings, including convertible bond offerings, collaborations, licensing arrangements, strategic alliances and marketing or distribution arrangements. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, your ownership interest will be diluted, and the terms may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect your rights as a holder of our shares. The incurrence of indebtedness or the issuance of certain equity securities could result in increased fixed payment obligations and could also result in certain additional restrictive covenants, such as limitations on our ability to incur additional debt or issue additional equity, limitations on our ability to acquire or license intellectual property rights and other operating restrictions that could adversely impact our ability to conduct our business. In addition, issuance of additional equity securities, or the possibility of such issuance, may cause the market price of our shares to decline. In the event that we enter into collaborations or licensing arrangements to raise capital, we may be required to accept unfavorable terms, including relinquishing or licensing to a third-party on unfavorable terms our rights to technologies or product candidates that we otherwise would seek to develop or commercialize ourselves or potentially reserve for future potential arrangements when we might be able to achieve more favorable terms.

A substantial portion of our historical revenues are from a limited number of strategic collaborations and partnerships, and the termination of these collaborations could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Historically, we derived a substantial portion of our revenues from a limited number of collaborations, under which we generated revenues through licensing arrangements such as research and development payments, upfront payments, milestone payments, and, once a product is commercialized, royalty payments based on a portion of the revenue of product sold. We expect royalties from Janssen on sales of Tremfya^® to account for a

7

substantial portion of our revenues for the next several years. The loss of any significant collaborator or any significant reduction in payments by a collaborator may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We may incur substantial expenses as a result of the limited nature of our disaster recovery and business continuity plan.

MorphoSys AG has implemented a business continuity plan to prevent the collapse of critical business processes to a large extent or to enable the resumption of critical business processes in case a natural disaster, public health emergency, such as the novel coronavirus, or other serious event occurs. However, depending on the severity of the situation, it may be difficult or in certain cases impossible for us to continue our business for a significant period of time. Our contingency plans for disaster recovery and business continuity may prove inadequate in the event of a serious disaster or similar event and we may incur substantial costs that could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Risks Related to the Development, Clinical Testing and Commercialization of Our Product Candidates

Most of our proprietary product candidates are still in preclinical or clinical development, and only one of our partnered products has been approved for marketing and sale. We cannot give any assurance that any of our product candidates will receive regulatory approval, and if we are unable to obtain regulatory approval and ultimately commercialize our product candidates or experience significant delays in doing so, our business will be materially harmed.

Most of our proprietary product candidates are still in preclinical or clinical development, and only one of our partnered products, Tremfya^®, has received regulatory approval. Although we may receive certain payments from our collaboration partners, including upfront payments, payments for achieving certain development, regulatory or commercial milestones and royalties, our ability to generate revenue from our product candidates’ sales is dependent on receipt of regulatory approval for, and successful commercialization of, such product candidates, which may never occur. Our business and future success is particularly dependent on our ability to develop, either alone or in partnership, successfully, receive regulatory approval for, and then successfully commercialize our proprietary product candidates, in particular, tafasitamab. Each of our product candidates will require additional preclinical and/or clinical development, regulatory approval in multiple jurisdictions, manufacturing supply, substantial investment and significant marketing efforts before we generate any revenue from product sales or royalties. We are not permitted to market or promote any of our product candidates before we receive regulatory approval from applicable regulatory authorities. The success of our product candidates will depend on several factors, including the following:

8

If we do not achieve one or more of these factors in a complete and timely manner or at all, we could experience significant delays or an inability to successfully commercialize our product candidates, which would materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects and, in case of product candidates, technologies and licenses we have acquired, may result in a significant impairment of assets.

In December 2019, we submitted a biologics license application, or BLA, for tafasitamab in combination with lenalidomide to the U.S. FDA. We cannot be certain that it will be accepted for filing or receive regulatory approval. We have not submitted a similar regulatory approval filing to comparable foreign authorities, for any product candidate, and we cannot be certain that any of our product candidates will be successful in clinical trials or receive regulatory approval. Further, our product candidates may not receive regulatory approval even if we are successful in conducting clinical trials and assembling required CMC (chemistry, manufacturing and controls) information. If we do not receive regulatory approvals for our product candidates, we may not be able to continue our operations. Even if we successfully obtain regulatory approvals to market one or more of our product candidates, our revenues will be dependent, in part, upon the pricing potential, our ability to supply sufficient amounts of product candidates, the uptake of our product candidates and the size of the markets in the territories for which we gain regulatory approval and have commercial rights. If the market potential that we are targeting are not as significant as we estimate, we may not generate significant revenues from sales of such products, if approved.

We plan to seek regulatory approval to commercialize our product candidates both in the United States and in the EU, and potentially in additional foreign jurisdictions. While the scope of regulatory approval is similar in other countries, to obtain separate regulatory approval in many other countries, we must comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of such countries regarding safety and efficacy and governing, among other things, clinical trials and commercial sales, pricing and distribution of our product candidates, and we cannot predict success in these jurisdictions.

Clinical trials are very expensive, time-consuming and difficult to design and implement and involve uncertain outcomes. If clinical trials or production of our product candidates are prolonged, delayed or terminated, we may be unable to obtain required regulatory approvals, and therefore be unable to commercialize our product candidates on a timely basis or at all, which may materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We are currently conducting clinical trials for tafasitamab and MOR202. Each of our clinical trials requires the investment of substantial expense and time and the timing of the commencement, continuation and completion of these clinical trials may be subject to significant delays or termination relating to various causes, including, among other things:

9

We do not know whether any of our clinical trials will begin as planned, will need to be redesigned or amended or will be completed on schedule, or at all. Clinical testing is expensive and can take many years to complete, and its outcome is inherently uncertain. Failure can occur at any time during the clinical trial process. We could encounter delays if a clinical trial is suspended or terminated by us, by the IRBs of the institutions in which such trials are being conducted, by a data review committee or data safety monitoring board for such trial or by the FDA or other regulatory authorities. Such authorities may impose such a suspension or termination due to a number of factors, including failure to conduct the clinical trial in accordance with regulatory requirements or our clinical protocols, inspection of the clinical trial operations or trial site by the FDA or other regulatory authorities resulting in the imposition of a clinical hold, safety issues or adverse side effects, failure to demonstrate a benefit from using a drug, changes in governmental regulations or administrative actions or lack of adequate funding to continue the clinical trial. If we experience delays in the completion of, or termination of, any clinical trial of our product candidates, the commercial prospects of our product candidates will be harmed, and our ability to generate product revenues from any of these product candidates will be delayed. In addition, any delays in completing our clinical trials will increase our costs, slow down our product candidate development and approval process and jeopardize our ability to commence product sales and generate revenues. Significant clinical trial delays could also allow our competitors to bring products to market before we do or shorten any periods during which we have the exclusive right to commercialize our product candidates and impair our ability to commercialize our product candidates, and may harm our business and results of operations. In addition, some of the factors that cause, or lead to, a delay in the commencement or completion of clinical trials may also ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of our product candidates.

Clinical trials must be conducted with supplies of our product candidates produced under current good manufacturing practice, or cGMP, and supplied accordingly under good distribution practice, or GDP, requirements and other regulations. Furthermore, we rely on CROs and clinical trial sites to ensure the proper

10

and timely conduct of our clinical trials and while we have agreements governing their committed activities, we have limited influence over their actual performance. We depend on our collaborators and on clinical trial sites and CROs to conduct and monitor our clinical trials in compliance with good clinical practice, or GCP, requirements. To the extent our collaborators or the CROs fail to enroll participants for our clinical trials, fail to conduct and monitor the study to GCP standards or are delayed for a significant time or fail in the execution of trials, including achieving full enrollment, we may be affected by increased costs, program delays or both, which may harm our business.

If we are unable to successfully complete clinical trials of our product candidates or other testing, if the results of these trials or tests are unfavorable or are only modestly favorable, if there are safety concerns associated with our product candidates, we may decide to develop in the future, or if we are required to conduct additional clinical trials or other testing of our product candidates that we may develop in future beyond the trials and testing that we contemplate, we may:

The occurrence of any such events may materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

The incidence and prevalence for target patient populations of our product candidates are based on estimates and third-party sources. If the market opportunities for our product candidates are smaller than we estimate or if any approval that we obtain is based on a narrower definition of the patient population, our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects may be materially adversely affected.

Periodically, we make estimates regarding the incidence and prevalence of target patient populations for particular diseases based on various third-party sources and internally generated analysis and use such estimates in making decisions regarding our product development strategy, including determining indications on which to focus in preclinical or clinical trials.

These estimates may be inaccurate or based on imprecise data. For example, the total addressable market opportunity will depend on, among other things, the acceptance of such data by the medical community and patient access, product pricing and reimbursement, any limitations on populations and indications in approved product labeling, as well as the approval of new or competing medicines. The number of patients in the addressable markets may turn out to be lower than expected, patients may not be otherwise amenable to treatment with our products, or new patients may become increasingly difficult to identify or gain access to, all of which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

The speed at which we complete our clinical trials depends on many factors, including, but not limited to, patient enrollment. If we are unable to enroll patients in our clinical trials, our research and development efforts and business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects could be materially adversely affected.

Patient enrollment, a significant factor in the timing and successful completion of clinical trials, is affected by many factors, including the size and nature of the patient population, the proximity of patients to clinical sites,

11

the eligibility criteria for the trial, the design of the clinical trial, competing clinical trials and clinicians’ and patients’ perceptions as to the potential advantages of the product being studied in relation to other available therapies, including any new products that may be approved for the indications we are investigating. Because there is a relatively limited number of patients worldwide, patient enrollment may be challenging. Trials may be subject to delays as a result of patient enrollment taking longer than anticipated or patient withdrawal. Delays in the completion of any clinical trial of our product candidates will increase our costs, slow down our product candidate development and delay or potentially jeopardize our ability to receive regulatory approval, commence product sales and generate revenue. Any of these occurrences may harm our clinical trials, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Results of previous preclinical studies and clinical trials may not be predictive of future results, and the results of our current and planned clinical trials may not satisfy the requirements of the FDA, the EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities.

Positive or timely results from preclinical or early-stage trials do not ensure positive or timely results in late-stage clinical trials or product approval by the FDA, the EMA, or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. We will generally be required to demonstrate with substantial evidence through well-conducted, possibly controlled clinical trials that our product candidates are safe and effective for use in a well-defined patient population before we can seek regulatory approvals for their commercial sale. Our planned clinical trials may produce negative or inconclusive results, and we or any of our current and future collaborators may decide, or regulators may require us, to conduct additional clinical or preclinical testing. Success in preclinical studies or early-stage clinical trials does not mean that future clinical trials or registration clinical trials will be successful because product candidates in later-stage clinical trials may fail to demonstrate sufficient safety or efficacy to the satisfaction of the FDA, the EMA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities, despite having progressed through preclinical studies and initial clinical trials. Product candidates that have shown promising results in early clinical trials may still suffer significant setbacks in subsequent clinical trials. For example, a number of companies in the pharmaceutical industry, including those with greater resources and experience than us, have suffered significant setbacks in advanced clinical trials, even after obtaining promising results in earlier clinical trials. Similarly, interim results of a clinical trial do not necessarily predict final results.

Additionally, several of our clinical trials along with those we may conduct in the future utilize an “open-label” trial design. An “open-label” clinical trial is one where both the patient and investigator know whether the patient is receiving the investigational product candidate or either an existing approved drug or placebo. Most typically, open-label clinical trials test only the investigational product candidate and sometimes may do so at different dose levels. Open-label clinical trials are subject to various limitations that may exaggerate any therapeutic effect as patients in open-label clinical trials receiving treatment. Open-label clinical trials may be subject to a “patient bias” where patients perceive their symptoms to have improved merely due to their awareness of receiving an experimental treatment. In addition, open-label clinical trials may be subject to an “investigator bias” where those assessing and reviewing the physiological outcomes of the clinical trials are aware of which patients have received treatment and may interpret the information of the treated group more favorably given this knowledge. The results from an open-label trial may not be predictive of future clinical trial results with any of our product candidates for which we include an open-label clinical trial when studied in a controlled environment with a placebo or active control.

The regulatory approval processes of the FDA and comparable foreign authorities are lengthy, time-consuming and inherently unpredictable and if we fail to obtain regulatory approval in any jurisdiction, we will not be able to commercialize our products in that jurisdiction, and our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects may be materially adversely affected.

The time required to obtain approval by the FDA and comparable foreign authorities is unpredictable but typically takes many years following the commencement of clinical trials and depends upon numerous factors, including the substantial discretion of the regulatory authorities. In addition, approval laws, regulations, policies

12

or the type and amount of clinical data or other information necessary to gain approval may change during the course of a product candidate’s clinical development and may vary among jurisdictions. We have not obtained regulatory approval for any product candidate, and it is possible that none of our existing product candidates or any product candidates we may seek to develop in the future will ever obtain regulatory approval.

Our product candidates could fail to receive regulatory approval for many reasons, including the following:

In particular, with respect to the development and potential approval of tafasitamab, we have recently submitted a regulatory filing to the FDA based on the open-label single-arm L-MIND trial. There may be a risk that the regulatory authorities do not grant approval based on single-arm data for tafasitamab plus lenalidomide, due to the fact that there is no comparator arm in the study. There might be an additional risk that the regulatory authorities do not accept our strategies to present alternative data, for example by providing data of our Re-MIND trial as a matched control cohort.

This approval process may result in failing to obtain regulatory approval to market any of our product candidates, which would significantly harm our business, results of operations and prospects. The FDA, the EMA and other regulatory authorities have substantial discretion in the approval process and determining when or whether regulatory approval will be obtained for any of our product candidates. Even if we believe the data collected from clinical trials of our product candidates are promising, such data may not be sufficient to support approval by the FDA, the EMA or any other regulatory authority. These authorities could require additional clinical data, including clinical trials designed with internal controls, in order to support regulatory approvals.

In addition, even if we were to obtain approval, regulatory authorities may approve any of our product candidates for fewer or more limited indications than we request, may grant approval contingent on the performance of costly post-marketing clinical trials, or may approve a product candidate with a label that does not include the labeling claims necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of that product candidate. Any of the foregoing scenarios could materially harm the commercial prospects for our product candidates.

13

In order to commercialize our products in more than one jurisdiction, this will require separate regulatory approval in each market and compliance with numerous and varying regulatory requirements. The approval procedures vary from country to country and may require additional testing or other steps. Satisfying these and other regulatory requirements is costly, time-consuming, uncertain and subject to unanticipated delays. In addition, in many countries outside the United States and in particular in many of the Member States of the European Union, a product must undergo health economic assessments to agree on pricing and/or be approved for reimbursement before it can be approved for sale in that country, or before it becomes commercially viable. The FDA and the EMA may come to different conclusions regarding approval of a marketing application. Approval by the FDA or the EMA does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries or jurisdictions, and approval by one foreign regulatory authority does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other foreign countries or by the FDA or the EMA. In addition, failure to obtain regulatory approval in any country may delay or have negative effects on the process for regulatory approval in other countries. Clinical trials conducted in one country may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other countries, including as a result of population and other demographic difference across countries. We may not obtain regulatory approvals on a timely basis, if at all. We may not be able to file for regulatory approvals and may not receive necessary approvals to commercialize our products in any market. We may be required to conduct additional preclinical studies or clinical trials, which would be costly and time-consuming. If we or any future partner are unable to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates in one or more significant jurisdictions, then the commercial opportunity for our product candidates, and our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects, may be materially adversely affected.

The FDA may rescind the breakthrough designation for tafasitamab in combination with lenalidomide for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL who are not eligible for high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation, and we may be unable to obtain breakthrough therapy designation for other indications or other product candidates. In addition, breakthrough therapy designation by the FDA may not lead to a faster development, regulatory review or approval process, and it may not increase the likelihood that tafasitamab will receive marketing approval in the United States.

Under the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act, or FDASIA, the FDA is authorized to give certain products “breakthrough therapy designation”. A breakthrough therapy product candidate is defined as a product candidate that is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that such product candidate may demonstrate substantial improvement on one or more clinically significant endpoints over existing therapies. The FDA will seek to ensure the sponsor of a breakthrough therapy product candidate receives intensive guidance on an efficient drug development program, interactions with the agency’s senior managers and experienced staff on a proactive, collaborative and cross-disciplinary review and a rolling review process whereby the FDA may consider reviewing portions of a marketing application before the sponsor submits the complete application. Product candidates designated as breakthrough therapies by the FDA may be eligible for other expedited programs, such as priority review, if approval would provide a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness.

The receipt of breakthrough therapy designation, or BTD, for a product candidate, or acceptance for one or more of the FDA’s other expedited programs, may not result in a faster development process, review or approval compared to products considered for approval under conventional FDA procedures and does not guarantee ultimate approval by the FDA. For example, we are evaluating tafasitamab in combination with lenalidomide for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory, or r/r DLBCL; however, lenalidomide (being marketed by Celgene Corporation, now part of Bristol-Myers Squibb) is currently not approved for the treatment of adult patients with r/r DLBCL. There are a number of reasons why the FDA may not grant approval of a registration package for a product candidate. Among these reasons, a pivotal study of the combination of two unapproved product candidates in a particular indication may not alone be acceptable to support approval. Additionally, the FDA may later decide that the product candidate no longer meets the conditions for designation and may

14

withdraw designation at any time or decide that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened.

Fast track designation for one or more of our product candidates may not actually lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process.

In 2014, we received fast track designation for tafasitamab for the treatment of r/r DLBCL. If a product candidate is intended for the treatment of a serious condition, and preclinical or clinical data demonstrates the potential to address an unmet medical need for this condition, a product sponsor may apply for FDA fast track designation. Even though we have received fast track designation for tafasitamab for the treatment of r/r DLBCL, fast track designation does not ensure that we will receive marketing approval or that approval will be granted within any particular timeframe. We may not experience a faster development or regulatory review or approval process with fast track designation compared to conventional FDA procedures. In addition, the FDA may withdraw fast track designation if they believe that the designation is no longer supported by data from our clinical development program. Fast track designation alone does not guarantee qualification for the FDA’s priority review procedures.

Our product candidates may cause undesirable side effects that could delay or prevent their regulatory approval, limit the commercial profile of an approved label, or result in significant negative consequences following regulatory approval, if any.

Undesirable side effects that may be caused by our product candidates could cause us, our collaboration partners or the regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials and could result in a more restrictive label or the delay or denial of regulatory approval by the FDA, the EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. The results of our trials could reveal a high and unacceptable severity and prevalence of side effects. In such an event, our trials could be suspended or terminated and the FDA, the EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities could order us to cease further development of or deny approval of our product candidates for any or all targeted indications. The product-related side effects could affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled patients to complete the trial or result in potential product liability claims.

Clinical trials assess a sample of the potential patient population. With a limited number of patients and duration of exposure, rare and severe side effects of our product candidates may only be uncovered with a significantly larger number of patients exposed to the product candidate. If our product candidates receive regulatory approval and we or others identify undesirable side effects caused by such product candidates (or any other similar products) after such approval, a number of potentially significant negative consequences could result, including:

15

Any of these events could prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of the affected product candidates and could substantially increase the costs of commercializing our product candidates, if approved, and therefore could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We and our collaboration partners have conducted and intend to conduct additional clinical trials for selected product candidates at sites outside the United States, and the FDA may not accept data from trials conducted in such locations or may require additional U.S.-based trials.

We and our collaboration partners have conducted, are currently conducting and intend in the future to conduct, clinical trials outside the United States, particularly in the European Union where we are headquartered.

Although the FDA may accept data from clinical trials conducted outside the United States, acceptance of this data is subject to certain conditions imposed by the FDA. For example, the clinical trial must be well-designed and conducted by qualified investigators in accordance with GCP, including review and approval by an independent ethics committee and receipt of informed consent from trial patients. The trial population must also adequately represent the U.S. population, and the data must be applicable to the U.S. population and U.S. medical practice in ways that the FDA deems clinically meaningful. Generally, the patient population for any clinical trial conducted outside of the United States must be representative of the population for which we intend to seek approval in the United States. In addition, while these clinical trials are subject to applicable local laws, FDA acceptance of the data will be dependent upon its determination that the trials also comply with all applicable U.S. laws and regulations. There can be no assurance that the FDA will accept data from trials conducted outside of the United States. If the FDA does not accept the data from any clinical trials that we or our collaboration partners conduct outside the United States, it would likely result in the need for additional clinical trials, which would be costly and time-consuming and delay or permanently halt our ability to develop and market these or other product candidates in the United States. In other jurisdictions, for instance, in Japan, there is a similar risk regarding the acceptability of clinical trial data conducted outside of that jurisdiction.

In addition, there are risks inherent in conducting clinical trials in multiple jurisdictions, inside and outside of the United States, such as:

The design or our execution of clinical trials may not support regulatory approval.

The design or execution of a clinical trial can determine whether its results will support regulatory approval and flaws in the design or execution of a clinical trial may not become apparent until the clinical trial is well advanced. In some instances, there can be significant variability in safety or efficacy results between different trials of the same product candidate due to numerous factors, including changes in trial protocols, differences in size and type of the patient populations, adherence to the dosing regimen and other trial protocols and the rate of dropout among clinical trial participants. We do not know whether any phase 2, phase 3 or other clinical trials we

16

or any of our strategic partners may conduct will demonstrate consistent or adequate efficacy and safety to obtain regulatory approval to market our product candidates or whether the regulatory authorities will agree that the design of our or our partners’ studies is adequate to support approval.

Further, the FDA, the EMA or other regulatory authorities have substantial discretion in the approval process and in determining when or whether regulatory approval will be obtained for any of our product candidates. Our product candidates may not be approved even if they achieve their primary endpoints in future phase 3 clinical trials or registration trials. The FDA, the EMA or other regulatory authorities may disagree with our trial design and our interpretation of data from preclinical studies and clinical trials. In addition, any of these regulatory authorities may change requirements for the approval of a product candidate even after reviewing and providing comments or advice on a protocol for a pivotal phase 3 clinical trial that has the potential to result in FDA, EMA or other agencies’ approval. In addition, any of these regulatory authorities may also approve a product candidate for fewer or more limited indications than we request or may grant approval contingent on the performance of costly post-marketing clinical trials. The FDA, the EMA or other regulatory authorities may not approve the labeling claims that we believe would be necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of our product candidates.

Even if we receive regulatory approval for any of our product candidates, we will be subject to ongoing obligations and continued regulatory review, which may materially adversely affect our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

If the FDA, the EMA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority approves any of our product candidates, the manufacturing processes, labeling, packaging, distribution, adverse event reporting, storage, advertising, marketing, promotion and recordkeeping for the product will be subject to extensive and ongoing regulatory requirements. These requirements include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, registration, as well as continued compliance with cGMPs and GCPs for any clinical trials that we conduct post-approval, all of which may result in significant expense and limit our ability to commercialize such products. Any regulatory approvals that we receive for our product candidates may also be subject to limitations on the approved indicated uses for which the product may be marketed or to the conditions of approval, or contain requirements for potentially costly post-marketing testing and surveillance to monitor the safety and efficacy of the product.

In addition, regulatory policies may change or additional government regulations or legislation may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of our product candidates. If we fail to comply with existing requirements, are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may lose any regulatory approval that we may have obtained or face regulatory or enforcement actions, which may materially adversely affect our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

We may be subject to penalties if we fail to comply with regulatory requirements or experience unanticipated problems with any of our products that receive regulatory approval, which may materially adversely affect our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

Once a product is approved by the FDA, the EMA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority for marketing, it is possible that previously unknown problems may occur with the product, including problems with third-party manufacturers or manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements. If any of the foregoing occurs with respect to our products, it may result in, among other things:

17

The occurrence of any of these events, or any government investigation of alleged violations of law could require us to expend significant time and resources, could generate negative publicity, and may impair our ability to sell such product. If we or our collaborators are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, regulatory approval that has been obtained may be lost and we may not achieve or sustain profitability, which may materially adversely affect our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

We may allocate our limited resources to pursue a particular product candidate or indication and fail to capitalize on product candidates or indications that may later prove to be more profitable or for which there is a greater likelihood of success, which may materially adversely affect our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

Because we have limited financial and managerial resources, we must limit our licensing, research and development programs to specific product candidates that we identify for specific indications. As a result, we may forego or delay pursuit of opportunities with other product candidates or for other indications that later prove to have greater commercial potential. Our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial product candidates or profitable market opportunities, and our decisions concerning the allocation of research, collaboration, management and financial resources towards particular product candidates may not lead to the development of viable commercial products. In addition, if we do not accurately evaluate the commercial potential or target market for a particular product candidate, we may relinquish valuable rights to that product candidate through collaboration, licensing or other royalty arrangements when it would have been more advantageous for us to retain sole development and commercialization rights to such product candidate. If we make incorrect determinations regarding the market potential of our product candidates or misread trends in the biopharmaceutical industry, in particular for our late-stage product candidates, our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations could be materially adversely affected.

We currently do not have an appropriate sales and marketing organization yet and we have no history of commercializing our proprietary products.

The development of our proprietary product candidates has been limited to developing and applying our technology to source such products and undertaking preclinical studies and clinical trials thereof, either independently or with strategic partners. We have not yet demonstrated the ability to successfully complete the development of our proprietary product candidates, obtain marketing approvals, manufacture them at a commercial scale with our CMOs, or achieve market access and regulatory activities necessary for successful product commercialization of our proprietary product candidates. Any predictions about our future success or viability may not be as accurate as they could be if we had a history of successfully developing and commercializing our proprietary pharmaceutical products.

Factors that may affect our ability to commercialize our product candidates on our own include recruiting and retaining adequate numbers of effective sales and marketing personnel, setting up all relevant processes for commercialization, identifying and contracting on favorable terms with a contract sales and marketing organization, obtaining access to adequate numbers of physicians, achieving planned numbers of prescriptions of our product candidates for any approved uses we obtain in regulatory approvals and other unforeseen costs associated with creating, training and developing either an independent or contract sales and marketing organization.

18

We do not currently have an appropriate organization for commercialization, and developing or acquiring a sales and marketing organization or contracting with a sales and marketing organization on favourable terms will be expensive and time-consuming and could delay the launch of our product candidates. We may not be able to recruit, build, or contract with an effective sales and marketing organization. If we are unable to build our own distribution and marketing capabilities or to find suitable partners for the commercialization of our product candidates, we may not be able to generate revenues from them or to reach or sustain profitability.

If any of our product candidates receive regulatory approval, the approved products may not achieve broad market acceptance among physicians, patients, the medical community and third-party payors, in which case revenue generated from their sales would be limited.

The commercial success of our product candidates will depend upon their acceptance among e.g. third-party payors physicians, patients and the medical community. The degree of market acceptance of our product candidates will depend on a number of factors, including:

If any of our product candidates are approved but do not achieve an adequate level of acceptance by physicians, patients and the medical community, we may not generate sufficient revenue from these products, and we may not become or remain profitable. In addition, efforts to educate the medical community and third-party payors on the benefits of our product candidates may require significant resources and may never be successful.

Risks Related to Our Reliance on Collaborators and Other Third-Parties

Collaborations on products and product candidates are important to our business, and future collaborations may also be important to us. If we are unable to maintain any of these collaborations or if these collaborations are not successful, our business could be materially adversely affected.

We have in the past entered into, and intend to continue to enter into, collaborations with other companies that we believe provide us with valuable funding and other benefits. However, we cannot ensure that any such collaboration will continue or be successful. For example, in March 2015, we and Celgene Corporation (now part

19

of Bristol-Myers Squibb) agreed to end the existing co-development and co-promotion agreement for MOR202, following which we regained the rights to MOR202. We have subsequently partnered Chinese regional rights to MOR202, and our partner I-Mab will further develop MOR202 in multiple myeloma, or MM, for Greater China. We cannot ensure that such collaboration will be successful. Our inability to find a partner for any of our product candidates may result in our termination of that specific product candidate program or evaluation of a product candidate in a particular indication. We are currently investigating the development of MOR202 outside of China in an autoimmune indication. In addition, we have entered into various other collaboration and license arrangements with third-parties. In July 2018, together with Galapagos who co-owned MOR106 with us, we signed a license agreement with Novartis, who will be responsible for the development and commercialization of the compound in the future. On October 28, 2019, we announced the end of the clinical development program of MOR106 in atopic dermatitis. The joint decision of all three involved parties, Galapagos, MorphoSys and Novartis, was based on an interim analysis for futility that was performed in the phase 2 IGUANA trial. All studies in atopic dermatitis will be ended. The parties will explore the future strategy with MOR106. In November 2018, we entered into a collaboration and licensing agreement with I-Mab for an additional proprietary program, MOR210. Our partner I-Mab will perform certain preclinical and clinical development activities, and we will share territorial rights (Greater China and South Korea for I-Mab, rest of world for MorphoSys). In January 2020, we entered into a collaboration and license agreement with Incyte Corporation, or Incyte, to further develop and commercialize our proprietary antibody tafasitamab globally. This agreement received clearance by the U.S. antitrust authorities under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act as well as by the German and Austrian antitrust authorities on or before March 2, 2020, and became effective on March 3, 2020. Under the terms of the agreement, we and Incyte will co-commercialize tafasitamab in the U.S., while Incyte has exclusive commercialization rights outside of the U.S. In addition, we and Incyte have agreed to co-develop tafasitamab broadly in relapsed/refractory diffuse large B cell lymphoma (r/r DLBCL), frontline DLBCL, as well as additional indications beyond DLBCL, such as follicular lymphoma (FL), marginal zone lymphoma (MZL) and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). We cannot ensure that any such collaboration or license agreement or further clinical development or the commercialization will be successful.

In the future, we may enter into additional collaborations to fund our development programs or to gain access to sales, marketing or distribution capabilities. Under most of our previous collaboration agreements, we grant our partners an exclusive license to certain therapeutic antibodies for specific targets and receive license fees, research and development funding, milestone payments and/or, if a product is approved for marketing, sales royalties in return. Following the discovery and preclinical testing phase, these partners are typically solely responsible for the further development of the product candidate and therefore exercise full control over its further development and potential commercialization. Our existing collaborations, and any future collaborations we enter into, therefore may pose a number of risks, including the following:

20

If our research, development and commercial collaborations do not result in the successful development and commercialization, as applicable, of products or if one of our collaborators terminates its agreement with us, we may not receive any future research funding or milestone or royalty payments under the collaboration. If any commercial collaborator underperforms or terminates the agreement with us, we may generate less profits / more losses. If we do not receive the funding, or do not generate the profits, we expect under these agreements, the development and commercialization of our product candidates and products could be delayed, and we may need additional resources to develop and commercialize our proprietary product candidates. All of the risks relating to product development, regulatory approval and commercialization described in this report also apply to the activities of our program collaborators.

Additionally, subject to its contractual obligations to us, if one of our collaborators is involved in a business combination, the collaborator might deemphasize or terminate the development or commercialization of any product candidate licensed to it by us. If one of our collaborators terminates its agreement with us, we may find it more difficult to attract new collaborators in a timely manner.

We face significant competition in seeking new partnerships.

For all our proprietary product candidates, we face significant competition. This may negatively impact our ability to enter into potential partnerships or licensing agreements for our compounds. For example, we decided

21

not to pursue MOR202 development in MM outside the collaboration with I-Mab in Greater China without another partner for the rest of the world. Instead, we are currently pursuing the further development of MOR202 outside of China in an autoimmune indication. Our ability to reach definitive agreements for partnerships will depend, among other things, upon our assessment of the partner’s resources and expertise, the terms and conditions of the proposed partnership and the proposed partner’s evaluation of a number of factors. These factors may include the design or results of clinical trials, the likelihood of approval by the FDA, the EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, the potential market for the subject product candidate, market access and pricing considerations in the respective territory, the costs and complexities of manufacturing and delivering such product candidate to patients, the potential of competing products, incidence and prevalence of the respective disease, and industry and market conditions generally. The partner may also consider alternative product candidates for similar indications that may be available to collaborate on and whether such collaboration could be more attractive than the one with us for our product candidate.

Collaborations and commercialization partnerships are complex and time-consuming to negotiate and document. If we are unable to reach agreements with suitable partners on a timely basis, on acceptable terms, or at all, we may have to curtail or even stop the development of a product candidate in one or all indications, in one or all territories in the world, reduce or delay one or more of our other discovery and development programs, delay its potential commercialization, or increase our expenditures and undertake development or commercialization activities at our own expense. If we elect to fund and undertake development or commercialization activities on our own, we may need to obtain additional expertise and additional capital, which may not be available to us on acceptable terms or at all. If we fail to enter into collaborations and other partnerships and do not have sufficient funds or expertise to undertake the necessary development and commercialization activities, we may not be able to further develop our product candidates in any or all indications or bring them to market in any or all territories in the world and our business may be materially and adversely affected.

We rely and expect to continue to rely on third-parties, including research/medical institutions, clinical investigators, CROs and/or other service providers, to conduct our development activities (preclinical studies, quality testing and clinical trials) and perform data collection, analysis and reporting, which may result in costs and delays in the development of our product candidates. If these third-parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or meet expected deadlines, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for or commercialize our product candidates, and our business could be materially adversely affected.

We rely and expect to continue to rely on public and private medical/research institutions, clinical investigators, CROs, service providers and collaboration partners to conduct our early phase and late phase product development activities including the conduct of preclinical studies and clinical trials. Our development activities conducted in reliance on third-parties may be delayed, suspended or terminated, including for the following reasons:

Although we perform sponsor oversight and audits using risk-based approaches, we do not have the ability to control every action of third-parties in their conduct of development activities. Nevertheless, we are responsible for ensuring that each of our development activities is conducted in accordance with the applicable study plan/protocol, GxP, legal, regulatory, intellectual property and scientific standards, and our reliance on these third-parties does not relieve us of our sponsor responsibilities. We and our third-parties are required to comply with GxP standards, which are regulations and guidelines enforced by the FDA, the competent authorities of the

22

member states of the European Economic Area, or EEA, and comparable foreign regulatory authorities for all of our products in clinical development. Regulatory authorities enforce these GxPs through periodic inspections of trial sponsors, principal investigators and trial sites, CROs and/or other involved service providers. If we or any of our third-parties fail to comply with applicable GxP standards, the study data generated in our preclinical studies and/or clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA, the EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to perform additional studies before potentially approving our marketing applications. We cannot ensure that upon inspection by a given regulatory authority, such regulatory authority will determine that all of our development activities comply with GxP regulations. If third-parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or obligations or meet expected deadlines, if they need to be replaced or if the quality or accuracy of the data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to our study plans/protocols, GxP and other regulatory requirements or for other reasons, our preclinical studies or clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated and we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for or successfully commercialize our product candidates.

Third-party performance failures may increase our development costs, delay our ability to obtain regulatory approval and delay or prevent the commercialization of our product candidates. While we believe that there are alternative sources to provide these services, in the event that we seek such alternative sources, we may not be able to enter into replacement arrangements without incurring delays or additional costs.

We currently rely on third-party suppliers and single-source third-party CMOs for the manufacturing and distribution of our product candidates, and our dependence on these third-parties may impair the development of our product candidates. Moreover, we intend to rely on third-parties to produce commercial supplies of any approved product candidate and our commercialization of any of our product candidates could be stopped, delayed or made less profitable if those third-parties fail to provide us with sufficient quantities of product or fail to do so at acceptable quality levels or prices or fail to otherwise complete their duties in compliance with their obligations to us or in compliance with applicable laws. Service or supply failures, or other failures, business interruptions, or other disasters affecting the manufacturing facilities of any party participating in the supply chain, would adversely affect our ability to supply our product candidates and products.

We do not currently have, nor do we plan to acquire, the infrastructure or capability internally to manufacture our preclinical (with the exclusion of non-GLP testing) and clinical product supplies, and we lack the resources and the capability to manufacture any of our product candidates on a clinical or commercial scale under GMP. We therefore rely on and expect to continue to rely on third-party contract manufacturing organizations, or CMOs, for the supply of cGMP-grade, clinical trial materials and commercial quantities of our product candidates and products, if approved. The facilities used by our CMOs or other third-party manufacturers to manufacture our product candidates are subject to the FDA’s, the EMA’s and other comparable regulatory authorities’ preapproval inspections that will be conducted after we submit our BLA to the FDA or the required approval documents to any other relevant regulatory authority. Although we perform oversight of the manufacturing and testing activities by involvement in e.g. the Change Control and Deviation management of the CMO and qualification audits prior to contracting a CMO and subsequent regular audits of such facilities and GMP procedures, we are completely dependent on our contract manufacturers or other third-party manufacturers for compliance with the regulatory requirements, known as current good manufacturing practices, or cGMPs, for manufacture of both active drug substances and finished drug products. If our contract manufacturers or other third-party manufacturers cannot successfully manufacture sufficient amounts of material that conforms to applicable specifications and the strict regulatory requirements of the FDA, the EMA or another comparable regulatory authority, we may not be able to secure and/or maintain regulatory approvals for our products manufactured at these facilities. In addition (except for our oversight obligations described above), we have no control over the ability of our contract manufacturers or other third-party manufacturers to maintain adequate quality control and quality assurance procedures and qualified personnel. If the FDA, the EMA or another comparable regulatory authority finds deficiencies at these facilities for the manufacture of our product candidates or products for commercial sale, or if it withdraws any approval because of deficiencies at these

23

facilities in the future, we may need to find alternative manufacturing facilities, which would significantly impact our ability to develop, obtain regulatory approval for or market our product candidates, if approved. If, for any reason, we were to experience an unexpected loss of supply of our product candidates, combination drug, or placebo or comparator product used in certain of our clinical trials, whether as a result of manufacturing, supply or storage issues or otherwise, we could experience delays, disruptions, suspensions or terminations of, or be required to restart or repeat, any pending or ongoing clinical trials. If market demand increases, our current planning assumptions the CMO might not be willing or able to supply this additional material, leading to supply shortage on the market.

We rely on our manufacturers to purchase from third-party suppliers the materials necessary to produce our product candidates for our clinical trials and our product foreseen -after approval- for commercial sale. For certain items, there are a limited number of suppliers for raw materials that we use to manufacture our products and appropriate lead times for ordering such materials are factored into the manufacturing plans. However, there may be a need to assess alternate suppliers to prevent a possible disruption of the manufacture of the materials necessary to produce our product candidates for our clinical trials, and if approved, for commercial sale. Moreover, we currently do not have any agreements in place for the commercial production of these raw materials. Although we generally do not begin a clinical trial unless we believe we have access to a sufficient supply of a product candidate to complete the clinical trial, any significant delay in the supply of a product candidate, or the raw material components thereof, could considerably delay the completion of our clinical trials, product testing and potential regulatory approval of our product candidates. Such delays could for example be caused by the implementation of corrective actions at the supplier, or even replacement of a contract manufacturer or other involved third-parties. If we or our manufacturers are unable to purchase these raw materials after regulatory approval has been obtained for our product candidates, the commercial launch of our product candidates would be delayed or there would be a shortage in supply, which would impair our ability to generate revenue from the sale of our product candidates. Additionally, if we receive regulatory approval for our product candidates, we may experience unforeseen difficulties or challenges in the manufacture of our product candidates on a commercial scale compared to the manufacture for clinical purposes. We currently rely on single-source CMOs for the manufacturing of each of our proprietary product candidates, including Boehringer Ingelheim, or BI, for bulk manufacturing and filling as well as our suppliers for labeling, packaging and logistics in respect of tafasitamab. Thus any regulatory action, service failure, business interruptions, or other disasters affecting BI’s facilities or the facilities of our other CMOs for our other proprietary product candidates could result in a significant delay in the production and supply of tafasitamab and could, as a result, have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects.

The manufacture of our product candidates is complex. Our third-party manufacturers may encounter difficulties in production. If we encounter any such difficulties, our ability to supply our product candidates for clinical trials or, if approved, for commercial sale could be delayed or halted entirely.

The manufacture of biopharmaceutical products is complex and requires significant expertise and capital investment, including the development of advanced manufacturing techniques and process controls. The process of manufacturing biopharmaceuticals, including our product candidates, is susceptible to product loss due to contamination, equipment failure or improper installation or operation of equipment, vendor or operator error, contamination and inconsistency in yields, variability in product characteristics and difficulties in scaling the production process or product loss during fill and finishing. Even minor deviations from normal manufacturing processes could result in reduced production yields, product defects and other supply disruptions. If microbial, viral or other contaminations are discovered in our product candidates or in the manufacturing facilities in which our product candidates are made, such manufacturing facilities may need to be closed for an extended period of time to investigate and remedy the contamination. Any adverse developments affecting manufacturing operations for our product candidates, if any are approved, may result in shipment delays, inventory shortages, lot failures, product withdrawals or recalls, or other interruptions in the supply of our products. We may also have to take inventory write-offs and incur other charges and expenses for products that fail to meet specifications, undertake costly remediation efforts or seek more costly manufacturing alternatives.

24

Risks Related To Our Intellectual Property Rights

If we are unable to obtain and maintain sufficient intellectual property protection for our products or product candidates, or if the scope of our intellectual property protection is not sufficiently broad, our ability to commercialize our products or product candidates successfully and to compete effectively may be materially adversely affected.

Our success depends in large part on our ability to obtain and maintain protection with respect to our intellectual property and proprietary technology. We rely upon a combination of patents, trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect the intellectual property related to our products and product candidates. The patent position of pharmaceutical companies is generally uncertain because it involves complex legal and factual considerations. The standards applied by the United States Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, and foreign patent offices in granting patents are not always applied uniformly or predictably and can change. The patent applications that we own or in-license may fail to result in issued patents, and if they do, such patents may not cover our products or product candidates in the United States or in other countries. Accordingly, we cannot predict whether additional patents protecting our technology or our product candidates will issue in the United States or in non-U.S. jurisdictions, or whether any patents that do issue will have claims of adequate scope to provide us with a competitive advantage. Additionally, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States, and many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending such rights in foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents and other intellectual property rights, particularly those relating to biotechnology, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our licensed and owned patents, the reproduction of our manufacturing or other know-how or marketing of competing products in violation of our proprietary rights generally. Any of these outcomes could impair our ability to prevent competition from third-parties, which may have a material adverse effect on our business.

Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained or are unable to adequately enforce patent protection to develop their own products and further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we have patent protection, but enforcement is not as strong as that in the United States and Europe. These products may compete with our products, and our patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing. Proceedings to enforce our patent rights, whether or not successful, could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and our patent applications at risk of not issuing, and could provoke third-parties to assert claims against us. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop or license.

The patent prosecution process is expensive and time-consuming, and we may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner. It is also possible that we may fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development output before it is too late to obtain patent protection. In addition, we or our licensors may only pursue, obtain or maintain patent protection in a limited number of countries. There is no assurance that all potentially relevant prior art relating to our patents and patent applications has been found. We may be unaware of prior art or other documents or experiments that could be used to invalidate an issued patent or prevent our pending patent applications from issuing as patents. Even if patents do successfully issue and even if such patents cover our products or product candidates, third-parties (including our licensees) may challenge their validity, enforceability or scope, which may result in such patents being narrowed or invalidated. Further, the existence of issued patents does not guarantee our right to practice the patented technology or commercialize the patented product. Third-parties may have or obtain rights to patents which they may use to prevent or attempt to prevent us from commercializing any of our patented product candidates, or which might require us to take license to such patents in order to be able to commercialize the respective product candidates. If these other parties are successful in obtaining valid and enforceable patents, and

25

establishing our infringement of those patents, we could be prevented from selling our products unless we were able to obtain a license under such third-party patents. In addition, third-parties may seek approval to market their own products similar to or otherwise competitive with our products. In these circumstances, we may need to defend and/or assert our patents, including by filing lawsuits alleging patent infringement. In any of these types of proceedings, a court or agency of competent jurisdiction may find our patents invalid and/or unenforceable.

Furthermore, even if they are unchallenged, our patents and patent applications may not adequately protect our intellectual property, provide exclusivity for our products or product candidates, prevent others from designing around our claims or otherwise provide us with a competitive advantage. Additionally, our confidentiality agreements and other contractual protections may not be adequate to protect our intellectual property from unauthorized disclosure, third-party infringement or misappropriation. We may not have adequate remedies in the case of a breach of any such agreements, and our trade secrets and other proprietary information could be disclosed to our competitors or others may independently develop substantially equivalent or superior proprietary information and techniques or otherwise gain access to our trade secrets or disclose such technologies. In addition, the research resulting in certain of our licensed patent rights and technology has been, and may in the future be, funded by the government or other institutional organizations that may have certain rights, including march-in rights, to such patent rights and technology.

If the patent applications we own or have in-licensed with respect to our product candidates fail to issue as patents, if their breadth or strength of protection is narrowed or threatened, or if they fail to provide meaningful exclusivity, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us and adversely affect our competitive position. We cannot offer any assurances about which, if any, patents will issue, the breadth of any such patents or whether any issued patents will be found invalid or unenforceable or will be threatened by third-parties. Any successful challenge to any patents owned by or licensed to us could deprive us of rights necessary for the successful commercialization of any product or product candidate that we may develop and could impair or eliminate our ability to collect future revenues and royalties with respect to such products or product candidates. Since patent applications in the United States and most other countries are confidential for a period of time after filing, and some remain so until issued, we cannot be certain that we were the first to file any patent application related to a product or product candidate. In addition, patents have a limited lifespan. In the United States and most foreign jurisdictions, the natural expiration of a patent is generally 20 years from the earliest filing date of a non-provisional patent application to which the patent claims priority. Various extensions may be available; however, the life of a patent and the protection it affords is limited. If we encounter delays in obtaining regulatory approvals, the period of time during which we could market a product under patent protection could be reduced. Even if patents covering our product candidates are obtained, once such patents expire, we may be vulnerable to competition from similar or biosimilar products. The launch of a biosimilar version of one of our products in particular would be likely to result in an immediate and substantial reduction in the demand for our product, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or prospects.

Obtaining and maintaining our patent protection, including patents licensed from third-parties, depends on compliance with various procedural, document submission, fee payment and other requirements imposed by governmental patent agencies, and our patent protection could be reduced or eliminated for non-compliance with these requirements.

The USPTO and foreign governmental patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other provisions during the patent process. There are situations in which non-compliance can result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application, resulting in partial loss, complete loss or unenforceability of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. In such an event, competitors might be able to enter the market earlier than would otherwise have been the case.

If we or our licensors fail to maintain the patents and patent applications covering or otherwise protecting our product candidates, it could materially harm our business. In addition, to the extent that we have responsibility

26

for taking any action related to the prosecution or maintenance of patents or patent applications in-licensed from a third-party, any failure on our part to maintain the in-licensed intellectual property could jeopardize our rights under the relevant license and may expose us to liability.

Third-parties might claim that we have not complied with the provisions of the respective governmental patent agencies. For example, third-parties might claim that not all prior art documents, or not all other documents or experiments, were submitted to the respective agencies under appropriate law. Such claims could lead to proceedings that are time-consuming and expensive. Such proceedings can result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application, resulting in partial loss, complete loss or unenforceability of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. If such third-party claims are raised in the context of a pending litigation, then such proceedings can also result in a judgment that would require us to pay the other parties’ litigation expenses.

We may be involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our patents, which could be expensive, time-consuming and unsuccessful.

Even if the patent applications we own or license are issued, competitors may infringe these patents. To counter infringement or unauthorized use, we may be required to file infringement claims, which can be expensive and time-consuming. For instance, we were involved in a patent litigation lawsuit as a plaintiff against Janssen Biotech Inc., Genmab A/S and Genmab US, Inc. at the District Court of Delaware seeking redress for alleged infringement in connection with the manufacture, use and sale of Janssen’s and Genmab’s daratumumab, an antibody targeting CD38, approved for the treatment of certain patients with MM. Defendants asserted that our patents are invalid and also raised a counterclaim of inequitable conduct. The U.S. District Court of Delaware, based on a hearing held November 27, 2018, has ruled in a Court Order on January 25, 2019, that the asserted claims of the MorphoSys patents are invalid. The Court thus granted a motion for Summary Judgement of invalidity filed by Janssen Biotech and Genmab A/S against the three patents held by MorphoSys. As a result of this decision, the jury trial scheduled to start February 11, 2019 to consider Janssen’s and Genmab’s alleged infringement and the validity of the MorphoSys patents did not take place. On January 31, 2019 we announced that we settled the dispute with Janssen Biotech and Genmab A/S. The parties agreed to drop the mutual claims related to the litigation: MorphoSys dismissed claims for alleged patent infringement against Janssen Biotech and Genmab A/S and will not appeal from the court order dated January 25, 2019. Janssen and Genmab dismissed their counterclaims against MorphoSys. In addition, Janssen, Genmab, Sanofi and Takeda opposed a European counterpart of the litigated U.S. patents, EP2511297. The patent was revoked in opposition proceedings. We appealed and the proceedings are currently pending.

In an infringement proceeding, a court may decide that a patent of ours or our licensors is not valid, is unenforceable and/or is not infringed, or may refuse to stop the other party from using the technology at issue on the grounds that our patents do not cover the technology in question. An adverse result in any litigation or defense proceedings could put our patents or our licensors’ patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and could put our patent applications at risk of not issuing.

Interference proceedings, or other similar enforcement and revocation proceedings, provoked by third-parties or brought by us may be necessary to determine the priority of inventions with respect to our patents or patent applications or those of our licensors. An unfavorable outcome could require us to cease using the related technology or to attempt to license rights to it from the prevailing party. Our business could be harmed if the prevailing party does not offer us a license on commercially reasonable terms. Our defense of litigation or interference proceedings may fail and, even if successful, may result in substantial costs and distract our management and other employees. We may not be able to prevent, alone or with our licensors, misappropriation of our intellectual property rights, particularly in countries where the laws may not protect those rights as fully as in the United States.

Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during

27

this type of litigation. There could also be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments. If securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a material adverse effect on the price of our common shares.

Even if resolved in our favor, litigation or other legal proceedings relating to our, our licensor’s or other third-parties’ intellectual property claims may cause us to incur significant expenses and could distract our personnel from their normal responsibilities. In addition, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions, or other interim proceedings or developments, and if securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a substantial adverse effect on the price of our ordinary shares. If not resolved in our favor, litigation may require us to pay any portion of our opponents’ legal fees. Such litigation or proceedings could substantially increase our operating losses and reduce the resources available for development activities or any future sales, marketing, or distribution activities. We may not have sufficient financial or other resources to conduct such litigation or proceedings adequately. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of such litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their greater financial resources and more mature and developed intellectual property portfolios. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings could have a material adverse effect on our ability to compete in the marketplace.

Developments in patent law could have a negative impact on our business.

From time to time, authorities in the United States, the European Union and other government authorities may change the standards of patentability, and any such changes could have a negative impact on our business.

For example, in the United States, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or the America Invents Act, which was signed into law in 2011, includes a number of significant changes to U.S. patent law. These changes include a transition from a “first-to-invent” system to a “first-to-file” system, changes to the way issued patents are challenged, and changes to the way patent applications are disputed during the examination process. As a result of these changes, patent law in the United States may favor larger and more established companies that have greater resources to devote to patent application filing and prosecution. The USPTO has developed new and untested regulations and procedures to govern the full implementation of the America Invents Act, and many of the substantive changes to patent law associated with the America Invents Act, and, in particular, the first-to-file provisions became effective on March 16, 2013. Substantive changes to patent law associated with the America Invents Act may affect our ability to obtain patents, and if obtained, to enforce or defend them.

Also, case law may have a substantial impact on the way patents are prosecuted, examined and litigated. This also affects the scope of protection that is available in a specific jurisdiction. In the United States, Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi 872 F.3d 1367 (2017) had an impact on the way antibody claims are examined and litigated.

Developments of patent law in other jurisdictions may impact our business. For example, it is currently not clear what impact the planned introduction of the Unified Patent Court in the European Union will have. Patents that are valid and enforceable under the current system may be considered invalid and/or unenforceable under the new system. Also patents may be invalidated not just in one single jurisdiction, but across all countries of the European Union in one single trial. Also the effect the impending withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union (“Brexit”) has on the patent system, in particular in connection with aforementioned Unified Patent Court, bears certain risks and uncertainties.

Our commercial success depends significantly on our ability to operate without infringing the patents and other proprietary rights of third-parties.

Our success will depend in part on our ability to operate without infringing the proprietary rights of third-parties. Other entities may have or obtain patents or proprietary rights that could limit our ability to make, use, sell, offer for sale or import our products and future approved products or impair our competitive position.

28

Patents could be issued to third-parties that we may ultimately be found to infringe. Third-parties may have or may obtain valid and enforceable patents or proprietary rights that could block us from developing product candidates using our technology. Our failure to identify or correctly interpret third-party patents, or to obtain or maintain a license to any technology that we require may materially harm our business, financial condition, results of operations or prospects. Furthermore, we could be exposed to a threat of litigation.

In the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry, significant litigation and other proceedings regarding patents, patent applications, trademarks and other intellectual property rights have become commonplace. The types of situations in which we may become a party to such litigation or proceedings include:

Any such lawsuit would be costly and could affect our results of operations and divert the attention of our management and scientific personnel. There is a risk that a court would decide that we or our collaborators are infringing the third-party’s patents and would order us or our collaborators to stop the activities covered by the patents. In that event, we or our collaborators may not have a viable alternative to the technology protected by the patent and may need to halt work on the affected product candidate or cease commercialization of an approved product. In addition, there is a risk that a court may order us or our collaborators to pay the other party damages. An adverse outcome in any litigation or other proceeding could subject us to significant liabilities to third-parties and require us to cease using the technology that is at issue or to license the technology from third-parties. We may not be able to obtain any required licenses on commercially acceptable terms or at all. Any of these outcomes could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or prospects.

The pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have produced a significant number of patents, and it may not always be clear to industry participants, including us, which patents cover various types of products or methods of use.

The coverage of patents is subject to interpretation by the courts, and the interpretation is not always uniform or predictable. If we are sued for patent infringement, we would need to demonstrate that our products, methods or uses thereof either do not infringe the patent claims of the relevant patent or that the patent claims are invalid or unenforceable, and we may not be able to do this. Proving invalidity is difficult. For example, in the United States, proving invalidity requires a showing of clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption of validity enjoyed by issued patents. Even if we are successful in these proceedings, we may incur substantial costs and divert management’s time and attention in pursuing these proceedings, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. If we are unable to avoid infringing the patent rights of others, we may be required to seek a license, defend an infringement action or challenge the validity or enforceability of the patents in court. We

29

may not have sufficient resources to bring these actions to a successful conclusion and there is no assurance that such a license would be available or that a court would find in our favor. In addition, if we do not obtain a license, do not develop or obtain non-infringing technology, or fail to defend an infringement action successfully or have infringed patents declared invalid or unenforceable, we may incur substantial monetary damages, encounter significant delays in bringing our product candidates to market and be precluded from manufacturing or selling our product candidates.

The cost of any patent litigation or other proceeding, even if resolved in our favor, could be substantial. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the cost of such litigation and proceedings more effectively than we can because of their substantially greater resources. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or prospects.

We are dependent on third-parties for the prosecution, protection, and enforcement of intellectual property rights relating to some of our products and product candidates.

While we normally seek to obtain the right to control the prosecution, maintenance, enforcement and defense of intellectual property rights related to our products and product candidates, there may be times when our licensors or collaborators control, or have a first right to control, the filing, prosecution, enforcement and defense of such rights. For instance, pursuant to the 2^nd amended and restated collaboration and license agreement with Novartis Pharma AG, or Novartis, Novartis has a first right to file, prosecute and enforce all patent rights related to products generated under this agreement. Also, pursuant to the development and license agreement with GlaxoSmithKline, or GSK, GSK has a first right to file, prosecute and enforce all patent rights related to otilimab and pursuant to the development and license agreement with Xencor Inc., or Xencor, Xencor has a first right to file, prosecute and enforce patent rights which are in-licensed by us and relate to tafasitamab. We cannot be certain that our licensors or collaborators will prosecute, maintain, enforce and defend such intellectual property rights in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business, including by taking reasonable measures to protect the confidentiality of know-how and trade secrets, or the payment of all applicable prosecution and maintenance fees related to our technologies or any of our product candidates. We also cannot be certain that the drafting or prosecution of the licensed patents by our licensors have been conducted accurately and in compliance with applicable laws and regulations, and will result in valid and enforceable patents and other intellectual property rights. If they fail to do so, we could lose our rights to the intellectual property, our ability to develop and commercialize those products or product candidates may be adversely affected and we may not be able to prevent competitors from making, using and selling competing products.

If trademarks and trade names related to our products or product candidates are not adequately protected, then we may not be able to build name recognition in our markets of interest and our business may be materially adversely affected.

Our registered or unregistered trademarks or trade names, as well as the registered or unregistered trademarks or trade names used by our licensees or distributors in relation with our products or product candidates, may be challenged, infringed, circumvented or declared generic or determined to be infringing on other trademarks. We may not be able to protect our rights to these trademarks and trade names, which we need to build name recognition by potential partners or customers. Over the long term, if we are unable to establish name recognition based on our trademarks and trade names, then we may not be able to compete effectively and our business may be materially adversely affected.

If we are unable to protect the confidentiality of our proprietary information, the value of our technology and products could be materially adversely affected.

In addition to patent protection, we also rely on other proprietary rights, including protection of trade secrets, and other proprietary information. To maintain the confidentiality of trade secrets and proprietary information, we

30

enter into confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants, collaborators, CMOs, CROs and others upon the commencement of their relationships with us. These agreements require that all confidential information developed by the individual or made known to the individual by us during the course of the individual’s relationship with us be kept confidential and not disclosed to third-parties. Our agreements with employees as well as our personnel policies also generally provide that any inventions conceived by the individual in the course of rendering services to us shall be our exclusive property or that we may obtain full rights to such inventions at our election. However, we may not obtain these agreements in all circumstances, and individuals with whom we have these agreements may not comply with their terms. We also face the risk that present or former employees could continue to hold rights to intellectual property used by us, may demand the registration of intellectual property rights in their name and demand damages pursuant to the German Employee Invention Act. In the event of unauthorized use or disclosure of our trade secrets or proprietary information, these agreements, even if obtained, may not provide meaningful protection, particularly for our trade secrets or other confidential information. To the extent that our employees, consultants or contractors use technology or know-how owned by third-parties in their work for us, disputes may arise between us and those third-parties as to the rights in related inventions. To the extent that an individual who is not obligated to assign rights in intellectual property to us is rightfully an inventor of intellectual property, we may need to obtain an assignment or a license to that intellectual property from that individual, or a third-party or from that individual’s assignee. Such assignment or license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all.

Adequate remedies may not exist in the event of unauthorized use or disclosure of our proprietary information. The disclosure of our trade secrets would impair our competitive position and may materially harm our business, financial condition and results of operations. Costly and time-consuming litigation could be necessary to enforce and determine the scope of our proprietary rights, and failure to maintain trade secret protection could adversely affect our competitive business position. In addition, others may independently discover or develop our trade secrets and proprietary information, and the existence of our own trade secrets affords no protection against such independent discovery.

As is common in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, we employ individuals who were previously or concurrently employed at research institutions and/or other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. We may be subject to claims that these employees, or we, have inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed trade secrets or other proprietary information of their former employers, or that patents and applications we have filed to protect inventions of these employees, even those related to one or more of our product candidates, are rightfully owned by their former or concurrent employer. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. Even if we are successful in defending against these claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management.

We may not be successful in obtaining necessary intellectual property rights to product candidates for our development pipeline through acquisitions and in-licenses.

Although we intend to develop product candidates through our own internal research, we may also seek to acquire or in-license product candidates to grow our product candidate pipeline. However, we may be unable to acquire or in-license intellectual property rights relating to, or necessary for, any such product candidates from third-parties on commercially reasonable terms or at all. In that event, we may be unable to develop or commercialize such product candidates. We may also be unable to identify product candidates that we believe are an appropriate strategic fit for our company and intellectual property relating to, or necessary for, such product candidates.

The in-licensing and acquisition of third-party intellectual property rights for product candidates is a competitive area, and a number of more established companies are also pursuing strategies to in-license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights for product candidates that we may consider attractive or necessary. These established companies may have a competitive advantage over us due to their size, cash resources and greater clinical development and commercialization capabilities. Furthermore, companies that perceive us to be a competitor

31

may be unwilling to assign or license rights to us. If we are unable to successfully obtain rights to suitable product candidates, our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects for growth could suffer.

In addition, we expect that competition for the in-licensing or acquisition of third-party intellectual property rights for product candidates that are attractive to us may increase in the future, which may mean fewer suitable opportunities for us as well as higher acquisition or licensing costs. We may be unable to in-license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights for product candidates on terms that would allow us to make an appropriate return on our investment.

We may not be able to adequately protect our intellectual property rights throughout the world.

Filing, prosecuting and defending patents on our products in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive. The requirements for patentability may differ in certain countries, particularly developing countries, and the breadth of patent claims allowed can be inconsistent. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries may not protect our intellectual property rights to the same extent as laws in the U.S. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third-parties from practicing our inventions in all countries outside the U.S. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to develop their own products and, furthermore, may export otherwise infringing products to territories in which we have patent protection that may not be sufficient to terminate infringing activities.

We do not have patent rights in certain foreign countries in which a market may exist. Moreover, in foreign jurisdictions where we do have patent rights, proceedings to enforce such rights could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly, and our patent applications at risk of not issuing. Additionally, such proceedings could provoke third-parties to assert claims against us. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. Thus, we may not be able to stop a competitor from marketing and selling in foreign countries products that are the same as or similar to our products, and our competitive position in the international market would be harmed.

Our intellectual property agreements with third-parties may be subject to disagreements over contract interpretation, which could narrow the scope of our rights to the relevant intellectual property or technology or increase our financial or other obligations to our licensors.

Certain provisions in our intellectual property agreements may be susceptible to multiple interpretations. The resolution of any contract interpretation disagreement that may arise could affect the scope of our rights to the relevant intellectual property or technology, or affect financial or other obligations under the relevant agreement, either of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

In addition, while it is our policy to require our employees and contractors who may be involved in the conception or development of intellectual property to execute agreements assigning such intellectual property to us, we may be unsuccessful in executing such an agreement with each party who in fact conceives or develops intellectual property that we regard as our own. Our assignment agreements may not be self-executing or may be breached, and we may be forced to bring claims against third-parties, or defend claims they may bring against us, to determine the ownership of what we regard as our intellectual property.

Risks Related to our Business and Industry

Our relationships with healthcare professionals, institutional providers, principal investigators, consultants, customers (actual and potential), patients and third-party payors are, and will continue to be, subject, directly and indirectly, to healthcare fraud and abuse, false claims, marketing expenditure tracking and disclosure, government price reporting, and health information privacy and security laws. If we are unable to comply, or

32

have not fully complied, with such laws, we could face penalties, including, without limitation, civil, criminal, and administrative penalties, damages, fines, exclusion from government-funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations.

Our business operations and activities may be directly or indirectly subject to various fraud and abuse laws, including, without limitation, the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and the federal False Claims Act. If we obtain FDA approval for any of our proprietary product candidates and begin commercializing those products in the United States, our potential exposure under such laws will increase significantly, and our costs associated with compliance with such laws are also likely to increase. These laws may impact, among other things, our current activities with principal investigators and research subjects, as well as proposed and future sales, marketing and education programs. In addition, we may be subject to patient privacy regulation by the federal government and state governments in which we conduct our business. The laws that may affect our ability to operate include, but are not limited to:

33

Some state laws require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government in addition to requiring manufacturers to report information related to payments to physicians and other healthcare providers or marketing expenditures and pricing information. State and foreign laws also govern the privacy and security of health information in some circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not preempted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts.

In addition, the regulatory approval and commercialization of any of our product candidates outside the United States will also likely subject us to foreign equivalents of the healthcare laws mentioned above, among other foreign laws.

In the European Union, the General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR, effective since May 2018, imposes strict regulations and establishes a series of requirements regarding the collection, storage and all other processing of personal data. The GDPR has extra-territorial application and applies where a company, based outside the European Union, processes personal data of individuals based in the European Union as a result of offering goods or services to individuals based in the EU and/or monitoring their behavior. We may incur substantial expense in complying with the new obligations imposed by the GDPR and we may be required to make significant changes in our business operations and development, all of which may adversely affect our revenue and our business overall. We could be adversely affected if we fail to comply fully with all of these requirements. Non-compliance with the GDPR can trigger significant fines of up to €20 million or 4% of total worldwide annual turnover, whichever is higher. In addition, the use and disclosure of personal health and other private information are subject to regulation in other jurisdictions in which we do business or expect to do business in the future. Those jurisdictions may attempt to apply such laws extraterritorially or through treaties or other arrangements with European governmental entities. We cannot assure you that our privacy and security policies and practices will be found sufficient to protect us from liability or adverse publicity relating to the privacy and security of personal information.

Further, on June 23, 2016, the UK held a referendum in which a majority of the eligible members of the electorate voted to leave the EU. The UK’s withdrawal from the EU is commonly referred to as Brexit. Pursuant to Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, the UK ceased being a Member State of the EU on January 31, 2020. However, the terms of the withdrawal have yet to be fully negotiated. The implementation period began February 1, 2020 and will continue until December 31, 2020. During this 11-month period, the UK will continue to follow all of the EU’s rules and its trading relationship will remain the same. However, regulations (including data protection laws, health and safety laws and regulations and medicine licensing and regulations), have yet to be addressed. This lack of clarity on future UK laws and regulations and their interaction with EU laws and regulations could add legal risk, uncertainty, complexity and cost to our handling of EU personal information and

34

our privacy and data security compliance programs. It is possible that over time the UK Data Protection Act could become less aligned with the EU General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR, which could require us to implement different compliance measures for the UK and the European Union and result in potentially enhanced compliance obligations for EU personal data. This risk would apply more immediately in the event of a “no-deal” Brexit (including no transition period).

In light of Brexit, it is unclear whether the European Commission, or EC, will grant an adequacy finding to the UK (a finding that the UK privacy legal framework provides an adequate level of privacy protection to EU individuals). Absent an adequacy finding, transfers of personal data from the EU to the UK would be impermissible without adequate safeguards provided for under EC-approved mechanisms, such as current standard contractual clauses or, if approved in the future, an EU – UK privacy shield similar to the current framework in place between the EU and the U.S. The extensive authority of UK intelligence and law enforcement agencies, including to conduct surveillance on personal data flows, could reduce the likelihood that the EC would give the UK an adequacy finding, and reduce the likelihood that the EC would approve an EU – UK privacy shield. Accordingly, we could be exposed to legal risk for any of our EU-UK personal data transfers, including those that involve sensitive data such as patient and genetic data.

Efforts to ensure that our business arrangements will comply with applicable healthcare laws may involve substantial costs. It is possible that governmental and enforcement authorities will conclude that our business practices may not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law interpreting applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If we are unable to comply, or have not fully complied, with such laws, we could face penalties, including, without limitation, civil, criminal, and administrative penalties, damages, fines, individual imprisonment, exclusion from government-funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations. Additionally, if our collaborators’ operations or relationships with healthcare providers, customers, patients and third-party payors are found to be non-compliant with applicable laws, they may be subject to criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government-funded healthcare programs, which could also have a negative impact on us. Even if successful, defending against any such actions can be costly, time-consuming and may require significant financial and personnel resources. We may become exposed to costly and damaging liability claims, either when testing our product candidates in the clinic or at the commercial stage; and our product liability insurance may not cover all damages from such claims.

We are exposed to potential product liability and professional indemnity risks that are inherent in the research, development, manufacturing, marketing and use of pharmaceutical products.

The use of our investigational medicinal products in clinical trials and the sale of any approved products in the future may expose us to liability claims. These claims might be made by patients who use the product, healthcare providers, pharmaceutical companies or others selling such products. Any claims against us, regardless of their merit, could be difficult and costly to defend and could materially adversely affect the market for our product candidates or any prospects for commercialization of our product candidates.

Although the clinical trial process is designed to identify and assess potential side effects, it is always possible that a product, even after regulatory approval, may exhibit unforeseen side effects. If any of our product candidates were to cause adverse side effects during clinical trials or after approval of the product candidate, we may be exposed to substantial liabilities. Physicians and patients may not comply with any warnings that identify known potential adverse effects and patients who should not use our product candidates.

To cover such liability claims, we purchase clinical trial insurances in the conduct of each of our clinical trials. It is possible that our liabilities could exceed our insurance coverage or that our insurance will not cover all situations in which a claim against us could be made. We also intend to expand our insurance coverage to include the sale of commercial products if we receive marketing approval for any of our proprietary products. However, we may not be able to maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost or obtain insurance coverage that will be

35

adequate to satisfy any liability that may arise. If a successful product liability claim or series of claims is brought against us for uninsured liabilities or in excess of insured liabilities, our assets may not be sufficient to cover such claims and our business operations could be impaired. Should any of the events described above occur, this could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations, including, but not limited to:

We could be adversely affected if we are subject to negative publicity. We could also be adversely affected if any of our products or any similar products distributed by other companies prove to be, or are asserted to be, harmful to patients. Any adverse publicity associated with illness or other adverse effects resulting from patients’ use or misuse of our products or any similar products distributed by other companies could have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations or prospects.

Even if we, or any future collaborators, are able to commercialize any product candidate that we, or they, develop, the product may become subject to unfavorable pricing regulations or third-party payor coverage and reimbursement policies, any of which could materially harm our business.

Patients who are provided medical treatment for their conditions generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the costs associated with their treatment. Therefore, our ability, and the ability of any future collaborators to commercialize any of our product candidates will depend, in part, on the extent to which coverage and reimbursement for these products and related treatments will be available from third-party payors including government health administration authorities and private health coverage insurers. Third-party payors decide which medications they will cover and establish reimbursement levels. We cannot be certain that coverage will be available and reimbursement will be adequate for any of our product candidates. Also, we cannot be certain that reimbursement policies will not reduce the demand for, or the price paid for, our products.

Obtaining coverage and adequate reimbursement for our products may be particularly difficult because of the higher prices often associated with drugs administered under the supervision of a physician. A decision by a third-party payor not to cover our products could reduce physician utilization of our products once approved. Even if coverage is provided, the approved reimbursement amount may not be high enough to allow us, or any future collaborators, to establish or maintain pricing sufficient to realize a sufficient return on our or their investment. In the United States, no uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for products exists among third-party payors and coverage and reimbursement for products can differ significantly from payor to payor. As a result, the coverage determination process is often a time-consuming and costly process that will require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our products to each payor separately, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be applied consistently or obtained in the first instance.

36

In addition, increasingly, third-party payors are requiring higher levels of evidence of the benefits and clinical outcomes of new technologies and are challenging prices. We cannot be sure that coverage will be available for any product candidate that we, or any future collaborator, commercialize and, if available, that the reimbursement rates will be adequate. Further, the net reimbursement for products may be subject to additional reductions if there are changes to laws that presently restrict imports of drugs from one country to another. An inability to promptly obtain coverage and adequate payment rates from both government-funded and private payors for any of our product candidates for which we, or any future collaborator, obtain marketing approval could significantly harm our operating results, our ability to raise the capital needed to commercialize products and our overall financial condition.

Price controls may be imposed in certain markets, which may adversely affect our future profitability.

In some countries, particularly member states of the European Union, the pricing of prescription drugs is subject to governmental control. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after receipt of marketing approval for a product. In addition, there can be considerable pressure by governments and other stakeholders on prices and reimbursement levels, including as part of cost containment measures. Political, economic and regulatory developments may further complicate pricing negotiations, and pricing negotiations may continue after reimbursement has been obtained. Reference pricing used by various countries and parallel distribution, or arbitrage between low-priced and high-priced countries, can further reduce prices. In some countries, in particular, in many member states of the European Union, we may be required to conduct a clinical trial or other studies that compare the cost-effectiveness of our product candidates to other available therapies in order to obtain or maintain reimbursement or pricing approval. Publication of discounts by third-party payors or authorities may lead to further pressure on the prices or reimbursement levels within the country of publication and other countries. If reimbursement of our products is unavailable or limited in scope or amount, or if pricing is set at unsatisfactory levels, our business, financial condition, results of operations or prospects could be materially adversely affected.

Current and future legislation may increase the difficulty and cost for us and any collaborators to obtain marketing approval of and commercialize our product candidates and affect the prices we, or they, may obtain.

In the United States and foreign jurisdictions, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system that could prevent or delay marketing approval of our product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities and affect our ability to profitably sell any product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. We expect that current laws, as well as other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future, may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding, more rigorous coverage criteria, new payment methodologies and in additional downward pressure on the price that we, or any collaborators, may receive for any approved products.

In 2010, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was signed into law in the United States. Among the provisions of the ACA of potential importance to our business and our product candidates are the following:

37

Since its enactment, there have been judicial and congressional challenges to numerous aspects of the ACA and some provisions of the ACA have been repealed. There likely will continue to be administrative, legal and legislative changes, including modification, repeal, or replacement of all, or certain provisions of, the ACA.

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted. In August 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, included aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect in April 2013 and will remain in effect through 2029 unless additional congressional action is taken. The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to several providers and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. These new laws may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding and otherwise affect the prices we may obtain for any of our product candidates for which we may obtain regulatory approval or the frequency with which any such product candidate is prescribed or used.

The costs of prescription pharmaceuticals in the United States has also been the subject of considerable discussion in the United States, and members of Congress and the Administration have stated that they will address such costs through new legislative and administrative measures. There have been several U.S. congressional inquiries and proposed bills designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, reduce the cost of prescription drugs under Medicare, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs. For example, on December 18, 2019, President Trump, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and the FDA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking that, if finalized, would allow for the importation of certain prescription drugs from Canada. The FDA also issued a Draft Guidance document outlining a potential pathway for manufacturers to obtain an additional National Drug Code, or NDC, for an FDA-approved drug that was originally intended to be marketed in a foreign country and that was authorized for sale in that foreign country. The regulatory and market implications of the notice of proposed rulemaking and Draft Guidance are unknown at this time, but legislation, regulations or policies allowing the reimportation of drugs, if enacted and implemented, could decrease the price we receive for our products and adversely affect our future revenues and prospects for profitability.

In addition, individual states have also become increasingly active in passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access, and to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing.

The policies of the FDA or similar regulatory authorities may change and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of our product candidates. For example, in December 2016, the 21st Century Cures Act, or Cures Act, was signed into law. The Cures Act, among other things, is intended to modernize the regulation of drugs and biologics and spur innovation, but it has not yet been implemented and its ultimate implementation is unclear. If we or our collaborators are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we or our collaborators are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, our product candidates may lose any regulatory approval that may have been obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability, which would adversely affect our business.

38

We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action, either in the United States or abroad. For example, certain policies of the Trump administration may impact our business and industry. Namely, the Trump administration has taken several executive actions, including the issuance of a number of Executive Orders, that could impose significant burdens on, or otherwise materially delay, the FDA’s ability to engage in routine regulatory and oversight activities such as implementing statutes through rulemaking, issuance of guidance, and review and approval of marketing applications. If these executive actions impose constraints on the FDA’s ability to engage in oversight and implementation activities in the normal course, our business may be negatively impacted.

We cannot predict whether future healthcare legislative or policy changes will be implemented at the federal or state level or in countries outside of the United States in which we may do business, or the effect any future legislation or regulation will have on us.

Additionally, in the case of any United States federal government shutdown, now or in the future, that continued for a prolonged period of time, FDA review and approval processes, FDA interactions during clinical development, and coverage and reimbursement determinations could be delayed. Resolving such delays could force us or our collaborators to incur significant costs, could limit our allowed activities or the allowed activities of our collaborators, could diminish any competitive advantages that we or our collaborators may attain or could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects, the value of our common stock and our ability to bring new products to market as forecasted. Even without such delay, there is no guarantee we will receive approval or reimbursement for our product candidates on a timely basis, or at all.

We and our contract manufacturers and our suppliers could be subject to liabilities, fines, penalties or other sanctions under environmental, health and safety laws and regulations if we or they fail to comply with such laws or regulations or otherwise incur costs that could have a material adverse effect on our business.

We currently rely on and expect to continue to rely on third-parties for the manufacturing and supply of active pharmaceutical ingredients, or API, and drug products of our product candidates. These third-parties are subject to numerous environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, including those governing laboratory procedures and the handling, transportation, use, storage, treatment and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes. Although we have auditing rights and obligations (according to cGMP regulations for sponsors of clinical trials) with all our CMOs for production of API and drug products, we do not have control over a manufacturer’s or supplier’s compliance with environmental, health and safety laws and regulations. Liabilities they incur pursuant to these laws and regulations could result in significant costs or in certain circumstances, an interruption in operations, any of which could adversely affect our business and financial condition if delayed manufacturing activities impact our clinical development activities.

With respect to any hazardous materials or waste which we are currently, or in the future will be, handling, using, storing or disposing of, we cannot eliminate the risk of contamination or injury from these materials or waste, including at third-party disposal sites. In the event of such contamination or injury, we could be held liable for any resulting damages and liability. We also could incur significant costs associated with civil or criminal fines and penalties for failure to comply with applicable environmental, health and safety laws. In addition, we may incur substantial costs in order to comply with current or future environmental, health and safety laws and regulations. These current or future laws and regulations may impair our research, development or production efforts. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations may also result in substantial fines, penalties or other sanctions.

We may not be successful in our efforts to use and expand our lanthipeptide technology platform.

We are using our proprietary lanthipeptide technology platform to generate peptide product candidates that exhibit enhanced target-selectivity and stability. Our lanthipeptide technology platform has led to one

39

clinical-stage product candidate MOR107. Potential risk factors for further development of MOR107 or other product candidates we identify using our lanthipeptide technology platform are: 1) insufficient efficacy in combination with or when compared with standard of care, 2) appearance or market entry of molecules in the same indication that may be clinically superior and thereby limit the market potential for product candidates derived from our lanthipeptide technology platform, 3) delays in development that cause a limited remaining time in matter of composition patent protection and 4) inability to demonstrate an acceptable tolerability profile for our product candidates. We only have limited safety information, to date, regarding MOR107 from a single ascending dose clinical phase 1 trial. Neither safety at higher doses than tested, nor after longer treatment than tested, nor safety at multiple ascending doses have been established yet. We are at a very early-stage of development and the lanthipeptide technology platform has not yet, and may never lead to, approved or marketable peptide products, including with respect to MOR107. Even if we are successful in continuing to build our lanthipeptide pipeline, the potential product candidates that we identify may not be suitable for clinical development, including as a result of harmful side effects, unsuitable pharmacodynamics and / or unsuitable pharmacokinetics, futility or other characteristics that indicate that such products are unlikely to receive marketing approval and achieve market acceptance. If we are not able to successfully develop and commercialize peptide product candidates based upon our lanthipeptide platform technology, our business, prospects, financial conditions and results of operations may be materially adversely affected.

Our internal computer systems, or those of our collaborators or other contractors or consultants, may fail or suffer security breaches, which could result in a material disruption of our product development programs.

Our computer systems and those of our current and any future collaborators and other contractors or consultants are vulnerable to damage from cyber-attacks, computer viruses, natural disasters, terrorism, war and telecommunication and electrical failures. While we have not experienced any such computer system failure, accident or security breach to date, if such an event were to occur and cause interruptions in our operations, it could result in a material disruption of our development programs and our business operations, whether due to a loss of our trade secrets or other proprietary information or other disruptions. For example, the loss of clinical trial data from completed or future clinical trials could result in delays in our regulatory approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data. To the extent that any disruption or security breach were to result in a loss of, or damage to, our data or applications, or inappropriate disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, we could incur liability, our competitive position could be harmed and the further development and commercialization of our product candidates could be delayed.

Our product candidates for which we intend to seek approval as biologic products may face competition sooner than anticipated.

The ACA includes a subtitle called the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, or BPCIA, which created an abbreviated approval pathway for biological products that are biosimilar to or interchangeable with an FDA-licensed reference biological product. Under the BPCIA, an application for a biosimilar product may not be submitted to the FDA until four years following the date that the referenced product was first licensed by the FDA. In addition, the approval of a biosimilar product may not be made effective by the FDA until 12 years from the date on which the reference product was first licensed. During this 12-year period of exclusivity, another company may still market a competing version of the reference product if the FDA approves a full BLA for the competing product containing the sponsor’s own preclinical data and data from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to demonstrate the safety, purity and potency of their product. The law is complex and is still being interpreted and implemented by the FDA. As a result, its ultimate impact, implementation, and meaning are subject to uncertainty and evolving interpretation. While it is uncertain when such processes intended to implement BPCIA may be fully adopted by the FDA, any such processes could have a material adverse effect on the future commercial prospects for our biological products.

One or more of our product candidates approved as a biological product under a BLA may qualify for the 12-year period of exclusivity. However, there is a risk that this exclusivity could be shortened due to congressional action

40

or otherwise, or that the FDA will not consider our product candidates to be reference products for competing products, potentially creating the opportunity for generic competition sooner than anticipated. Other aspects of the BPCIA, some of which may impact the BPCIA exclusivity provisions, have also been the subject of recent litigation. Moreover, the extent to which a biosimilar, once approved, will be substituted for any one of our reference products in a way that is similar to traditional generic substitution for non-biological products is not yet clear, and will depend on a number of marketplace and regulatory factors that are still developing.

We face substantial competition from companies with considerably more resources and experience than we have, which may result in others discovering, developing, receiving approval for or commercializing products before or more successfully than us.

The pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries are characterized by intense competition and significant and rapid technological change as researchers learn more about diseases and develop new technologies and treatments. Any product candidates that we successfully develop and commercialize will compete with existing products and new products that may become available in the future. We have competitors in each of the disease fields in which we research and develop our product candidates, many of whom have substantially greater name recognition, commercial infrastructure and financial, technical and personnel resources than we have. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through partnerships with larger and established companies. Significant competitive factors in our industry include product efficacy and safety, quality and breadth of an organization’s technology, skill of an organization’s employees and its ability to recruit and retain key employees, timing and scope of regulatory approvals, reimbursement for, and the average selling price of, products, the availability of raw materials and qualified manufacturing capacity, manufacturing costs, intellectual property and patent rights and their protection and commercialization capabilities. While we believe that our product candidate platform, antibody discovery and development expertise and scientific knowledge provide us with competitive advantages, we face potential competition from many different sources, including major pharmaceutical, specialty pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, academic institutions and governmental agencies and public and private research institutions. Particularly in the case of tafasitamab, we compete with all companies that have products on the market or are developing product candidates for r/r DLBCL. With regard to our other proprietary or partnered product candidates, we are, alone or in partnerships, for example, developing products to combat diseases such as multiple myeloma, other cancers, psoriasis, Alzheimer’s, where our competitors primarily are comprised of large pharmaceutical companies, including Roche, Celgene, Novartis, Janssen, Gilead, Abbvie and many others. This competition includes a number of alternative therapies to combat such diseases that are being researched and are in various stages of development and commercialization. Should these therapies prove effective, it could reduce the potential size of the market for our products. Given the intense competition in our industry, we cannot assure you that any of the products that we develop will be clinically superior or scientifically or commercially preferable to products developed or introduced by our competitors.

In addition, significant delays in the development of our product candidates could allow our competitors to succeed in obtaining the FDA, the EMA or other regulatory approvals for their product candidates more rapidly than us, which could place us at a significant competitive disadvantage or deny us marketing exclusivity rights.

Competitors may develop novel products or other technologies that could make our product candidates obsolete or uneconomical. Any of our product candidates that competes with an approved product may need to demonstrate compelling advantages, such as increased efficacy, convenience, pricing, tolerability and/or safety in order to be commercially successful. Any of our product candidates that are approved could also face other competitive factors in the future, including biosimilar competition, which could force us to lower prices or could result in reduced sales. If we fail to respond to this environment by improving our products, by licensing new third-party products or by developing new product candidates in a timely fashion, or if such new or improved products do not achieve adequate market acceptance, our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects could be materially and adversely affected.

41

Lastly, many of our competitors have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in R&D, including manufacturing, conducting preclinical studies and clinical trials, as well as in obtaining regulatory and reimbursement approvals and marketing and selling products. Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of competitors, particularly through partnership arrangements with large established companies. These companies also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel and establishing clinical trial sites and patient recruitment for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs.

Our future success depends on our ability to retain key executives and to attract and motivate qualified personnel.

We are highly dependent on the expertise of the members of our research and development team, as well as the other principal members of our management, including Dr. Jean-Paul Kress, our Chief Executive Officer, Jens Holstein, our Chief Financial Officer and Dr. Malte Peters, our Chief Development Officer. Our Management Board members have fixed-term contracts typically of three years.

Recruiting and retaining qualified management, scientific, clinical, manufacturing, sales and marketing personnel is also critical to our success. The loss of the services of our executive officers or other key employees could impede the achievement of our research, development and commercialization objectives and seriously harm our ability to successfully implement our business strategy. Furthermore, replacing executive officers and key employees may be difficult and may take an extended period of time because of the limited number of individuals in our industry with the breadth of skills and experience required to successfully develop, gain regulatory approval of and commercialize drugs. Competition to hire from this limited pool is intense, and we may be unable to hire, train, retain or motivate these key personnel on acceptable terms given the competition among numerous pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies for similar personnel. We also experience competition for the hiring of scientific and clinical personnel. Failure to succeed in clinical trials may make it more challenging to recruit and retain qualified scientific personnel.

We may acquire businesses or products, or form strategic alliances, in the future, and we may not realize the benefits of such acquisitions.

We may acquire additional businesses or products, form strategic alliances or create joint ventures with third-parties that we believe will complement or augment our existing business. We may encounter numerous difficulties in developing, manufacturing and marketing any new products resulting from a strategic alliance or acquisition that delays or prevents us from realizing their expected benefits or enhancing our business. If we acquire businesses with promising products or technologies, we may not be able to realize the benefit of acquiring such businesses if, for instance, we are unable to successfully integrate them with our existing operations and company culture. We cannot assure you that, following any such acquisition, we will achieve the expected synergies to justify the transaction. If we are unsuccessful in realizing any of the benefits following an acquisition, we may incur impairment charges in respect of the assets acquired, which could adversely affect our results of operations.

We may be subject to tax audits or disputes or changes in tax laws.

Pending and future tax audits within our group, disputes with tax authorities and changes in tax law or fiscal regulations could lead to additional tax liabilities. We are subject to routine tax audits by the respective local tax authorities. Any additional tax liability could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or prospects.

We are subject to currency exchange rate fluctuations.

Due to the international scope of our operations, our assets, earnings and cash flows are influenced by movements in exchange rates of several currencies, particularly the U.S. dollar and the euro. Our functional

42

currency is the euro and the majority of our operating expenses are paid in euros, but we also receive payments from our collaboration partners in U.S. dollars and we regularly acquire services, consumables and materials in U.S. dollars. Further, future revenue will be derived from abroad, particularly from the United States. As a result, our business may be affected by fluctuations in foreign exchange rates between the euro and the U.S. dollar, which may also have a significant impact on our reported results of operations and cash flows from period to period.

We do not currently intend to pay dividends on our securities, and, consequently, your ability to achieve a return on your investment will depend on appreciation in the price of our shares.

We have never declared or paid any dividends on our ordinary shares and do not intend to do so in the foreseeable future. You are not likely to receive any dividends on our shares, and the success of an investment in our shares will depend upon any future appreciation in its value. Investors may need to sell all or part of their holdings of our shares after price appreciation, which may never occur, to realize any future gains on their investment. There is no guarantee that our shares will appreciate in value or even maintain the price at which our shareholders have purchased our shares.

Holders of our ADSs may not be able to participate in any future preemptive subscription rights issues or to elect to receive dividends in shares, which may cause dilution to their holdings.

Under German law, the existing shareholders have a preemptive right to subscribe for shares offered in proportion to the number of shares they hold in connection with any offering of shares. However, a shareholders’ meeting may vote, by a majority, which represents at least three quarters of the share capital represented at the meeting, to waive this preemptive right provided that, from the company’s perspective, there exists good and objective cause for such waiver.

Certain non-German shareholders may not be able to exercise their preemptive subscription rights in our future offerings due to the legislation and regulations of their home country. For example, ADS holders in the United States will not be entitled to exercise or sell such rights unless we register the rights and the securities to which the rights relate under the Securities Act or an exemption from the registration requirements is available. In addition, the deposit agreement provides that the depositary need not make rights available to you unless the distribution to ADS holders of both the rights and any related securities are either registered under the Securities Act or exempted from registration under the Securities Act. We are under no obligation to file a registration statement with respect to any such rights or securities or to endeavor to cause such a registration statement to be declared effective. Moreover, we may not be able to establish an exemption from registration under the Securities Act. Accordingly, ADS holders may be unable to participate in our rights offerings and may experience dilution in their holdings. In addition, if the depositary is unable to sell rights that are not exercised or not distributed or if the sale is not lawful or reasonably practicable, it will allow the rights to lapse, in which case you will receive no value for these rights.

As a foreign private issuer, we are permitted to adopt certain home country practices in relation to corporate governance matters that differ significantly from Nasdaq corporate governance listing standards. These practices may afford less protection to shareholders than they would enjoy if we complied fully with corporate governance listing standards.

We are a “foreign private issuer,” as defined in the SEC’s rules and regulations. The Nasdaq Listing Rules include certain accommodations in the corporate governance requirements that allow foreign private issuers to follow “home country” corporate governance practices in lieu of the otherwise applicable corporate governance standards of Nasdaq. The application of such exceptions requires that we disclose the Nasdaq Listing Rules that we do not follow and describe the German corporate governance practices we do follow in lieu of the relevant Nasdaq corporate governance standard. We continue to follow German corporate governance practices in lieu of the corporate governance requirements of Nasdaq in certain respects. In particular, we follow German corporate

43

governance practices in connection with the distribution of annual and interim reports to shareholders, the application of our code of conduct to our Supervisory Board, proxy solicitation in connection with shareholders’ meetings, and obtaining shareholder approval in connection with the issuance of shares in connection with an acquisition, change of control transactions, the establishment of or material amendment to any equity-based compensation plans and the issuance of shares in a private placement in excess of 20% of the outstanding share capital at less than the greater of book or market value. To this extent, our practice varies from the requirements of Nasdaq.

U.S. holders of ADSs may suffer adverse tax consequences if we are characterized as a passive foreign investment company.

A non-U.S. corporation will be classified as a passive foreign investment company, or PFIC, for U.S. federal income tax purposes for any taxable year, if either (i) 75% or more of its gross income for such year consists of certain types of “passive” income or (ii) 50% or more of the value of its assets (determined on the basis of a quarterly average) during such year produce or are held for the production of passive income. Passive income generally includes dividends, interest, royalties, rents, annuities, net gains from the sale or exchange of property producing such income and net foreign currency gains. In addition, a non-U.S. corporation will be treated as owning its proportionate share of the assets and earning its proportionate share of the income of any other corporation in which it owns, directly or indirectly, more than 25% (by value) of the stock.

We do not believe we were a PFIC for the 2019 taxable year, and we do not expect to be treated as a PFIC in any future taxable year for the foreseeable future. However, because PFIC status is based on our income, assets and activities for the entire taxable year, which we expect may vary substantially over time, it is not possible to determine whether we will be characterized as a PFIC for any taxable year until after the close of the taxable year. Moreover, we must determine our PFIC status annually based on tests that are factual in nature, and our status in future years will depend on our income, assets and activities in each of those years. There can be no assurance that we will not be considered a PFIC for any taxable year.

If we were to be or become a PFIC for any taxable year during which a U.S. holder (defined below in “Taxation—U.S. Taxation”) holds ADSs, certain adverse U.S. federal income tax consequences could apply to such U.S. holder. See “Taxation—U.S. Taxation—PFIC Rules.”

The interpretation of the treatment of ADSs by the German tax authorities is subject to change.

The specific treatment of ADSs under German tax law is based on administrative provisions by the fiscal authorities, which are not codified law and are subject to change. Tax authorities may modify their interpretation and the current treatment of ADSs may change, as the circular issued by the German Federal Ministry of Finance (BMF-Schreiben), dated November 8, 2017, reference number IV C 1 – S 1980-1/16/10010:10, shows. According to this new circular, ADSs are not treated as capital participation (Kapitalbeteiligung) within the meaning of Section 2 Para. 8 of the Investment Tax Code (Investmentsteuergesetz). Such changes in the interpretation by the fiscal authorities may have adverse effects on the taxation of investors.

We may lose our foreign private issuer status in the future, which could result in significant additional cost and expense.

While we currently qualify as a foreign private issuer, the determination of foreign private issuer status is made annually on the last business day of an issuer’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter.

We may lose our foreign private issuer status if (a) a majority of our outstanding voting securities are either directly or indirectly owned of record by residents of the United States and (b)(i) a majority of our executive officers or directors are U.S. citizens or residents, (ii) more than 50% of our assets are located in the United

44

States or (iii) our business is administered principally outside the United States. If we will not be a foreign private issuer, we will be required to file periodic reports and registration statements on U.S. domestic issuer forms with the SEC, which are more extensive than the forms available to a foreign private issuer. We would also be required to follow U.S. proxy disclosure requirements, including the requirement to disclose, under U.S. law, more detailed information about the compensation of our senior executive officers on an individual basis. We may also be required to modify certain of our policies to comply with accepted governance practices associated with U.S. domestic issuers. Such conversion and modifications will involve increased costs. In addition, we would lose our ability to rely upon exemptions from certain corporate governance requirements on U.S. stock exchanges that are available to foreign private issuers, as described in the previous risk factor above.

Our foreign private issuer status will be tested on June 30 of each year. We expect that we will maintain our status on June 30, 2020, but in the future, we may lose that status. This could occur if, for instance, a majority of our shareholders of record were U.S. citizens or residents and a majority of the executive officers or directors were U.S. citizens or residents or if a majority of our assets were located in the U.S.

The regulatory and compliance costs to us under U.S. securities laws as a U.S. domestic issuer may be significantly higher than the costs we incur as a foreign private issuer. If we are not a foreign private issuer, we will be required to file periodic reports and registration statements on U.S. domestic issuer forms with the SEC, which are more detailed and extensive in certain respects than the forms available to a foreign private issuer. We would be required under current SEC rules to prepare our financial statements in accordance with U.S. GAAP rather than IFRS. Such conversion of our financial statements to U.S. GAAP would involve significant time and cost, and we would still be required to prepare financial statements in accordance with IFRS under the rules of the Frankfurt Stock Exchange. In addition, we may lose our ability to rely upon exemptions from certain corporate governance requirements on United States stock exchanges that are available to foreign private issuers such as the ones described above and exemptions from procedural requirements related to the solicitation of proxies.

We will continue to incur increased costs as a public company, particularly as we no longer qualify as an “emerging growth company”.

As a public company with ADSs listed on the Nasdaq Global Market, we incur significant legal, accounting and other expenses that we did not incur as a private company. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as well as rules subsequently implemented by the SEC and the Nasdaq Global Market, impose various requirements on the corporate governance practices of public companies. These and other rules and requirements may increase or change, resulting in an increase of our legal and financial compliance costs. Operating as a public company also makes it more difficult and more expensive for us to obtain director and officer liability insurance, and we may be required to accept reduced policy limits and coverage or incur substantially higher costs to obtain the same or similar coverage. It may also be more difficult for us to attract qualified persons to serve on our board of directors or as executive officers.

As we no longer qualify as an emerging growth company, we can no longer take advantage of reduced reporting requirements applicable to emerging growth companies. For example, we now must comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Complying with Section 404 may be costly and management’s attention may be diverted from other business concerns, which could adversely affect our business and results of operations.

U.S. investors may have difficulty enforcing civil liabilities against our company and members of our Supervisory Board and Management Board and the experts named in this report.

We are incorporated under the laws of Germany. The majority of our assets are located outside the United States and all of the members of our Management Board and four out of seven Supervisory Board members reside outside of the United States. As a result, effecting service of process upon such persons may require compliance

45

with international treaty procedures that could cause delay and in some case interfere with establishing personal jurisdiction in front of U.S. courts. The United States and Germany do not currently have a treaty providing for reciprocal recognition and enforceability of judgments rendered in connection with civil and commercial disputes and, accordingly, a final judgment rendered by a U.S. court based on civil liability would not automatically be recognized or enforceable in Germany. Therefore enforcing against members of our Management Board or Supervisory Board or against us, judgments obtained in U.S. courts’ that are predicated upon the civil liability provisions of the U.S. federal securities laws may be impossible under German law as a result of public policy or jurisprudence providing defenses for German nationals. Foreign courts may refuse to consider claims brought under U.S. securities laws on either procedural grounds or substantive grounds. Even if a foreign court is willing to decide the merits of such a claim, it may decide to apply the law of the jurisdiction in which the foreign court is located, rather than U.S. law.

Further, if a foreign court applies U.S. law, the burden of proving applicable U.S. law will fall on the party making the claims, a process that may be time-consuming and costly. Procedural matters are typically governed by the law of the jurisdiction in which the foreign court is located. We have been advised by Goodwin Procter LLP.

The rights of shareholders in a stock corporation subject to German law differ in material respects from the rights of shareholders of corporations incorporated in the United States.

We are a German stock corporation with our registered office in Germany. Our corporate affairs are governed by the laws governing stock corporations incorporated in Germany and our articles of association. The rights of shareholders and the responsibilities of members of our Management Board (Vorstand) and Supervisory Board (Aufsichtsrat) may be different from the rights and obligations of shareholders in companies governed by the laws of U.S. jurisdictions. In the performance of their duties, our Management Board and Supervisory Board may take into account a broad range of considerations, including our interests, the interests of our shareholders, employees, creditors and, to a limited extent, the general public. It is possible that some of these parties will have interests that are different from, or in addition to, your interests as a holder of ADSs. See Item 16G “Corporate Governance”.

If we fail to maintain an effective system of internal control over financial reporting, we may not be able to accurately report our financial results or prevent fraud. As a result, shareholders could lose confidence in our financial and other public reporting, which would harm our business and the trading price of our shares.

Effective internal controls over financial reporting are necessary for us to provide reliable financial reports and, together with adequate disclosure controls and procedures, are designed to prevent fraud. Any failure to implement required new or improved controls, or difficulties encountered in their implementation could cause us to fail to meet our reporting obligations. In addition, any testing conducted by us in connection with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, or any subsequent testing conducted by our independent registered public accounting firm, may reveal deficiencies in our internal controls over financial reporting that are deemed to be material weaknesses or that may require prospective or retroactive changes to our financial statements, or identify other areas for further attention or improvement. Inferior internal controls could also cause investors to lose confidence in our reported financial information, which could have a negative effect on the trading price of our shares.

MorphoSys AG. We are registered in the commercial register of the local court of Munich under number HRB 121023 on June 30, 1998. In 1999, MorphoSys was listed at the Frankfurt Stock Exchange, trading under the ticker symbol “MOR”. In 2014, MorphoSys joined the TecDAX index, and in 2018, the company joined the MDAX index. In April 2018, following a U.S. initial public offering, American Depositary Shares of MorphoSys began trading on the Nasdaq, also under the symbol “MOR”. In July 2018, we established a wholly owned subsidiary, MorphoSys US Inc., to build-up commercial infrastructure in the United States. MorphoSys US Inc. is the Company’s agent in the United States and is located at 470 Atlantic Avenue, 14^th Floor, Boston, Massachusetts 02210.

Our registered office is located at Semmelweisstrasse 7, 82152 Planegg, Germany, and our telephone number is +49 89-89927-0. Our website is www.morphosys.com. Information contained on our website is not incorporated by reference into this annual report, and you should not consider information contained on our website to be part of this annual report or in deciding whether to purchase or sell our ADSs.

The SEC maintains an internet site at http://www.sec.gov that contains reports, information statements, and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC.

Principal Capital Expenditures:

In the years ended December 31, 2019, 2018 and 2017, our expenditures for property, plant and equipment were € 3.1 million, € 1.8 million, and € 1.3 million, respectively. In the years ended December 31, 2019, 2018 and 2017, our expenditures for intangible assets were € 0.6 million, € 0.6 million, and € 11.8 million, respectively.

In October 2019, we acquired a 13.4% stake in Vivoryon Therapeutics AG, Halle (Saale), Germany, through the subscription of 2,673,796 ordinary bearer shares valued at € 15.0 million.

For our commitments for capital expenditures, we refer to Item 5.F.

We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company devoted to the discovery, development and commercialization of innovative and differentiated therapies for patients suffering from serious diseases. Based on our proprietary technology platforms and leadership in the field of therapeutic antibody discovery, generation and engineering, we, together with our partners, have developed more than 100 therapeutic product candidates. Our broad pipeline spans two business segments: Proprietary Development, in which we invest in and develop product candidates, and Partnered Discovery, in which we generate product candidates for our partners in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries against targets identified by our partners. We currently have 28 product candidates in clinical development across Proprietary Development and Partnered Discovery, including our most advanced proprietary product candidate, tafasitamab, for the treatment of relapsed or refractory diffuse large B cell lymphoma, or r/r DLBCL. We also have a commercial product in our Partnered Discovery portfolio, Tremfya^®, developed by our partner Janssen. Tremfya^®, which is approved to treat moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis, was launched in the United States in July 2017 and has received approval for marketing in the European Union, Canada, Australia, Brazil, South Korea, Japan and China. Tremfya^® additionally received approval for the treatment of three forms of psoriasis (plaque, pustular and erythrodermic psoriasis) as well for psoriatic arthritis in Japan. We believe our pipeline of novel and differentiated product candidates has the potential to treat serious diseases and improve the lives of patients.

Our late-stage and most advanced proprietary product candidate, tafasitamab, received breakthrough therapy designation, or BTD, from the U.S. FDA, in 2017 in combination with lenalidomide for the treatment of patients with r/r DLBCL, who are not eligible for high-dose chemotherapy, or HDC, and autologous stem cell transplantation, or ASCT. We are investigating tafasitamab in this indication in our L-MIND clinical trial. Our most recent interim L-MIND trial results published in June 2019 based on primary analysis of data from a

47

November 30, 2018 cut-off date based on 80 enrolled patients showed an Overall Response Rate, or ORR, of 60%, and the median duration response, or mDoR, of 21.7 months. The median progression-free survival, or mPFS, was 12.1 months, and the overall survival, or OS, rate at 12 months of 73.7%, with the preliminary median overall survival, or mOS, not yet reached. Based on this data as well as the outcomes of Re-MIND study, an observational retrospective study used as a matched control cohort for L-MIND, we submitted a BLA for tafasitamab in combination with lenalidomide for the treatment of patients with r/r DLBCL, who are not eligible for high-dose chemotherapy, or HDC, and autologous stem cell transplantation, or ASCT at the end of 2019, which is currently under priority review by the FDA. To prepare for the potential commercial launch of tafasitamab, if approved by the FDA, we have started to build the commercial infrastructure in the United States, including the hiring of key personnel. In January 2020, we entered into a global collaboration and licensing agreement with Incyte, to further develop and commercialize tafasitamab globally. Due to our collaboration and license agreement with Incyte, we and Incyte will co-commercialize tafasitamab, while Incyte will have exclusive commercialization rights outside of the U.S. We currently forecast an opportunity as a second-line and third-line treatment in r/r DLBCL of approximately 10,000 patients/year in the U.S. and approximately 6,500 patients/year in the five major European markets who are not eligible for HDC and ASCT. As a first-line treatment in r/r DLBCL, we believe there is currently a market opportunity of 31,800 patients in the U.S. and 20,700 patients in the five major European markets.

Based on our heritage as an antibody discovery and development company, we have a large and diverse pipeline, comprised of both proprietary and partnered programs, in multiple therapeutic areas and across all development phases. The combination of our technology platforms and antibody expertise has allowed us to generate promising product candidates and enter into multiple strategic collaborations with leading global pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. These collaborations provide us with an additional funding source and allow us to leverage our collaborators’ expertise to advance the development of our proprietary product candidates.

Our most advanced Proprietary Development programs include:

48

In addition to the programs listed above, we are pursuing several proprietary programs in earlier-stage research and development, including MOR210, a preclinical antibody that was licensed to I-Mab in November 2018 for China and certain other territories in Asia. Further, we entered into an agreement with Vivoryon Therapeutics AG in July 2019. Under the terms of the agreement, we obtained an exclusive option to license Vivoryon’s small molecule QPCTL inhibitors in the field of oncology and we are currently evaluating the potential in preclinical experiments to combine these inhibitors with our antibodies—first and foremost tafasitamab.

Our most advanced Partnered Discovery products and product candidates include:

49

The majority of our Proprietary Development product candidates and all product candidates in our Partnered Discovery programs have been discovered and engineered using our advanced antibody technology platforms. Our core platforms include:

We are committed to investing in our platforms, generating new therapeutics and developing them into products that address significant unmet medical needs.

We have an internationally-trained, multi-cultural team of about 426 employees (as of December 31, 2019) and consultants, including a research and development team of 300 scientists, clinicians and support staff. Our management team and senior experts have deep experience and capabilities in biology, chemistry, product discovery and clinical development.

Our Strengths

We believe our core strengths include:

Our lead product candidate tafasitamab, which has been granted BTD in r/r DLBCL by the FDA and has further potential in additional hematological malignancies.

Additional differentiated proprietary product candidates, such as MOR202 and otilimab, in clinical trials for the treatment of cancer, autoimmune indications and rheumatoid arthritis.

Our antibody pipeline, which is one of the broadest and deepest in the biotech industry and which provides us with multiple opportunities for value creation.

Our long-term technology leadership in antibody discovery, generation and engineering as demonstrated by multiple collaborations with leading pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies as well as by the breadth and depth of our technology platforms.

Our diversified business model with both proprietary and partnered development programs, which provides us with a strong financial base and strategic flexibility.

A broad intellectual property portfolio protecting product candidates as well as our technology platforms.

Our experienced management team, comprising of industry leaders in antibody discovery and development.

Our Strategy

Our goal is to make differentiated, innovative biopharmaceuticals to improve the lives of patients suffering from serious diseases. Our strategy to achieve this goal is:

Continue to advance the development of our lead product candidate tafasitamab towards regulatory approval—The tafasitamab program is currently in pivotal clinical-stage development following receipt of BTD by the FDA

50

in October 2017 based on interim data from our L-MIND study. At the end of 2019, we submitted a BLA for tafasitamab in combination with lenalidomide for the treatment of r/r DLBCL to the U.S. FDA, which is currently under priority review. In addition, we are evaluating opportunities to develop tafasitamab in other treatment lines and additional hematological malignancies.

Build our commercial capabilities in connection with the potential future approval of tafasitamab—If marketing approval is granted for tafasitamab, we and Incyte will co-commercialize tafasitamab in the U.S., while Incyte has exclusive commercialization rights outside of the U.S. With the establishment of our wholly owned subsidiary, MorphoSys US Inc., we have commenced the build-up of our commercial infrastructure in the United States to be prepared for the potential launch of tafasitamab, complemented by the commercial expertise and infrastructure at Incyte.

Continue the development of MOR202—In order to maximize the value of MOR202, we are exploring opportunities for its further development beyond multiple myeloma in inflammatory autoimmune disorders, including anti-PLA2R antibody positive membranous nephropathy, or aMN. We plan to dose the first patient in a clinical phase 1/2 trial in aMN in the first quarter of 2020; first clinical sites have already been activated in October 2019.

Advance our earlier-stage product candidates—We continue to advance the development of our early-stage product candidates.

Realize the value of our technology platforms by using them to discover and develop additional early-stage proprietary programs—We continue to capitalize on the advantages of our antibody technologies and our internal expertise and know-how to discover and develop novel product candidates.

Background on Antibodies as Therapeutic Agents

Antibodies, also known as immunoglobulins (Ig), are large, Y-shaped complex proteins that the immune system uses to neutralize pathogens. Antibodies recognize and bind to foreign entities, such as bacteria and viruses, and remove them from the bloodstream. Antibodies are essential to human life and between one and two billion antibodies are continuously flowing throughout our bloodstream, fighting infections and diseases.

The antibody molecule itself has two distinct functions: Firstly, antibodies have the ability to recognize and attach themselves to pathogenic, or disease-causing, foreign molecules; and secondly, in recognizing and attaching themselves to these pathogenic molecules, antibodies act as markers, signaling to other parts of the bodies’ own immune system to attack and eliminate the pathogen.

51

As illustrated above, an IgG antibody, for example, consists of four polypeptide chains, two identical heavy chains and two identical light chains, joined by chemical linkages known as disulfide bridges. The antigen-binding fragment, or Fab, is a region on an antibody that binds to antigens. It is composed of one constant and one variable region of each of the heavy and the light chain. The variable region acts as the “business” end of the antibody for recognizing pathogens. The specific structure recognized by the variable region of an antibody, whether a portion of a protein, another biological molecule or a unique molecule of a pathogen, is known as an antigen. An antibody and the antigen that it recognizes fit together like a lock and key.

The Fc region, which resides at the other end of the antibody, interacts with the effector cells of the immune system and provides the signal that activates these cells to attack the pathogen. When an antigen is detected, several types of immune system cells work together to recognize and respond to it. These responses include the stimulation of B cells to produce additional antibodies and the stimulation of effector cells, including T cells and natural killer, or NK, cells that act to eliminate the pathogen or foreign molecule.

The first methods for producing specific single defined antibodies that recognize a single antigen, or monoclonal antibodies, in order to use them as therapeutics were developed approximately 40 years ago. While cancer and inflammatory conditions have been the two largest disease areas for therapeutic antibody discovery, the broad applicability of antibodies has led to a rapid expansion of their use in other indications, including infectious diseases, metabolic conditions and neurodegenerative diseases. As a result, more than 50 antibodies are currently approved for marketing in various clinical applications. Among these are therapeutic antibodies that label and/or block the activity of cell surface receptors or signaling molecules, stimulate the activity of cells or lead to their elimination by effector cells, and bind toxic substances from the bloodstream to accelerate their elimination.

Initially, monoclonal antibodies were derived from mice. However, antibodies derived from mice are of limited use as therapeutic agents since the human immune system recognizes such antibodies as foreign molecules and may trigger a defense reaction against them. Technological advances over the last three decades have allowed the modification of antibody structures to make them more “human-like”, culminating in the creation of fully human antibodies. Currently, it is possible to generate fully human antibodies from transgenic mice. With our Human Combinatorial Antibody Library (HuCAL), we have developed a technology for the in vitro generation of highly

52

specific and fully human antibodies. Ylanthia, which is our most recent antibody technology platform, comprises more than 100 billion distinct, different, fully human antibodies.

With our acquisition of Lanthio Pharma B.V. in 2015, we gained full access to Lanthio Pharma’s proprietary LanthioPep technology, which is focused on the generation and development of lanthipeptides. Our lanthipeptide platform opens up new possibilities for discovering product candidates based on highly specific and stable peptides, which are intended to bind and activate only one target receptor subtype. Another addition to the technology portfolio is our proprietary Helix-Turn-Helix, or HTH, peptide technology. In contrast to the lanthipeptides that are stabilized by amino acid modifications, the HTH peptides are stabilized by their structure. MorphoSys’s peptide technology aims at generating a novel class of structured and eminently stable peptides enabling highly selective and high affinity target binding. Potential applications of peptides include the use as stand-alone drugs, as fusion partners to proteins, or as agents that are chemically modified or fused to toxins. This approach is intended to enable targeting of novel epitopes and to open up new target space.

Due to our agreement with Vivoryon Therapeutics AG, we have obtained an exclusive option to license Vivoryon’s small molecule QPCTL inhibitors in the field of oncology. The option covers worldwide development and commercialization for cancer of Vivoryon’s family of inhibitors of the glutaminyl-peptide cyclotransferase-like (QPCTL) protein, including its lead compound PQ912. Preclinical data strongly suggest that the compound could represent a novel approach for cancer therapy. Vivoryon’s orally available compounds target the QPCTL enzyme, which has been shown to be a modulator of the CD47-SIRP alpha interaction. Left unchecked, this interaction, known as the “don’t eat me” signal, allows cancer cells to escape the body’s innate immune defense through inhibition of the phagocytic activity of macrophages. During the option period, we will conduct preclinical validation experiments on Vivoryon’s family of QPCTL inhibitors, including an assessment of the potential benefits of combining them with our proprietary program tafasitamab, which is currently in late-stage development for the treatment of r/r DLBCL.

Our core technology platforms are HuCAL, Ylanthia, Helix-Turn-Helix peptides and Lanthipeptides. HuCAL was our first-generation antibody platform. Its successor, Ylanthia, is based on our engineering know-how and experience in development of over 100 therapeutic antibody projects.

53

HUMAN COMBINATORIAL ANTIBODY LIBRARY (HUCAL)

Our HuCAL technology permits the in vitro generation of highly diverse, fully human antibodies. The structural diversity of the human antibody repertoire is approximately 95% composed of seven variable heavy chain, or VH, and seven variable light chain, or VL, region genes. The combination of these genes gives rise to 49 frameworks in the HuCAL master library, which form the scaffolds for several billion distinct fully human antibodies. The seven VH and seven VL HuCAL library is then combined with a highly variable genetic “cassette” using our trinucleotide mutagenesis technology to permit any combination of amino acids at each single position of the CDR region in a ratio reflecting the one found in humans.

A laboratory technique critical for the identification and eventual production of therapeutic antibodies aimed at specific antigens is known as “phage display”. Phage display enables the selection of specifically binding antibodies out of libraries containing billions of different antibodies.

Phage display utilizes bacteriophages (viruses that infect bacteria) to connect proteins with the genetic information that encodes them. In traditional phage display as applied to antibody production, the gene encoding the antibody’s Fab fragment is inserted into a phage coat protein gene, causing the phage to “display” the Fab fragment on its outside while containing the gene for the Fab fragment. Displaying phages can be screened against the epitope(s) of interest which has been immobilized to the surface of a microtiter plate or is presented on the surface of a cell, and those phages displaying the Fab fragment of interest will bind to the surface. Those phages displaying other Fab sequences will be removed by washing. Phages that remain can be removed via the process of elution, and used to produce more phage by re-infection of bacteria, resulting in a phage mixture enriched for the Fab fragment of interest. The repetition of these cycles to create an increasingly purified phage mixture is known as the process of ‘panning’ (comparable to the original method of searching for gold in the beds of rivers). The ease of attachment and detachment of phages from the microtiter surface, and the overall speed of each cycle, can have a profound impact on the efficiency of antibody isolation and production.

54

Unlike conventional phage display technologies, in HuCAL, the antibody Fab fragment is not genetically fused to the phage coat protein. Instead, the Fab fragment forms a disulfide bond with an engineered gene III protein on the phage surface. This disulfide bond is sensitive to reducing agents, which allows for an efficient elution protocol to be used to recover phage displaying antibody fragments. Through this proprietary process, we are able to identify antibodies with high affinity for the antigen of interest in a highly efficient manner.

Generating antibodies using HuCAL technology involves seven steps: antigen immobilization, phage display selection, subcloning, primary screening, sequencing, expression and purification, and antibody quality control. The HuCAL process of production of monoclonal antibodies takes approximately eight weeks, in comparison to four to nine months for traditional conventional monoclonal discovery techniques. In addition, the antibodies produced are highly specific, maintain high production yields, exhibit a high degree of product purity and are capable of being produced in a number of formats, including monovalent or human immunoglobulin G.

Another key advantage of HuCAL phage display is the enhanced control of the selection process. The design of the selection process permits rapid identification of antibodies against specific antigens, the elimination or enhancement of cross reactivity against other antigens (as desired) and the generation of mouse cross-reactive antibodies for use in murine models. The modular design of HuCAL allows straightforward enhancement of affinities and switching among different antibody formats (such as those that activate the immune system or are immunologically silent).

Today, thousands of antibodies have been made using the HuCAL technology, and over 20 HuCAL antibodies are in clinical trials.

YLANTHIA

The Ylanthia antibody library is based on a concept that incorporates desirable antibody characteristics in its design through the selection of optimal framework pairs and design of the complementary determining regions. Ylanthia is a new platform that provides fully human antibody candidates with optimized biophysical properties. This feature, called “developability”, is crucial for modern biologics development and production. In contrast to

55

small molecules, the production of protein-based therapeutics (biologics) is a highly complex process. Final formulation requirements, including the production of proteins soluble at high concentrations in small volumes for subcutaneous injections, further raise the bar for success. Multiple biologics have failed in their development due to a poor “developability” profile. In Ylanthia, properties such as production yield, solubility, monomeric content, lack of immunogenicity, and absence of post-translational modifications have been optimized by the design of the library using 25 years of our protein engineering know-how. The size, sequence correctness and structural diversity also reflect the lessons we learned in modern biologics development in over 100 therapeutic antibody projects.

Key distinguishing and industry leading features of Ylanthia include:

BISPECIFIC ANTIBODIES

One goal using Ylanthia is to enhance the efficacy of direct tumor targeting using bi-specific antibodies that activate T cells, which are expected to kill the tumor cells. This approach is intended to allow for a binding of a bi-specific antibody to T cells via CD137 (4-1BB) and to the antigen present on the tumor cell, thereby enhancing T cell recruitment to the tumor as well as co-stimulation of tumor-specific effector T cells. Consequently, this is intended to result in enhanced activation of T cells and tumor cell killing.

CD137 is a validated, co-stimulatory checkpoint target expressed on T cells. First signs of efficacy with monospecific antibodies against CD137 (such as utomilumab) in patients with advanced solid cancer have been shown. Furthermore, a bi-specific approach against CD137 and a tumor target is meant to increase efficacy and the therapeutic window by co-stimulation of tumor-specific effector T cells in the tumor microenvironment. Additionally, a potential advantage of this approach is reduced toxicity compared to a CD3-based bi-specific

56

antibody due to the fact that no activation of T cells will occur in the periphery. Moreover, the approach might offer a combination potential with further checkpoint modulators such as PD-1, PD-L1, CTLA-4 and others.

The figure below depicts the suggested mode of action of a bi-specific anti-CD137 antibody within the tumor microenvironment in a schematic overview:

A) Tumor microenvironment: An antibody binding to both the tumor cell and CD137 is intended to induce activation of tumor-specific effector T cells and subsequent enhancement of tumor cell killing.

B) In the periphery, binding of the bi-specific antibody to the T cell does not lead to T cell stimulation due to the absence of the tumor cell antigen.

Today, proprietary Ylanthia anti-CD137 antibodies are generated that are equipotent to a competitor reference antibody as analyzed in relevant in vitro assays and a bi-specific, bi-valent effector-format with IgG-like properties has been established.

HELIX-TURN-HELIX PEPTIDE TECHNOLOGY

Our helix-turn-helix peptide technology aims at generating a novel class of structured and eminently stable peptides enabling highly selective and high affinity target binding, thus combining small molecule-like properties with antibody-like specificities. Several libraries based on the stable helix-turn-helix scaffold with different diversification design were generated and guarantee selection of high diversity of specific peptides via a tailored selection process based on phage display. The peptides are amenable to chemical synthesis as well as recombinant expression. Potential applications of peptides include their use as stand-alone drugs, as fusion partners to proteins, and as agents that are chemically modified or fused to toxins. This approach is intended to enable targeting of novel epitopes and to open up new target space.

LANTHIPEPTIDES

With our acquisition of Lanthio Pharma B.V. in 2015, we gained full access to Lanthio Pharma’s proprietary LanthioPep technology. We believe this technology may be used to generate novel peptide products with therapeutic potential. We have subsequently developed a proprietary platform which permits phage display of lanthipeptides. This platform synergistically combines our expertise in phage display and library diversification of monoclonal antibodies with Lanthio Pharma’s knowledge of lanthipeptide biosynthesis.

As natural ligands to many targets, peptides may have agonistic or antagonistic activity with low toxicity risk and can be applied to disease targets, where small molecules or antibody-based products cannot be used.

57

Furthermore, they can be chemically produced and alternative routes for drug delivery (such as inhalation) may be possible. However, the number of therapeutic peptide products is limited by properties that are inherent to many natural (wild-type) peptides, for example, that they often bind to multiple receptor subtypes and that the time they remain active in the body is usually very short. Our lanthipeptides offer the potential to overcome these problems and make it possible to discover highly target-selective peptides, which only bind and activate one specific target subtype. The following sets forth some of the benefits of our lanthipeptide technology:

PROPRIETARY DEVELOPMENT

The Proprietary Development segment focuses on developing therapeutic agents based on our proprietary technology platforms, candidates in-licensed from other companies and programs co-developed with a partner. During clinical development, we determine whether and at which point to pursue a partnership for later development and commercialization. The drug candidate can then be either completely out-licensed or developed further in cooperation with a pharmaceutical or biotechnology company (co-development). Alternatively, individual projects may be developed on a proprietary basis until they reach the market, with MorphoSys commercializing a product in selected regions. The most advanced programs in our Proprietary Development segment are discussed below.

58

TAFASITAMAB

OVERVIEW

Tafasitamab (formerly known as MOR208, XmAb5574) is an investigational, humanized Fc-engineered monoclonal antibody directed against the antigen CD19, which is broadly expressed on the surface of B cells, a type of white blood cell, and is thus a target against B cell malignancies. We are currently investigating tafasitamab for the treatment of various B cell malignancies, including diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). The main focus of the current tafasitamab development program is on relapsed/refractory (r/r) DLBCL, and we have two studies—L-MIND (phase 2) and B-MIND (phase 2/3) ongoing in that indication. At the end of December 2019, we initiated a clinical phase 1b study of tafasitamab in newly diagnosed DLBCL.

We are developing tafasitamab pursuant to a collaboration and license agreement that we entered into in June 2010 with Xencor. For more information on this agreement, please refer to Collaboration and License Agreements—Collaboration and License Agreement with Xencor. In addition, at the beginning of 2020 we signed a collaboration and license agreement granting Incyte U.S. co-commercialization and ex-U.S. commercialization rights for tafasitamab. Under the terms of the agreement, we and Incyte will be responsible for the further clinical development of tafasitamab. For more information on this agreement, please refer to Collaboration and License Agreements – Collaboration and License Agreement with Incyte.

In 2014, we were granted fast track designation for tafasitamab by the FDA for the treatment of r/r DLBCL. The FDA’s fast track program is designed to facilitate the development and expedite the review of product candidates intended, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs, for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and that demonstrates the potential to meet an unmet medical need for such diseases or conditions. Also, the FDA and the European Commission have granted orphan drug designation (in 2014) and orphan medicinal product status (in 2015), respectively, for tafasitamab for DLBCL and CLL/small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL).

In October 2017, based on preliminary data from the ongoing L-MIND study, the FDA granted BTD for tafasitamab in combination with lenalidomide (LEN), for the treatment of patients with r/r DLBCL who are not eligible for high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation. The FDA grants this designation to a product candidate intended alone or in combination with one or more other drugs to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition when preliminary data indicate that the product candidate may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. The FDA’s grant of breakthrough therapy designation is intended to expedite the development and review of product candidates.

At the end of 2019, we submitted a biologics license application (BLA) for tafasitamab based on the primary analysis data from the phase 2 L-MIND trial of tafasitamab in combination with lenalidomide in patients with r/r DLBCL and primary analysis data from our Re-MIND study. The FDA accepted our BLA filing, granted priority review and has set a Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) goal date of August 30, 2020. The FDA has informed us that they are not currently planning to hold an advisory committee meeting to discuss the application.

TREATMENT OF B CELL MALIGNANCIES AND DLBCL

B cell malignancies include lymphomas such as Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, or NHL, including DLBCL, and leukemias such as CLL and Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL).

First-line treatment of B-cell malignancies, including DLBCL, most commonly consists of a combination chemotherapy regimen plus rituximab (Rituxan^®), also referred to commonly as R-CHOP (R, rituximab; CHOP, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and the corticosteroid prednisone). There is a scientific rationale for

59

the replacement of a CD20-targeting approach such as with rituximab (Rituxan^®) with a CD19 targeting antibody. First of all, CD19 has been shown to be expressed earlier and more broadly during B cell development than CD20. Secondly, in clinical practice, an anti-CD20 approach is often applied by physicians in the relapsed or refractory (r/r) setting, even though patients have already shown a relapse to a prior therapy containing an anti-CD20 antibody. In DLBCL, despite the therapeutic success of first-line R-CHOP, up to 40% of patients become refractory to or relapse after initial treatment with fast progression of disease.

DLBCL patients who are refractory or relapse after R-CHOP have a poor prognosis and few therapeutic options. Treatment options for r/r DLBCL are currently curative high-dose chemotherapy (HDC) and subsequent autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT), if the patients are relatively fit. In late 2017, a first chimeric antigen receptor-T cell (CAR-T) therapy by Kite/Gilead (Yescarta^®) was approved for the treatment of r/r DLBCL. Meanwhile, the FDA approved Yescarta^® also for the treatment of primary mediastinal B cell lymphoma, high-grade B cell lymphoma and DLBCL that results from follicular lymphoma. In August 2018, Yescarta^® also received European Marketing Authorization for the treatment of r/r DLBCL and PMBCL after two or more lines of systemic therapy. In March and August 2018, a second CAR-T therapy, Kymriah^®, developed by Novartis, received FDA approval and European approval, respectively, for the treatment of ALL and r/r DLBCL after two or more lines of prior therapy. It remains to be seen what proportion of r/r patients will be considered to be eligible for such therapies, and how broadly such therapies will be available for the foreseeable future. For those DLBCL patients who are not eligible for HDC and ASCT, or for CAR-T treatments, current treatment options are limited.

In r/r DLBCL, approximately half of patients are eligible for HDC followed by ASCT. Of those r/r DLBCL patients who can be transplanted, about 50% suffer a further relapse. Therefore, the vast majority of DLBCL patients relapsing after first-line treatment will ultimately be treated in a palliative setting, utilizing such regimens as rituximab plus bendamustine. There remains a high unmet need for novel therapies in r/r patients, especially in those not able to undergo HDC and ASCT.

TAFASITAMAB FOR TREATMENT OF B CELL MALIGNANCIES, INCLUDING DLBCL

TAFASITAMAB—PROPOSED MECHANISM OF ACTION

Tafasitamab binds to the CD19 antigen, which is broadly and homogeneously expressed across various B cell-derived blood cancers. According to preclinical findings, CD19 is able to enhance B cell receptor signaling, which is important for B cell survival and is considered an important therapeutic target for the treatment of B cell-related lymphomas and leukemias.

60

The suggested mechanism of action of tafasitamab is as follows: The Fc-engineered antibody tafasitamab binds to the CD19 antigen on the surface of blood cancer cells. This attracts the immune system’s natural killer cells, and/or macrophages. Natural killer cells and macrophages attach themselves to the cancer cells by way of the tafasitamab antibody and kill them through the processes of antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity (ADCC) and antibody-dependent cellular phagocytosis (ADCP). tafasitamab’s engineered Fc region is designed to increase the effectiveness of the body’s immune reaction to cancer cells. In addition to its immune-mediated functions, the binding of tafasitamab to CD19 may also lead to the direct killing of the tumor cells, or direct cytotoxicity. The below figure depicts the suggested mechanisms of action of tafasitamab:

We believe that, if approved by the authorities, tafasitamab may offer a differentiated therapeutic approach in DLBCL. In particular, for r/r DLBCL patients who are ineligible for or not willing to undergo HDC and ASCT, available treatment options are limited. It is our goal to further clinically investigate tafasitamab in this patient segment who are in need of more treatment options.

DEVELOPMENT OF TAFASITAMAB

Tafasitamab has been or is being investigated in several clinical trials in the following indications: DLBCL, FL/MZL, CLL/SLL and B cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL). A phase 1 trial in CLL/SLL and a phase 2 trial in B-ALL were completed in 2013 and 2015, respectively. A phase 2 trial in NHL (including r/r DLBCL, mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), follicular lymphoma (FL), and other indolent NHL) and an investigator-initiated phase 2 trial in CLL/SLL are currently ongoing. Three additional trials (two in DLBCL and one in CLL) in combination with other therapies are also currently ongoing and we recently started a phase 1b study with tafasitamab in newly diagnosed DLBCL called First-MIND which assesses tafasitamab or tafasitamab and lenalidomide in addition to R-CHOP in adult patients with newly diagnosed, previously untreated DLBCL.

The main focus of the current tafasitamab development program is on DLBCL. Our L-MIND and B-MIND trials, as well as our First-MIND study, are being conducted in this indication. L-MIND and B-MIND are focusing on r/r DLBCL patients who are not eligible for high-dose chemotherapy and subsequent autologous stem cell transplantation. Following its review of preliminary data from the L-MIND study, in October 2017 the FDA awarded breakthrough therapy designation for tafasitamab, in combination with LEN for the treatment of non-transplant eligible patients with r/r DLBCL and we submitted a BLA to the FDA based on primary completion data of L-MIND by end of 2019, which is currently under priority review. Our First-MIND study enrolls patients with previously untreated DLBCL.

ACTIVE CLINICAL COMBINATION TRIALS

Currently four clinical combination studies with tafasitamab are ongoing—L-MIND, B-MIND, First-MIND and COSMOS.

L-MIND: The L-MIND study is a phase 2 trial initiated in April 2016 to evaluate tafasitamab in combination with lenalidomide in patients suffering from r/r DLBCL. The trial was designed as an open-label, single-arm

61

study with the primary endpoint being objective response rate (ORR) by an independent review committee, with multiple secondary endpoints, including progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and time to progression (TTP). We completed the safety run-in phase of the L-MIND trial in August 2016. No unexpected safety signals have been detected and the trial was continued as planned. The trial enrolled patients with r/r DLBCL after up to three prior lines of therapy, with at least one prior therapy including an anti-CD20 targeting therapy, such as rituximab (Rituxan^®). Patients enrolled could not be candidates for HDC and ASCT. Patient enrollment was completed in November 2017. Detailed data of the primary analysis (cut-off date November 30, 2018, and a follow-up period of at least 12 months for all patients) were presented on June 22, 2019 at the 15th International Conference on Malignant Lymphoma (ICML) in Lugano, Switzerland. The 81 patients enrolled had a median age of 72 years and a median of two prior therapies. 61/81 (75%) were in advanced Ann Arbor stage III/IV; 36/81 (44%) were refractory to the last prior therapy line and 33/81 (41%) were rituximab-refractory in any line.

Efficacy results in this update were based on 80 patients who received the tafasitamab plus LEN combination and were assessed by an independent review committee. The ORR was 60% (48 out of 80 patients), and the complete response (CR) rate was 43% (34 out of 80 patients). 88% of the CRs were PET (positron emission tomography) confirmed. Consistently high activity was observed in relevant patient subgroups. Responses were durable with a median DoR was 21.7 mo (95% CI 21.7 – NR), especially in patients who achieved a CR (median not reached; 95% CI 21.7 – NR). The median progression-free survival (mPFS) was 12.1 months with a median follow-up of 17.3 months. Median overall survival (OS) was not reached (NR) (95% CI 18.3 months—NR) with a median follow-up time of 19.6 months. The 12-month OS rate was 73.7%.

The safety profile in L-MIND is characterized by hematological toxicity, leading AE here was neutropenia (grade ³3 48%) which was well manageable. Febrile neutropenias occurred in 13% of patients during the entire treatment duration. Infection-related AEs were typically of lower grade. Non-hematological toxicities were also of lower grade and characterized by gastrointestinal toxicities such as diarrhea, decreased appetite, constipation or nausea or vomiting and skin toxicity such as rash. Of note, the rate of infusion-related reactions was very low at 6% and only of grade 1. The incidence and severity of TEAEs was lower during the tafasitamab monotherapy phase.

On October 29, 2019, we announced topline results from the primary analysis of the retrospective observational matched control cohort (Re-MIND). This study was designed to compare the effectiveness of lenalidomide monotherapy based on real-world patient data with the efficacy outcomes of the tafasitamab-lenalidomide combination, as investigated in our L-MIND trial. Re-MIND collected outcome data from 490 non-transplant eligible patients with r/r DLBCL who had received lenalidomide monotherapy in the U.S. and the EU in a real-world setting. Qualification criteria for matching patients of both studies were pre-specified. As a result, 76 eligible Re-MIND patients were identified and matched 1:1 to 76 of 80 L-MIND patients based on important baseline characteristics. Objective response rates (ORR) were validated based on this subset of 76 patients in Re-MIND and L-MIND, respectively. The primary endpoint of Re-MIND has been met and shows a statistically significant superior best ORR of the tafasitamab-lenalidomide combination compared to lenalidomide monotherapy. ORR was 67.1% (95% confidence interval (CI): 55.4-77.5) for the tafasitamab-lenalidomide combination, compared to 34.2% (CI: 23.7-46.0) for the lenalidomide monotherapy (p<0.0001; odds ratio 3.89 [95% CI 1.90, 8.14]). Superiority was consistently observed across all secondary endpoints, including complete response (CR) rate (tafasitamab-lenalidomide combination 39.5%; 95% CI: 28.4-51.4 versus lenalidomide monotherapy 11.8%; 95% CI: 5.6-21.3; p<0.0001), as well as in pre-specified statistical sensitivity analyses. In addition, there was a significant difference observed in overall survival, which was not reached in the tafasitamab-lenalidomide combination as compared to 9.4 months in the lenalidomide monotherapy (hazard ratio 0.47; CI: 0.30-0.73; p<0.0008).

At the end of 2019, we submitted a BLA to the U.S. FDA for tafasitamab for the treatment of r/r DLBCL. The BLA submission is based on the primary analysis data from the L-MIND trial of tafasitamab in combination with lenalidomide in patients with r/r DLBCL, the retrospective observational matched control cohort Re-MIND

62

evaluating efficacy outcomes of r/r DLBCL patients who received lenalidomide monotherapy and the phase 2 NHL study evaluating efficacy and safety of r/rDLBCL patients who received tafasitamab monotherapy. In parallel, we announced our intention to submit a Marketing Authorization Application (MAA) to the EMA based on the L-MIND study. A letter of intent was submitted to the EMA in early July 2019, and it is planned to complete the MAA submission by mid-2020.

B-MIND: The B-MIND trial is a phase 2/3 randomized, multicenter study in which patients are randomized in a one-to-one fashion to receive either tafasitamab in combination with bendamustine or rituximab (Rituxan^®) in combination with bendamustine. The study was initiated in September 2016 at 180 centers across Europe, the Asia/Pacific region and the United States and aims to enroll patients with r/r DLBCL. Patients must have been treated previously with at least one but not more than three prior lines of therapy, including one anti-CD20 targeted therapy, such as rituximab (Rituxan^®) and must not be candidates for HDC and ASCT. In June 2017, the phase 3 part of B-MIND commenced. Prior to that, the Independent Data Monitoring Committee of the trial had supported its continuation as per protocol and the transition of the study into its phase 3 part based on the available data from the phase 2 safety evaluation. In the first quarter of 2019, after consultation with the FDA we amended the study by including a secondary, co-primary endpoint based on a biomarker, defined as a low baseline peripheral blood natural killer (NK) cell count. Patients with a low number of NK cells (defined as 100 or fewer NK cells per microliter of blood) at study entry represent approximately 50% of the total study population and are believed to exhibit a less favorable response to anti-CD20-based therapies. In November 2019, the B-MIND study successfully passed the pre-planned, event-driven interim analysis for futility. An independent data monitoring committee (IDMC) assessed efficacy data in both the overall patient population as well as in the biomarker-positive subpopulation and recommended to increase the number of patients from currently 330 to 450. Recruitment is continuing and topline results are expected to be available in 2022.

First-MIND: In addition to the aforementioned clinical development, we initiated a clinical phase 1b trial named First-MIND with tafasitamab in frontline DLBCL by end of 2019. The study is an open-label, randomized, two arm multicenter phase 1b study to evaluate safety and preliminary efficacy of tafasitamab or tafasitamab and lenalidomide in addition to R-CHOP in adult patients with newly diagnosed, previously untreated DLBCL. Patients enrolled in each arm will receive six cycles of treatment. The primary endpoint is the incidence and severity of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs), key secondary endpoints are objective response rate (ORR) and PET-negative complete response (CR) rate at the end of treatment.

COSMOS: In addition to the trials in DLBCL described above, we are currently evaluating tafasitamab in a phase 2 trial in r/r CLL and SLL. The trial, named COSMOS, is a two-cohort open-label, multicenter study evaluating the preliminary safety and efficacy of tafasitamab combined with the PI3K -inhibitor idelalisib (cohort A) or the BCL-2 inhibitor venetoclax (cohort B) in patients with r/r CLL or SLL who failed or were intolerant on prior treatment with Bruton’s Tyrosine Kinase inhibitor (BTKi) ibrutinib. Treatment was planned to be administered until disease progression. At ASH 2019, primary analysis data for both cohorts with a cut-off date as of October, 2019, were presented. In cohort A, eleven patients were enrolled and received tafasitamab plus idelalisib. The patients were elderly (median age 69 years), heavily pretreated (median of 5 prior therapies, range 2-9), and had adverse prognostic features (eg 46% TP53 mutations, 46% del17p, ³55% complex karyotype). The median time on study was 7.4 months. The best overall response rate was 91% (10/11 patients) with one patient achieving a CR (9%). Of the eight patients assessed for minimal residual disease (MRD) status, two patients achieved MRD negativity in peripheral blood and one out of three patients tested achieved MRD negativity in the bone marrow. 9/11 (81.8%) patients discontinued treatment during the study, 4 patients due to progressive disease (PD), 2 patients due to adverse events (AEs), 2 patients due to deaths, and one patient due physician decision (9.1%). Neutropenia was the most common Grade ³3 treatment-emergent AE (TEAE) (46%), followed by anemia (27%), and thrombocytopenia (27%) (Table 2). In cohort B, 13 patients were enrolled to receive tafasitamab plus venetoclax. The median age was 64 years, median number of prior therapies 3 (range 1-5). Patients had adverse prognostic features (69% unmutated IgVH status, 92% ³ complex karyotype, 31% TP53 mutation, 31% del17p). 11/13 received tafasitamab plus venetoclax, 2 patients received tafasitamab only since they discontinued after an infusion-related reaction on C1D1. The median time on study was 15.6 months. A best

63

ORR was achieved in 10/13 (76.9%) patients (CR 46.2%, PR 30.8%) in the intention-to-treat population. Of the seven patients assessed for MRD status, six patients achieved MRD negativity in the PB, and 2 of 4 patients assessed achieved MRD negativity in BM. Eight (61.5%) patients discontinued treatment during the study, 3 due to AEs, one due to progressive disease, one due to death, and three due to other reasons. Neutropenia was the most common Grade ³3 TEAE (46%), followed by anemia (8%) and leukopenia (8%). In the COSMOS study, the combinations of tafasitamab with idelalisib or tafasitamab with venetoclax were generally well tolerated, with promising efficacy in heavily pretreated patients with R/R CLL who discontinued prior treatment with a BTK inhibitor. The toxicity profile was distinct and was dependent on the combination partner; however, the TEAEs in both combinations were manageable. The response rate and durability of response suggest that both combinations are clinically active in patients with R/R CLL who discontinued prior treatment with a BTK inhibitor. The response rates and MRD negativity outcomes indicate that combinations of targeted agents with tafasitamab, an anti-CD19 antibody, have valuable antitumor activity.

ACTIVE SINGLE-AGENT CLINICAL TRIAL

Phase 2a Clinical Trial with Tafasitamab as a Single Agent in r/r NHL including DLBCL

We conducted an open-label, phase 2a, multicenter study to assess the activity and safety of weekly doses of 12 mg/kg tafasitamab as a single agent in 92 pre-treated patients with various subtypes of r/r NHL, including DLBCL, MCL, FL and other indolent NHL (iNHL), including MZL. Seventy-six of the 92 patients were evaluable for post-baseline response assessment. The ORR was 36% in the DLBCL subgroup and 30% in iNHL patients (both based on evaluable patients). Based on all patients with DLBCL and iNHL in the study, the ORR was 26% and 29%, respectively. In addition to patients achieving a partial or complete response (PR, CR), a clinical benefit was also observed in other patients treated with tafasitamab. The majority of patients (5/6 DLBCL and 12/16 iNHL) with stable disease also had a reduction in the size of the target lesions. This resulted in a disease control rate of 40% in DLBCL and 73% in iNHL patients.

Following updated data from a longer follow-up of the study were reported at the ASH 2019 Annual Meeting:

In the overall population of 22 responders, the median duration of response (DoR) was 24.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 11.1–not applicable [NA]). The median DoR of 20.1 months (95% CI: 1.1–not reached [NR]) for the nine responders with DLBCL was comparable with the DoR of 24 months (95% CI: 2.6–NR) for the 10 responders with FL. Median DoR in the other iNHL subgroups was not reached (three responders, none with documented progression). The median Time to progression (TTP) of the intent-to-treat (ITT) population was 5.4 months (95% CI: 3.4–12.0). For the DLBCL subgroup TTP was 3.1 months, for the FL subgroup it was 8.8 months, and for MCL it was 3.0 months. For other iNHL the median time was not reached.

Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 2.7 months (95% CI 2.1–13.2) in patients with DLBCL, 8.8 months (95% CI 5.4–20.5) in patients with FL and not reached (95% CI 2.0–NA) in patients with other iNHLs. PFS rate at 12 months (K-M estimate) was 34.3% for DLBCL, 39.2% for FL, 18.7% for MCL, and 53.3% for the other iNHL subgroup. Overall, similar 12-month PFS was observed in rituximab-refractory (43.5%, 95% CI: 18.0–51.4) as well as non-refractory patients (37.0%, 95% CI: 21.3–52.8). Five patients enrolled in this study who were in complete remission and still on tafasitamab treatment at the cut-off date (28 September 2018) demonstrated the feasibility of long-term treatment (>4 years) with tafasitamab monotherapy.

Tafasitamab was well tolerated in patients with r/r NHL. Most treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were mild in nature. The most common grade ³3 TEAEs were neutropenia (9.8%), thrombocytopenia (4.3%), anemia (3.3%) and pneumonia (3.3%). Four patients (4.3%) experienced serious adverse reactions (febrile neutropenia, genital herpes zoster, infusion-related reaction and myelodysplastic syndrome). There was no evidence of grade ³3 late toxicity during the long-term follow-up period; no treatment-related deaths occurred.

64

ACTIVE INVESTIGATOR-INITIATED COMBINATION STUDY

Phase 2 Investigator-Sponsored Trial with Tafasitamab in CLL (OSU-13031)

In an investigator-sponsored trial presented in December 2016, investigators evaluated tafasitamab in combination with LEN in three cohorts of patients with CLL: previously untreated CLL patients, r/r CLL patients and patients with Richter’s Transformation. The trial also included a fourth cohort of ibrutinib-treated CLL patients with identified resistance mutations to ibrutinib in the tumors (molecular relapse) but no confirmed clinical relapse, where tafasitamab was added to ibrutinib therapy. Historical data had generally shown poor clinical outcomes in patients who relapse after treatment with the BTKi ibrutinib and whose leukemia cells carry a mutation in the BTK gene prior to relapse. According to the data presented by investigators at the time, 34 patients had been enrolled in the study, 27 receiving tafasitamab in combination with LEN (eleven of whom were in the previously untreated cohort, eleven in the r/r cohort, five in the Richter’s Transformation cohort) and seven receiving tafasitamab plus ibrutinib. Ten out of 34 patients (safety cut-off May 31, 2016) (29%) experienced an aggregate of 19 SAEs across all cohorts. SAEs were most frequently reported in the System Organ Classes of metabolism and nutrition disorders (three patients (9%) experienced five SAEs); infections and infestations (three patients (9%) experienced four SAEs); respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders (two patients (6%) experienced two SAEs); general disorders and administration site conditions (two patients (6%) experienced two SAEs) and investigations (two patients (6%) experienced two SAEs). By Preferred Term, the most frequently reported SAEs were dyspnea (two patients (6%) experienced two SAEs) and hypercalcaemia (one patient (3%) experienced two SAEs). All other reported SAEs were single occurrences, including clostridium difficile colitis, metapneumovirus infection, pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia, sepsis, dehydration, fluid retention, hyponatraemia, confusional state, cholelithiasis, renal failure, death (related to progression of underlying disease), systemic inflammatory response syndrome, blood lactate dehydrogenase increase, weight decrease and infusion-related reaction.

A causal relationship to the administration of tafasitamab was suspected in two patients (6%). These two SAEs included an infusion-related reaction with symptoms of feeling warm, facial flushing, nausea, vomiting and dizziness, and one dyspnea.

The most frequent hematological adverse event over all cohorts was thrombocytopenia in 47% of patients (6% grade 3 or higher) and neutropenia in 35% (21% grade 3 or higher). There were no unexpected SAEs reported, and no patient had developed progressive disease at the time of the abstract cut-off date. All enrolled patients were evaluable per protocol. In the cohorts of patients with treatment-naive or relapsed disease, six out of ten evaluable patients achieved partial response as best response. Importantly, responses generally deepened over time in both cohorts. In addition, preliminary evidence of activity against CLL cells with BTK C481S was observed in the cohort of patients with molecular progression on ibrutinib. BTK C481S variant allele frequency decreased or at least stabilized in six out of seven patients.

In total 41 patients were enrolled as of 15 November 2018, thereof 40 received at least the first dose (1 mg/kg) of tafasitamab. All patients discontinued tafasitamab treatment as per protocol. Follow-up is ongoing.

Expanded Access Program

On February 4, 2020 we announced the initiation of an expanded access program, or EAP, in the U.S. for tafasitamab. The EAP may provide access to tafasitamab for use in certain adult patients with r/r DLBCL in combination with lenalidomide. According to the FDA, expanded access programs—sometimes called “compassionate use”—provide a pathway for a patient to receive an investigational medicine for a serious disease or condition. They are often made available when there are no comparable or satisfactory alternative therapies to treat the disease or condition; patient enrollment in clinical trials is not possible; potential patient benefit justifies the potential risk of treatment and providing the investigational medicine will not interfere with investigational trials that could support the medicine’s marketing approval for the treatment indication. To qualify for the tafasitamab EAP, patients with r/r DLBCL need to meet the EAP inclusion/exclusion criteria that

65

are aligned with our L-MIND study. Treatment of DLBCL patients in the EAP is recommended with tafasitamab in combination with lenalidomide according to the treatment schedule in L-MIND. The EAP will be available for a limited time while the FDA reviews our BLA for tafasitamab. Requests for expanded access to tafasitamab must be made by a U.S. licensed, treating physician. The tafasitamab EAP will be administered by Clinigen Healthcare Ltd.

Completed Clinical Trials

Phase 2 Trial with Tafasitamab as Single-Agent in ALL

In 2013, we initiated a phase 2 clinical trial of tafasitamab in B cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL). The U.S.-based open-label, multicenter, single-arm clinical trial was designed to assess the efficacy of tafasitamab in patients suffering from r/r B-ALL. Secondary outcome measures included response duration, safety and pharmacokinetics of tafasitamab. A total of 22 patients were treated in this study, and responses to tafasitamab therapy were observed in two patients (one CR, and one CR with incomplete hematologic recovery), yielding an ORR of 9.1%. Recruitment was stopped after 22 patients had entered the treatment period.

CLL Phase 1 and Preclinical Development

In preclinical studies conducted by Xencor, tafasitamab demonstrated FcR-dependent anti-tumor activity against multiple human B cell lymphomas in vitro and anti-tumor effects in mouse lymphoma models. Xencor also demonstrated favorable half-life and B cell depletion in monkey models. Xencor submitted the Investigational New Drug, or IND, for tafasitamab to the FDA in February 2010.

In January 2013, Xencor completed a phase 1 clinical trial of tafasitamab in patients with high-risk, heavily-pretreated CLL. Twenty-seven patients were enrolled and were evaluable for response. Dose levels from 0.3 to 12 mg/kg were tested. The trial protocol was amended to include a period of extended dosing for a total of eight patients at the 12 mg/kg dose to study the effect of longer duration of exposure on safety and response rate. The primary endpoints for this clinical trial were safety, pharmacokinetics and immunogenicity. The secondary endpoints for this trial included clinical responses assessed according to the International Working Group on CLL (IWCLL) 2008 and 1996 Guidelines. ORR by IWCLL 2008 criteria was 29.6% (eight partial responses in 27 evaluable patients). Using IWCLL 1996 response criteria resulted in a response rate of 66.7% (18 partial responses).

MOR202

OVERVIEW

MOR202 is a recombinant human IgG1 HuCAL monoclonal antibody directed against the target molecule CD38. CD38 is a highly expressed and clinically validated target in multiple myeloma, or MM. Scientific research suggests that an anti-CD38 antibody also may have therapeutic activity in autoimmune and other diseases driven by autoantibodies, such as anti-PLA2R-positive membranous nephropathy or systemic lupus erythematosus.

We are currently conducting a phase 1/2 trial in anti-PLA2R positive membranous nephropathy, or aMN, an autoimmune disease that affects the kidney. The proof of concept trial called M-PLACE is an open-label, multicenter trial and will primarily assess the safety and tolerability of MOR202. Secondary outcome measures will be the effect of MOR202 on serum anti-PLA2R antibodies and evaluation of immunogenicity and pharmacokinetics of MOR202, while an exploratory objective is to determine the clinical efficacy. The trial will enroll hard-to-treat patients with either high anti-PLA2R titer or having failed prior treatment.

We also conducted a phase 1/2a trial in MM. Data from this study was presented at the ASH Annual Meeting in December 2018. During 2018, we announced our decision not to continue development of MOR202 in MM beyond completion of the currently ongoing trial. This is in line with previous announcements that we would not

66

continue to develop MOR202 in MM without having a suitable partner. However, we continue to support our partner I-Mab’s development of MOR202 with the aim to gain approval in MM for the greater Chinese market as planned. I-Mab is evaluating MOR202 in a phase 2 study initiated in March 2019 as a third-line therapy for r/r multiple myeloma as well as a phase 3 study in combination with lenalidomide as a second-line therapy for r/r multiple myeloma initiated in April 2019. On October 14, 2019, we and our partner I-Mab Biopharma announced that I-Mab has received Investigational New Drug (IND) clearances from the National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) of China for MOR202. This allows the expansion of I-Mab’s phase 2 and phase 3 trial with MOR202/TJ202 in r/r multiple myeloma that are currently ongoing in Taiwan into mainland China.

We have an exclusive regional licensing agreement for MOR202 with I-Mab Biopharma. Under the terms of the agreement signed in November 2017, I-Mab has the exclusive rights to develop and commercialize MOR202 in China, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macao. Upon signing, MorphoSys received an immediate upfront payment of US$ 20 million. We are also entitled to receive additional success-based clinical and commercial milestone payments from I-Mab of up to US$ 100 million, as well as tiered double-digit royalties on net sales of MOR202 in the agreed regions.

DESCRIPTION OF ANTI-PLA2R-POSITIVE MEMBRANOUS NEPHROPATHY AND CURRENT TREATMENT

Membranous nephropathy, or MN, is a chronic inflammatory disease of the glomeruli which is characterized by subepithelial deposition of immune complexes at the glomerular basement membrane. The deposition of complexes results in a dysfunctional permeability of the capillary walls of the glomeruli, leading to proteinuria and very frequently to nephrotic syndrome. MN is the most common cause of nephrotic syndrome in non-diabetic Caucasian adults over 40 years of age. There are about 90,000 patients affected in the U.S. and EU5 (derived from Couser, CJASN, 2017). According to Couser, CJASN, 2017, MN has an estimated annual U.S. incidence of 1:100,000. The disease is very often driven by the presence of autoantibodies targeting the phospholipase A2 receptor 1 (PLA2R), specifically in patients with primary membranous nephropathy. 75%-85% of these patients are PLA2R-positive. The anti-PLA2R antibody titer is also suitable as a prognostic marker to evaluate and monitor the disease course and therapy. There is a significant correlation between the anti-PLA2R antibody titer and the disease activity and severity.

Currently, there are no approved treatments available for patients with membranous nephropathy. Treatments used include supportive care with Angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors or Angiotensin-Receptor blockers, statins, diuretics, off-label used immunosuppressive therapy with cyclophosphamide, ciclosporin A and rituximab (also off-label). There remains an unmet need for effective therapy with a favorable risk-benefit profile that can support earlier initiation of immunosuppressive therapy for patients with membranous nephropathy. Thus, targeting plasma cells that produce autoantibodies with an anti-CD38 antibody might provide clinical benefit and serve as a new treatment option for this disease.

DESCRIPTION OF MULTIPLE MYELOMA AND CURRENT TREATMENT

According to the National Cancer Institute SEER database, MM has an estimated annual U.S. incidence of 30,280. MM causes cancer cells to accumulate in the bone marrow, where they displace and suppress healthy blood progenitor cell populations. MM is also characterized by destructive lytic bone lesions (rounded, punched-out areas of bone), diffuse osteoporosis, bone pain, and the production of abnormal proteins, which accumulate in the urine. Anemia is also present in most MM patients at the time of diagnosis and during follow-up. Anemia in MM is multifactorial and is secondary to bone marrow replacement by malignant plasma cells, chronic inflammation, relative erythropoietin deficiency, and vitamin deficiency.

There is currently no standard multiple myeloma treatment. A patient’s individual treatment plan is based on such factors as age and general health, results of laboratory and cytogenetic (genomic) tests, symptoms and disease complications, prior myeloma treatment, patient lifestyle, goals, views on quality of life, and personal preferences. In addition, many cancer centers have developed their own guidelines for treating myeloma.

67

There are a number of drug classes for the treatment of multiple myeloma: monoclonal antibodies, immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs), proteasome inhibitors, chemotherapy, histone deacetylase inhibitor, and steroids. One of the primary treatment regimens is cytoreductive chemotherapies in combination with stem cell transplantation, aimed at achieving a cure, if possible. Moreover, combination therapy with different drug classes is an increasingly important treatment strategy in multiple myeloma. In addition, myeloma patients require substantial supportive therapy aimed at managing the complications of the disease (such as bone damage) and ameliorating the side effects of treatment.

The introduction of CD38 monoclonal antibodies to the treatment landscape of MM, highlighted by the approval of daratumumab, might be transformative. Based on their distinct mechanisms of action, a generally favorable toxicity profile, and single-agent activity, CD38 antibodies are considered as attractive partners in combination regimens. Deep responses and prolonged PFS have been achieved in r/r MM patients when CD38 antibodies were combined with immunomodulatory agents or proteasome inhibitors.

MOR202—MECHANISM OF ACTION

MOR202 is our anti-CD38 antibody candidate, which is currently being developed in anti-PLA2R-positive aMN and by our partner I-Mab in MM. The antibody’s key activities are ADCC and ADCP. It does not involve complement-dependent cytotoxicity (CDC), an additional mechanism involved in tumor cell killing. In addition, the preclinical data point to a low level of NK-cell depletion.

The figure below depicts the suggested mechanism of action of MOR202 toward either multiple myeloma cells or autoantibody-producing plasma cells:

One of the key features of MOR202 is a low frequency of infusion-related reactions, leading to an infusion time as short as 30 minutes.

DEVELOPMENT OF MOR202

We are currently investigating MOR202 in a phase 1/2 clinical in patients with aMN. The trial was initiated in October 2019 and recruitment is ongoing. Further, our partner I-Mab Biopharma is investigating MOR202 for the treatment of multiple myeloma in the Chinese region.

ACTIVE CLINICAL TRIALS

Phase 1/2 Trial with MOR202 in aMN

In October 2019, we initiated a phase 1/2 trial in anti-PLA2R positive membranous nephropathy, an autoimmune disease that affects the kidney. The proof of concept trial called M-PLACE is an open-label, multicenter trial and

68

will primarily assess the safety and tolerability of MOR202. Secondary outcome measures will be the effect of MOR202 on serum anti-PLA2R antibodies and evaluation of immunogenicity and pharmacokinetics of MOR202, while an exploratory objective is to determine the clinical efficacy. The trial will enroll hard-to-treat patients with either high anti-PLA2R titer or having failed prior treatment.

Phase 2 and Phase 3 Trial with MOR202/TJ202 in r/r MM

I-Mab is evaluating MOR202/TJ202 in a phase 2 study initiated in March 2019 as a third-line therapy for r/r multiple myeloma as well as a phase 3 study in combination with lenalidomide as a second-line therapy for r/r multiple myeloma initiated in April 2019. On October 14, 2019, we and our partner I-Mab Biopharma announced that I-Mab has received Investigational New Drug (IND) clearances from the National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) of China for MOR202/TJ202. This allows the expansion of I-Mab’s phase 2 and phase 3 trial with MOR202/TJ202 in r/r multiple myeloma that are currently ongoing in Taiwan into mainland China.

Phase 1/2 Trial with MOR202 in r/r MM

A phase 1/2a trial in patients with r/r MM is currently ongoing. The dose-escalation trial comprises three arms: MOR202, MOR202 in combination with the immunomodulatory drug (IMiD) lenalidomide (LEN), and MOR202 in combination with the IMiD pomalidomide (POM), in each case with low-dose dexamethasone (DEX). Enrollment in the study completed in August 2017 and primary completion analysis was performed at a data cut-off at December 31, 2017, a primary completion clinical study report was compiled and issued in August 2018. The primary endpoints of the trial are safety, tolerability and recommended dose for MOR202 alone and in combination with immunomodulatory drugs. Secondary outcome measures are pharmacokinetics and preliminary efficacy based on ORR, duration of response, TTP, and PFS. In the trial, MOR202 was administered as a two-hour or shorter infusion up to the highest planned dose of 16 mg/kg. The latest data were presented at the ASH Annual Meeting in December 2018.

PRECLINICAL DEVELOPMENT

In vitro binding studies showed that the binding affinity of MOR202 to CD38 is in the low nanomolar range. The in vivo efficacy of MOR202 was demonstrated in MM and lymphoma xenograft models in severe combined immunodeficient (SCID) mice. MOR202 reduced tumor growth, increased survival and decreased bone lysis induced by MM cells inoculated into the tibiae of SCID mice. In vitro combination studies of MOR202 with LEN enhanced cytotoxicity on MM cell lines. In vivo, the combination of MOR202 with LEN showed synergistic effects on survival and inhibition of MM cell-induced bone lysis.

MOR106

OVERVIEW

MOR106 is an investigational fully human IgG1 monoclonal antibody derived from our Ylanthia library and designed to selectively target IL-17C. MOR106 came from the strategic discovery and co-development alliance between Galapagos and MorphoSys, in which both companies contributed their core technologies and expertise. It is the first publicly disclosed monoclonal antibody targeting IL-17C in clinical development worldwide. In preclinical studies, MOR106 has been shown to inhibit the binding of IL-17C to its receptor thus abolishing its biological activity. Results from rodent inflammatory skin models of atopic dermatitis (AtD) and psoriasis support clinical development of MOR106 for the treatment of inflammatory diseases. In 2018, Galapagos and MorphoSys entered into an exclusive worldwide development and commercialization collaboration with Novartis with respect to MOR106. In October 2019, the three parties jointly announced the end of the clinical development program of MOR106 in AtD and are now exploring the future strategy with MOR106.

MOR106 MECHANISM OF ACTION

To our knowledge, MOR106 is the first antibody in clinical development worldwide targeting the IL-17C antigen. The cytokine IL-17C represents a novel target, which is up-regulated in inflammatory skin disorders

69

such as psoriasis and AD. Based on findings from preclinical animal models, IL-17C is expected to play an important pro-inflammatory role in such skin disorders. Importantly, IL-17C has been shown to be clearly distinct from other members of the IL-17 cytokine family, not only its protein sequence, but also with regards to its site of origin, its biological function, and its signaling pathway.

In inflammatory skin disorders, IL-17C has been identified as an important pro-inflammatory mediator. IL-17C is the only known IL-17 family member primarily expressed by epithelial cells, such as skin keratinocytes. IL-17C binds to its receptor consisting of the subunits IL-17-RA and IL-17-RE. Intracellular signaling occurs via the unique IL-17-RE receptor chain, which is not targeted by any other IL-17 family member. Binding of IL-17C to its receptor is assumed to trigger an inflammatory cascade that plays a promoting role in skin diseases. MOR106 is designed to block this interaction by specifically binding to the cytokine, thereby neutralizing IL-17C’s biological activity. The figure below depicts the suggested mechanism of action of MOR106:

DEVELOPMENT OF MOR106

The clinical development program of MOR106 in atopic dermatitis (AtD) included two phase 2 studies IGUANA and GECKO, as well as a phase 1 bridging study for subcutaneous formulation and a Japanese ethno-bridging study. In October 2019, we, Galapagos NV and Novartis Pharma AG announced the end of the clinical development program of MOR106 in AtD. The joint decision of all three involved parties was based on an interim analysis for futility that was performed in the phase 2 IGUANA trial. The analysis detected a low probability to meet the primary endpoint of the study, defined as the percentage change in the eczema area and severity index (EASI) score. The decision was based on a lack of efficacy and not on safety concerns.

All studies in atopic dermatitis were ended. The parties now explore the future strategy with MOR106.

CLINICAL TRIALS

We reported results from a phase 1 study in September 2017, with more detailed results presented in February 2018, investigating the safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetic profile of MOR106 when administered intravenously, or IV, in single ascending doses in healthy volunteers as well as in multiple ascending doses in

70

patients suffering from AtD. The primary objective of the phase 1 study was to evaluate the safety and tolerability of MOR106. The study’s secondary objective was to characterize the pharmacokinetic profile of MOR106 in healthy volunteers as well as AtD patients. Exploratory objectives included the measurement of early signs of efficacy. In the single ascending dose part of the study, 56 healthy volunteers received an infusion (MOR106 (n=42); placebo (n=14)), followed by a 7-week follow-up period. In the multiple ascending dose part of the study, 25 patients diagnosed with moderate-to-severe AtD (MOR106 (n=18); placebo (n=7)), received four infusions, once a week for four weeks, followed by a 10-week follow-up period. Patients received either placebo or MOR106 in a one-to-three ratio of placebo and three different dose levels of MOR106, 1, 4, and 10 mg/kg body weight.

Additionally, the drug candidate has been investigated as an intravenous formulation in a phase 2 study named IGUANA in patients with moderately severe-to-severe AtD, which started in May 2018. A phase 1 bridging study with a subcutaneous formulation of MOR106 was initiated in September 2018. In this study, MOR106 was first administered subcutaneously or intravenously to healthy volunteers. Patients with moderate-to-severe AtD were then be treated with several subcutaneously administered doses of MOR106. On April 23, 2019, a phase 2 study called GECKO was initiated in AtD, investigating a subcutaneous formulation of MOR106 in combination with topical corticosteroids. Patient recruiting will is taking place in the U.S. and Canada, and the study was intended to serve as an Investigational New Drug (IND) opener with the U.S. FDA. In August 2019, a phase 1/2 trial was initiated in Japan to evaluate the safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetics of subcutaneously administered MOR106 in Japanese patients with AtD. The study, called Angelfish, was intended as a Japanese ethno-bridging study.

PRECLINICAL DEVELOPMENT

In vitro, MOR106 inhibits the binding of human IL-17C to its specific receptor subunit IL-17-RE and inhibits the biological activity of IL-17C as determined in an NF-kB reporter gene assay in mouse NIH3T3 cells and in a more physiological assay using primary human keratinocytes endogenously expressing IL-17-RE/RA. In these functional assays, MOR106 inhibits the activity of the cynomolgus monkey and the mouse IL-17C with similar potencies as human IL-17C (Vandeghinste et al., 2018).

MOR106 prevented the occurrence of an AtD-like skin inflammation in the MC903 (calcipotriol-induced) mouse model, with a significant impact on epidermal and dermal thickening, inflammation and type 2 T helper cell (Th2)-like gene expression. A therapeutic effect of MOR106 administration was also shown in the flaky tail mutant mouse, which exhibits a defective skin barrier function and spontaneously develops atopy evolving into a progressive overt AtD-like dermatitis, reproducing cardinal features of AtD in man. Beyond models of AtD, MOR106 also displayed a protective effect in the IL-23-induced psoriasis-like skin inflammation mouse model with a significant impact on ear thickness, epidermal thickening and IL-23-induced gene expression (Vandeghinste et al., 2018).

For the non-clinical safety assessment of MOR106, mice and cynomolgus monkeys were identified as pharmacologically relevant animal species. The results of the in vivo toxicity studies demonstrated that MOR106 was well tolerated in the mouse and cynomolgus monkey up to the highest dose tested.

Otilimab

OVERVIEW

Otilimab (formerly MOR103/GSK3196165) is a fully human HuCAL antibody directed against the granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF). We discovered and advanced otilimab into clinical development and our partner, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) is now developing the antibody in rheumatoid arthritis. Due to its diverse functions in the immune system, GM-CSF can be considered as target for a broad spectrum of anti-inflammatory therapies. GSK acquired the rights to otilimab pursuant to an exclusive worldwide development and license agreement that was entered into in June 2013.

71

We were responsible for a phase 1b/2a clinical trial of otilimab in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), which was completed in June 2012, and in multiple sclerosis (MS), which was completed in February 2014. GSK is solely responsible, at its own cost, for all other development and commercialization activities. GSK is currently evaluating this antibody for the treatment of RA. GSK conducted a phase 2b study in patients with RA and a phase 2a study in patients with inflammatory hand OA. The corresponding study data were presented at the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) Annual Meeting in October 2018. Shortly thereafter GSK has announced that it does not intend to pursue further development in hand OA. In July 2019, GSK announced the start of a phase 3 clinical development program with otilimab in rheumatoid arthritis. The phase 3 program named “ContRAst” includes three pivotal studies and one long-term extension trial and will investigate the antibody in patients with moderate-to-severe RA. In connection with the notification, GSK also announced that the antibody had been assigned the INN name otilimab.

DESCRIPTION OF GM-CSF AND RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS AND CURRENT TREATMENTS GM-CSF

GM-CSF stimulates stem cells to produce granulocytes and macrophages and can subsequently activate these differentiated immune cells. GM-CSF is part of the natural immune and inflammatory cascade but has also been identified as an inflammatory mediator in autoimmune disorders like RA, leading to increased production of pro-inflammatory cytokines, chemokines and proteases and thereby ultimately to articular destruction.

GM-CSF can act as a pro-inflammatory cytokine mainly by inducing the activation, maturation and differentiation of macrophages and dendritic cells, which are essential for the initiation and propagation of cell-mediated immune responses.

RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS

RA is a disabling and painful inflammatory condition that can lead to substantial loss of mobility. The disease affects approximately four to six million people worldwide. In patients with RA, white blood cells move from the bloodstream into the synovium, where they cause inflammation.

Disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are routinely prescribed as first-line therapies for RA and have become the cornerstone of treatment, often prescribed to patients at all levels of disease severity. For patients not responding to conventional DMARD treatment, TNF-α inhibitors are universally accepted as first-line biologic agents owing to their efficacy and to physician familiarity and comfort with these agents’ long-term post-marketing experience. Multiple treatment options with different mechanisms of action are available for patients for whom TNF-α antibodies are contraindicated or who are not responding to TNF-α inhibitor treatment. The availability of JAK inhibitors (Xeljanz^®, Olumiant^®), an oral class of agents with efficacy comparable to that of established biologic agents, is also expanding.

72

OTILIMAB FOR TREATMENT OF ANTI-INFLAMMATORY DISEASES

OTILIMAB—MECHANISM OF ACTION

Otilimab is a fully human HuCAL antibody directed against GM-CSF. GM-CSF levels are significantly elevated in several inflammatory disorders and in the joints of RA patients. By neutralizing GM-CSF, otilimab has demonstrated its ability to reduce GM-CSF induced proliferation and activation of inflammatory cells and to intervene in several pathophysiological pathways in preclinical models of RA. The figure below depicts the suggested mechanism of action of otilimab

DEVELOPMENT OF OTILIMAB

Otilimab has been investigated in various clinical trials addressing RA, OA and MS. Phase 1/2 trials conducted by MorphoSys in RA and MS were completed in 2012 and 2014, respectively. GSK has investigated otilimab for the treatment of RA and OA in phase 2 studies.

In July 2019, GSK announced the start of a phase 3 program with otilimab in rheumatoid arthritis. The phase 3 program named “ContRAst” includes three pivotal studies and one long-term extension trial and will investigate the antibody in patients with moderate-to-severe RA.

Phase 3 Clinical Program in RA

In July 2019, GSK announced the start of the phase 3 ContRAst program in moderate-to-severe RA. The program includes three pivotal studies and a long-term extension study and it compares otilimab against approved drugs—a JAK inhibitor and an anti-IL6 antibody. GSK plans to enroll 3500-4100 patients. According to clinicaltrials.gov, first data-readout is expected in H2 2022.

Phase 2b Clinical Trial in RA

In 2015, GSK announced the start of a phase 2b clinical study to investigate otilimab in RA. The primary objective of the randomized, dose-adaptive, multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled study was to assess the efficacy of otilimab, in combination with methotrexate in 210 patients with active moderate-severe RA despite treatment with methotrexate. Data from this study were presented at the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) Annual Meeting in October 2018.

Phase 2a Clinical Trial in Hand OA

In April 2016, GSK initiated a phase 2a clinical study to investigate the effectiveness and safety of otilimab in patients with inflammatory hand OA. The goal of the European multicenter double-blind, placebo-controlled

73

study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous injections of otilimab in adult subjects with inflammatory hand OA. The main objective of the study was to assess the efficacy potential of otilimab on pain in inflammatory hand OA. Secondary objectives included safety and pharmacokinetics. Study data were presented at the 2018 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) Annual Meeting in October 2018. GSK has announced that it does not intend to pursue further development in hand OA.

Phase 1b/2a Clinical Trial in RA

In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 1b/2a trial in 96 mild-to-moderate RA patients that has been completed by MorphoSys in 2012, Otilimab was administered in four weekly doses of 0.3 mg/kg, 1.0 mg/kg or 1.5 mg/kg. The primary aim of the trial was to determine the safety and tolerability of multiple doses of otilimab in patients with active RA. Secondary outcome measures were pharmacokinetics, immunogenicity, and the product’s potential to improve clinical signs and symptoms of RA as measured by Disease Activity Score in 28 joints, or DAS28, American College of Rheumatology score measuring 20% / 50% / 70% improvement, or ACR20/50/70, and other criteria.

Data were presented at the 2012 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting which took place on November 9-14, 2012 in Washington, DC.

The best response was achieved in the 1.0 mg/kg dose cohort with an ACR20 score of 68% at week four, which was significantly higher than in the control arm. Of particular importance was the fast onset of action observed: within two weeks, up to 40% of patients achieved an ACR20 score. Improvement of DAS28 scores was rapid and significant over the treatment period of the study. ACR20/50 scores at week four are depicted in the table below.

A total of 144 treatment-emergent adverse effects were reported in 54 (56.3%) subjects (42 subjects (60.9%) in the otilimab groups and 12 (44.4%) in the pooled placebo group). The most common treatment-emergent adverse event by preferred term in the active and placebo groups was nasopharyngitis. The incidences of fatigue, cough and adverse events related to RA (worsening or flares) in the otilimab group were more than four percentage points higher than in the placebo group. None of the adverse events were considered to be probably or definitely related to treatment. Adverse events possibly related to treatment were reported in seven placebos (14 adverse events) and ten otilimab subjects (19 adverse events). Only three adverse events (fatigue, scaling and decreased diffusion capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide) were considered possibly related to treatment in more than one subject. All adverse events were judged to be of mild or moderate intensity except for one severe adverse event of hospitalization due to paronychia in the placebo group.

Phase 1b Clinical Trial in MS

In February 2014, we concluded a phase 1b clinical trial of otilimab in patients with relapsing-remitting MS or secondary progressive MS with relapses. In this 20-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 1b dose-escalation study, patients received an intravenous infusion of placebo or 0.5 mg/kg, 1 mg/kg or 2 mg/kg otilimab every two weeks for ten weeks. Thirty-one patients received treatment. The primary endpoint was safety assessed by adverse events, physical examinations, vital signs, clinical laboratory data, electrocardiograms, pulmonary function tests, and MS relapses.

A total of 184 treatment-associated adverse events were reported in 31 (96.8%) patients, with no overall indication of increased adverse event frequencies in the otilimab groups compared with placebo. The most common adverse events in all groups were nasopharyngitis, headache, and MS exacerbation. No cases of infusion-related reaction were reported. Eleven MS exacerbation events occurred in nine patients. MS exacerbation occurred in three (50.0%), five (62.5%), one (12.5%), and zero (0%) patients in the placebo, otilimab 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 mg/kg groups, respectively. Events occurred in both the treatment and follow-up periods in the placebo and otilimab 0.5 mg/kg groups and during follow-up in the otilimab 1.0 mg/kg group. All events either resolved/recovered or were resolving/recovering at the end of the follow-up period; recovery with sequelae was reported for three exacerbations.

74

A total of 71 adverse events considered to be possibly, probably, or definitely related to treatment, were reported in 18 (58.1%) patients. Adverse events were generally of mild or moderate intensity. There were two severe adverse events (urinary tract infection, placebo group; decreased vibratory sense in right lower limb, otilimab 2.0 mg/kg group) both of which were considered unlikely to be related to treatment. No adverse events led to death or trial discontinuation.

MOR107

OVERVIEW

MOR107 is a lanthipeptide based on our proprietary technology platform and a selective agonist of the angiotensin II receptor type 2, or AT₂R. Lanthipeptides are a novel class of therapeutics with potential high target molecule selectivity and high in vivo stability. Lanthipeptides can be designed to have agonistic or antagonistic activity. After we had successfully completed a first-in-human phase 1 study in healthy volunteers in 2017, we continued our preclinical investigations with MOR107 during 2018 and 2019, focusing on oncology indications.

DEVELOPMENT OF MOR107

CLINICAL TRIALS

In February 2017, we initiated a first-in-human phase 1 study of MOR107 in healthy male volunteers. Twenty-four participants were dosed. The study was conducted by Quotient Clinical (now Quotient Sciences) at their phase 1 unit in Nottingham, United Kingdom. The primary endpoint of the single-center randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was to assess safety and tolerability of subcutaneously administered single ascending doses of MOR107 in healthy male volunteers. The secondary endpoint of the study was to assess the pharmacokinetics of subcutaneously administered single ascending doses of MOR107.

MOR107 is formulated as a solution that is administered by subcutaneous injection. In May 2017, the first part of the clinical study in healthy volunteers was completed. The trial included three dose cohorts of MOR107. MOR107 was well tolerated following single doses of 0.001, 0.01 and 0.1 mg. Following single subcutaneous administration, MOR107 demonstrated a rapid absorption from the subcutaneous injection site and exposure increased in an apparent dose-proportional manner. There were no deaths or SAEs, and no subject was withdrawn from the safety follow-up as a result of an AE. The incidence of AEs was low. For each MOR107 dose group, one AE was reported by one participant (16.7%). All AEs were classed as mild in severity. No laboratory test result, vital sign measurement, ECG measurement, physical examination or injection site assessment was considered clinically significant.

PRECLINICAL DEVELOPMENT

In preclinical studies, MOR107 has demonstrated AT₂R-dependent activity.

Three in vivo and one in vitro safety pharmacology studies that investigated potential physiological effects of MOR107 on the central nervous system, respiratory and cardiovascular systems did not reveal any detrimental effects over the dose range tested. Dose-ranging toxicology studies using both the intravenous and subcutaneous routes in rat and dog were carried out but no maximum tolerated dose has yet been identified. Based on initial anti-tumor data, MOR107 is currently in preclinical investigation with a focus on oncology indications.

ADDITIONAL PRECLINICAL PROJECTS

MOR210

OVERVIEW

MOR210 is a human antibody directed against C5aR derived from our HuCAL technology. C5aR, the receptor of the complement factor C5a, is being investigated as a potential new drug target in the field of immuno-oncology

75

and autoimmune diseases. Tumors have been shown to produce high amounts of C5a which, by recruiting and activating myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs), is assumed to contribute to an immune-suppressive pro-tumorigenic microenvironment. MOR210 is intended to block the interaction between C5a and its receptor, thereby being expected to neutralize the immune-suppressive function of the MDSCs and to enable immune cells to attack the tumor. MOR210 is currently in preclinical development.

Regional agreement with I-Mab Biopharma

In November 2018, we announced that we had entered into an exclusive strategic collaboration and regional licensing agreement for MOR210 with I-Mab Biopharma. Under the agreement, I-Mab has exclusive rights to develop and commercialize MOR210 in China, Hong Kong, Macao, Taiwan and South Korea, while we retain rights in the rest of the world. The agreement deepens our existing partnership with I-Mab, building upon the ongoing collaboration for MOR202.

Under the terms of the agreement, I-Mab will exercise its exclusive license rights for the development and commercialization of MOR210 in its territories. With our support, I-Mab will perform and fund all global development activities for MOR210, including clinical trials in China and the U.S., towards clinical proof of concept (PoC) in oncology.

We received an upfront payment of US$ 3.5 million from I-Mab and are eligible to receive development and commercial milestone payments of up to US$ 101.5 million, as well as tiered, mid-single-digit royalties on net sales of MOR210 in I-Mab’s territories. In return for the execution of a successful clinical PoC study, I-Mab is eligible to receive low-single-digit royalties on net sales generated with MOR210 outside its territories and a tiered percentage of sub-licensing revenue.

QPCTL INHIBITORS (VIVORYON)

OVERVIEW

The QPCTL inhibitors are small molecule inhibitors of the glutaminyl-peptide cyclotransferase-like enzyme, which was shown to be a modulator of the CD47-SIRP alpha interaction, also known as the “don’t eat me” signal. This signaling pathway enables cancer cells to evade the body’s innate immune system by inhibition of the phagocytic activity of macrophages. Thus, the use of QPCTL inhibitors to silence the “don’t eat me” signal provided by the CD47-SIRP alpha interaction may be an attractive approach in immune-oncology. We are currently investigating the QPCTL inhibitors preclinically including an assessment of the potential benefits of combining them with our proprietary program tafasitamab.

Agreement with Vivoryon Therapeutics AG

In July 2019, we and Vivoryon Therapeutics AG announced that we have entered into an agreement under the terms of which we have obtained an exclusive option to license Vivoryon’s small molecule QPCTL inhibitors in the field of oncology. The option covers worldwide development and commercialization for cancer of Vivoryon’s family of inhibitors of the glutaminyl-peptide cyclotransferase-like (QPCTL) enzyme, including its lead compound PQ912.

In exchange, we have committed to invest in a minority stake in Vivoryon in the capital raise which was performed on October 24, 2019 by issuing a total of 7,674,106 ordinary bearer shares. The capital raise was recorded in the Commercial Register on October 25, 2019. By the subscription of 2,673,796 ordinary bearer shares in the amount of € 15 million, we acquired a 13.4% share in Vivoryon Therapeutics AG.

PARTNERED DISCOVERY PROGRAMS

In our Partnered Discovery programs, we apply technologies for the research, development and optimization of therapeutic antibodies as product candidates in partnership with pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies.

76

The table below sets forth the clinical pipeline for our Partnered Discovery programs. In addition, we have 56 partnered product candidates that are in the discovery phase and 24 partnered product candidates that are in preclinical development.

Most advanced development stage

PARTNERED DISCOVERY PROGRAMS IN LATE CLINICAL DEVELOPMENT, I.E. PHASE 3

Guselkumab (Tremfya^®)

OVERVIEW

Guselkumab (Tremfya^®) is a human HuCAL antibody targeting IL-23 that is being developed and commercialized by Janssen. It is the first commercial product based on our proprietary technology. It is approved in the United States, Canada, the European Union, and several other countries for the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis and in Japan for the treatment of various forms of psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, and palmoplantar pustulosis. IL-23 is a pro-inflammatory protein, which has been identified as a cytokine in autoimmune diseases and is found in the skin of patients with psoriasis and other inflammatory diseases. The antibody binds to the so-called p19 subunit unique to IL-23. Antibodies that bind to IL-23’s p40 subunit will also neutralize IL-12 and are therefore less specific. Guselkumab (Tremfya^®) is the first approved antibody binding the p19 subunit of IL-23.

In July 2017, Janssen announced it had received U.S. market approval from the FDA for guselkumab (Tremfya^®) for the treatment of adult patients suffering from moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. We received a milestone payment from Janssen related to the approval. In November 2017, the EU Commission granted European approval of guselkumab (Tremfya^®) for the treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. Also in November 2017, Janssen announced that it had received Health Canada approval in Canada for guselkumab (Tremfya^®) for the treatment of adult patients suffering from moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. Janssen reported several other marketing approvals in various countries during 2018 and approval in China for the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis by the end of 2019. Moreover, Janssen submitted a BLA to the U.S. FDA as well as a MAA to the EMA for Tremfya^® for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis during 2019.

77

In addition to plaque psoriasis, erythrodermic and pustular psoriasis, palmoplantar pustulosis and psoriatic arthritis, guselkumab (Tremfya^®) is currently in development for the treatment of pediatric psoriasis, palmoplantar-non-pustular psoriasis, pityriasis rubra pilaris, Crohn’s disease, hidradenitis suppurativa, ulcerative colitis and familial adenomatous polyposis.

MorphoSys is eligible for certain milestone payments and receives royalties on net sales of guselkumab (Tremfya^®).

TREATMENT OF PSORIASIS AND PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS

Psoriasis is an inflammatory autoimmune disease of the skin. The associated inflamed skin patches may vary in severity from small and localized to complete body coverage. There are five main types of psoriasis: plaque, guttate, inverse, pustular, and erythrodermic. Plaque psoriasis, also known as psoriasis vulgaris, makes up about 90% of cases. It typically presents with red, itchy and scaly patches with white scales on top (plaques). Psoriasis is usually chronic and has high morbidity and a negative impact on patients’ quality of life. It is estimated that more than 8 million Americans live with the disease. Approximately 70% of those affected with psoriasis have mild disease, while 30% have moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis.

Psoriatic arthritis is a chronic immune-mediated inflammatory disease characterized by both joint inflammation and the skin lesions associated with psoriasis. It is estimated that one-third of the 125 million people living with psoriasis worldwide will also develop psoriatic arthritis. The disease causes pain, stiffness and swelling in and around the joints and commonly appears between the ages of 30 and 50 but can develop at any time. While the exact cause of psoriatic arthritis is unknown, genes, the immune system and environmental factors are all believed to play a role in the onset of the disease.

78

GUSELKUMAB (TREMFYA^®) MECHANISM OF ACTION

Guselkumab (Tremfya^®) is a fully human monoclonal antibody directed against the p19 subunit of interleukin (IL)-23. IL-23 is a pro-inflammatory protein, which has been identified as a cytokine in autoimmune diseases and IL-23 levels are elevated in the skin of patients with psoriasis and in other inflammatory diseases. By binding to IL-23, the antibody prevents the cytokine from binding to its receptor, thereby silencing ongoing autoimmune responses. The figure below illustrates the suggested mechanism of action of guselkumab (Tremfya^®):

CLINICAL DEVELOPMENT OF GUSELKUMAB (TREMFYA^®)

OVERVIEW

To date, guselkumab (Tremfya^®) has been tested in a total of 41 clinical trials—37 of which are or have been conducted by Janssen or its predecessor Centocor—whereof 19 have already been completed and 22 are still ongoing (including two trials which have been announced already, but are not yet recruiting and one trial which has been suspended for an amendment of the protocol, but is planned to resume). Several completed studies were phase 1 studies in healthy volunteers to assess the safety and pharmacokinetics of the antibody.

79

The majority of the studies were initiated in patients with psoriasis (with a focus on moderate-to-severe plaque-type psoriasis). Several of these studies have been completed, amongst others three phase 1 trials analyzing either guselkumab (Tremfya^®) alone or in combination with P450 enzyme substrates, and one phase 2 trial. In late stage clinical development for psoriasis, guselkumab (Tremfya^®) has been tested in various phase 3 studies either evaluating guselkumab (Tremfya^®) versus a placebo and/or an active comparator drug: VOYAGE-1 and VOYAGE-2 compared guselkumab (Tremfya^®) to adalimumab (Humira^®); NAVIGATE compared guselkumab (Tremfya^®) to ustekinumab (Stelara^®) and ECLIPSE was a head-to-head comparison trial to secukinumab (Cosentyx^®). POLARIS, a phase 3 trial, has been completed in February 2019 and compared guselkumab (Tremfya^®) to fumaric acid esters. Three phase 3 studies (G-PLUS, GUIDE and PROTOSTAR) are currently still recruiting patients.

Two phase 3 trials investigating guselkumab (Tremfya^®) versus placebo in pustular psoriasis or erythrodermic psoriasis and palmoplantar pustulosis as well as a phase 2 trial in palmoplantar pustulosis have been completed, respectively.

In addition, Janssen has conducted several trials in psoriatic arthritis. One phase 2 trial and a phase 3 trial have been completed. Two phase 3 trials are currently active, but no longer recruiting patients, one of which was initiated in March 2019.

Further, Janssen initiated several trials in various other indications—a pivotal phase 2/3 clinical program in patients with Crohn’s disease (GALAXI) and a phase 2 trial in hidradenitis suppurativa (NOVA). During 2019, a further phase 2 study in hidradenitis suppurativa (HiGUS, not yet recruiting), a phase 2a trial (VEGA), and a phase 2/3 study (QUASAR), both in ulcerative colitis, a phase 2 trial in pityriasis rubra pilaris and a phase 1b trial in familial adenomatous polyposis were added to the clinical development portfolio of guselkumab (Tremfya^®).

CLINICAL DEVELOPMENT OF GUSELKUMAB (TREMFYA^®) IN PSORIASIS

In October 2016, Janssen reported results from its phase 3 clinical VOYAGE-1 trial in 837 patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. In the study, the efficacy and safety of guselkumab (Tremfya^®) were compared with placebo and with adalimumab (Humira^®). The data presented by Janssen showed that guselkumab (Tremfya^®) exhibited significantly better efficacy than placebo and superiority over adalimumab (Humira^®). According to Janssen, the study met both the primary endpoints and all major secondary endpoints. For the primary endpoints, it was assessed whether signs and symptoms of psoriasis were improved, while delivering clear or almost clear skin (investigator global assessment score, or IGA, 0 or 1 and Psoriasis Area Severity Index, or PASI, 90) at week 16, in patients receiving guselkumab (Tremfya^®) compared to those receiving placebo. An IGA of 0 or 1 means a patient has either achieved completely clear skin (IGA 0) or almost completely clear skin (IGA 1). PASI 90 means that 90% of the psoriatic lesions have disappeared. For the secondary endpoints it was assessed in what percentage of patients the signs and symptoms of psoriasis were improved under treatment with guselkumab (Tremfya^®) compared to patients receiving adalimumab (Humira^®).

Long-term data from this trial were presented during 2018 and in October 2019, Janssen presented four-year data at the 39th Fall Clinical Dermatology Conference in Las Vegas, Nevada. These data showed that 82 percent of patients receiving Tremfya^® (guselkumab) in the combined group of patients initially randomized to Tremfya^® or to placebo with crossover to Tremfya^® at week 16 achieved at least a 90 percent improvement in the Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI 90) response and an Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) score of cleared (0) or minimal disease (1) at week 204 (4 years). Additional results from the open-label extension of the VOYAGE 1 Phase 3 clinical study showed that PASI 100, IGA 0/1, and IGA 0 clear skin responses were consistent at week 52 and week 204 in the combined group of patients initially randomized to Tremfya^® or to placebo with crossover to Tremfya^® at week 16. Proportions of patients with Psoriasis Symptoms and Signs Diary (PSSD) symptom scores of 0 (no symptoms of psoriasis) were consistent at week 76 and week 204. No new safety signals were identified.

80

In March 2017, Janssen presented results from two other phase 3 studies, VOYAGE-2 and NAVIGATE, in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. Both studies met all primary endpoints, according to the abstracts submitted by Janssen to the American Academy of Dermatology 2017 meeting. According to Janssen, data from the VOYAGE-2 study showed that patients treated with guselkumab (Tremfya^®) experienced significant improvements in skin clearance and other measures of disease activity compared with placebo, and significantly greater improvements compared with adalimumab (Humira^®). Data from Janssen’s NAVIGATE study showed that patients who had an inadequate response following treatment with the IL-12/23 monoclonal antibody ustekinumab (STELARA^®) and who then switched to guselkumab (Tremfya^®), showed significantly greater improvements in skin clearance compared with patients who continued to receive ustekinumab (STELARA^®). Long-term data from the VOYAGE-2 study were presented during 2018 at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2018 Congress in Paris, France. In May 2017, Janssen announced plans for new phase 3 clinical studies with guselkumab (Tremfya^®), which include a phase 3 study to evaluate the comparative efficacy of guselkumab (Tremfya^®) versus secukinumab (Cosentyx^®) for the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis (ECLIPSE study). Janssen initiated the ECLIPSE study in the first half of 2017 and announced results from the study in December 2018 that demonstrated that Tremfya^® (guselkumab) was superior to Cosentyx^® (secukinumab) in treating adults with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis for the primary endpoint of a PASI 90 response at week 48. The data from the multicenter, randomized, double-blind, head-to-head phase 3 study ECLIPSE demonstrated that 84.5 percent of patients treated with Tremfya^® achieved at least 90 percent improvement in their baseline Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI) score at week 48, compared with 70.0 percent of patients treated with Cosentyx^® (p<0.001). The data were presented at the 3rd Inflammatory Skin Disease Summit in Vienna, Austria.

At the end of February 2019, Janssen announced that it had received U.S. FDA approval for Tremfya^® One-Press, a single-dose, patient-controlled injector for adults with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. This is a device that allows patients to administer the drug subcutaneously by themselves and is thus intended to provide a higher convenience to psoriasis patients with respect to the treatment of their chronic disease.

Various other phase 2 and phase 3 studies with Tremfya^® in patients with plaque psoriasis or other forms of psoriasis have been conducted or are still ongoing.

CLINICAL DEVELOPMENT OF GUSELKUMAB (TREMFYA^®) IN PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS, HIDRADENITIS SUPPURATIVA, CROHN’S DISEASE, ULCERATIVE COLITIS, FAMILIAL ADENOMATOUS POLYPOSIS AND PITYRIASIS RUBRA PILARIS

In November 2016, Janssen presented positive results from a phase 2a clinical study evaluating guselkumab (Tremfya^®) in patients with psoriatic arthritis. The data published by Janssen showed that a substantially higher percentage of patients receiving guselkumab (Tremfya^®) achieved at least a 20% improvement in signs and symptoms of the disease (ACR 20) at week 24, the study’s primary endpoint, compared to patients receiving placebo. In September 2017, Janssen initiated two phase 3 studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of guselkumab (Tremfya^®) in psoriatic arthritis. Janssen made a milestone payment to us in connection with the initiation of these phase 3 studies.

In September 2019, Janssen submitted a sBLA for Tremfya^® to the FDA seeking approval of guselkumab (Tremfya^®) for the treatment of adult patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA). The sBLA is based on results from the phase 3 studies DISCOVER-1 and DISCOVER-2, which met their primary endpoints of patients achieving an American College of Rheumatology 20 percent improvement (ACR20) response after 24 weeks of treatment. According to Janssen, the safety profile observed for Tremfya^® in the DISCOVER studies was generally consistent with previous studies as well as the current Tremfya^® prescribing information. The data were also the basis for a type II variation application to the EMA that was submitted by end of October 2019.

In July 2018, we announced that Janssen had initiated a phase 2/3 program in Crohn’s disease, and in November 2018, Janssen started a phase 2 study in hidradenitis suppurativa (HS). Moreover, according to the website clinicaltrials.gov, Janssen plans to start another phase 2 study in HS, which is already listed but not recruiting yet.

81

In January 2019, we announced that Janssen has started a proof of concept phase 2a clinical trial in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC), a chronic inflammatory bowel disease. This randomized, double-blind study will evaluate the efficacy and safety of guselkumab in combination with golimumab compared to guselkumab or golimumab monotherapy in approximately 210 patients with moderately to severely active UC. According to the website clinicaltrials.gov, Janssen has furthermore initiated a phase 2b/3 study in UC in September 2019. The study is currently suspended due to an amendment of the protocol, but is planned to resume.

Also in April 2019, Janssen initiated the phase 1 clinical development of Tremfya^® in familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP), a dominantly inherited disorder characterized by the early onset of polyps throughout the colon, which may develop into colon cancer, if not treated. With the start of the clinical development in FAP, we received a milestone payment from Janssen.

In addition to the aforementioned studies, a phase 2 study assessing guselkumab in pityriasis rubra pilaris was initiated by the Oregon Health and Science University in October 2019 to determine safety and efficacy in this indication.

COMMERCIALIZATION OF GUSELKUMAB (TREMFYA^®)

Under a collaboration agreement, Janssen is responsible for the global development and commercialization of guselkumab (Tremfya^®). We have received technology license fees, research and development funding, development and commercial milestone payments as well as royalty payments. We are eligible to receive additional milestone payments for certain defined clinical and/or regulatory milestones related to the product and royalties on net sales. For more information, see Collaborations and License Agreements—Research and License Agreement with Janssen (formerly Centocor).

Guselkumab (Tremfya^®) has been available to patients with plaque psoriasis in the U.S. since the end of July 2017, and we received our first royalty payment soon thereafter. Following approvals in Canada and the EU, guselkumab (Tremfya^®) has also been made available to patients in Canada and in the EU. Meanwhile, Tremfya^® has been approved in several countries for the treatment of plaque psoriasis and in Japan also for various forms of psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, and palmoplantar pustulosis. We received milestone payments from Janssen together with the FDA approval in July 2017 as well with Janssen’s filing for U.S. approval announced in November 2016. We also received milestone payments from Janssen in connection with the clinical development of guselkumab (Tremfya^®) in additional indications.

Gantenerumab

Gantenerumab is a HuCAL antibody directed against amyloid beta (Aß) that is being developed by Roche for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. Aß denotes a group of peptides that are crucially involved in Alzheimer’s disease as the main component of the amyloid plaques found in the brains of Alzheimer’s patients. In phase 1 clinical trials, gantenerumab has been shown to reduce brain amyloid in mild-to-moderate Alzheimer’s disease patients. Gantenerumab is being investigated in several clinical studies to see if there is a positive effect from intervening at an early-stage in the disease’s progression. There are currently no drugs available that fundamentally improve the course of Alzheimer’s disease.

TREATMENT OF ALZHEIMER’S DISEASE

Eight cognitive domains are commonly impaired in Alzheimer’s disease: memory, language, reception, attention, constructive ability, orientation, problem-solving, and functional ability. Cognitive impairments in Alzheimer’s disease are progressive, and decline is inexorable. No product currently available can stop, prevent, or modify the progression of Alzheimer’s disease; instead, currently available therapies are prescribed with the goal of improving the quality of life of both patients and their caregivers, who must cope with the significant burden of this disease. These products provide only marginal, transient benefits, highlighting the need for new, more effective therapies.

82

GANTENERUMAB FOR TREATMENT OF ALZHEIMER’S DISEASE

MECHANISM OF ACTION

Gantenerumab is an IgG1 antibody derived from a Partnered Discovery project with Hoffmann La Roche. The HuCAL antibody is directed against Aß and binds the N-terminus and a section in the middle of the Aß peptide. On binding, the antibody seems to neutralize and disrupt the formation of amyloid plaque and amyloid oligomers or might dissolve existing ones. In phase 1 clinical trials, gantenerumab has been shown to reduce brain amyloid in mild-to-moderate Alzheimer’s disease patients. Load and location of brain Aß were determined by using positron emission tomography (PET) imaging. After treatment with infusions of intravenous gantenerumab or placebo, PET imaging was done using a radioactive Carbon-11 labeled tracer. Using this method, a dose-dependent reduction of brain amyloid level was measured.

The figure below depicts the suggested mechanism of action of gantenerumab:

CLINICAL DEVELOPMENT OF GANTENERUMAB

Gantenerumab has been or is currently studied by Roche in several clinical trials in patients with Alzheimer’s disease, including five phase 3 studies.

In 2014, we announced that gantenerumab had failed a futility analysis in the first phase 3 trial. In a later analysis, however, it was established that gantenerumab had been dosed significantly lower when compared to

83

clinical trials conducted with aducanumab, an antibody against Aß developed by Biogen with similar characteristics (e.g., epitope, affinity or IgG subtype) as compared to gantenerumab.

In March 2018, data with gantenerumab were presented in which the antibody was evaluated with considerably higher doses in an open-label extension study part than previously tested.

In June 2018, we announced that Roche had initiated a new phase 3 development program in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. The program consists of two phase 3 trials—GRADUATE-1 and GRADUATE-2. The phase 3 program will enroll approximately 1,520 patients in up to 350 study centers in 31 countries worldwide. The two multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials will enroll up to 760 patients each, to assess the efficacy and safety of gantenerumab in patients with early (prodromal to mild) Alzheimer’s disease. All participants need to show evidence of beta-amyloid pathology. Patients will receive a placebo or gantenerumab as subcutaneous injection with optimized titration up to the target dose. The primary endpoint for both trials is the assessment of signs and symptoms of dementia, measured as the clinical dementia rating-sum of boxes (CDR-SOB) score, determined as the change of the status from baseline to week 104.

In addition to the two GRADUATE studies, gantenerumab is currently being tested in two open-label extension studies based on the phase 2/3 studies Scarlet RoAD and Marguerite RoAD, and in the DIAN-TU study in patients at risk for or suffering from a type of early-onset Alzheimer’s disease caused by a genetic mutation which is conducted by the Washington University School of Medicine.

In November 2019, Roche’s Pharma Research and Early Development held an early drug development investor event and gave an update of their neuroscience portfolio. In this context, the start of a phase 1 study assessing a brain-shuttle version of gantenerumab (RG6102) was communicated. The study assesses gantenerumab coupled to a transporter to enhance the brain penetration through transferrin receptor mediated transport across the blood-brain-barrier in Alzheimer`s patients.

COMMERCIALIZATION OF GANTENERUMAB

We are entitled to further milestone payments from Roche for certain defined clinical and/or regulatory milestones related to the product candidate. In addition, in the event of a future approval and commercialization of the antibody, we are entitled to receive from Roche tiered royalties of between 5.5% and 7% of the net sales generated with gantenerumab.

PARTNERED DISCOVERY PROGRAMS IN EARLY CLINICAL DEVELOPMENT, I.E. PHASE 1 AND/OR PHASE 2

BAYER:

NOVARTIS:

84

JANSSEN, J&J:

PFIZER:

BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM:

MEREO (FORMERLY ONCOMED):

COLLABORATION AND LICENSE AGREEMENTS

A core component of our business model, and key aspect of our heritage as an antibody discovery and development company, is the entry into collaboration and licenses or partnership agreements with leading global pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. Many of these research and development, collaboration and license agreements are entered into in the ordinary course of our business and may or may not become significant or material to us, depending primarily on the development of the underlying product candidates.

Generally, our collaboration and license agreements may be for a specific therapeutic program or may be for multiple therapeutic programs across diseases. For programs that we out-license, we may participate in the development and generation of an antibody for a specified target and will have limited preclinical and clinical research and development obligations, with the licensee being primarily responsible for clinical development and commercialization. In general, pursuant to the collaboration agreements we enter into for programs that we out-license, most of our partners have the first right to prosecute, maintain and enforce patents for antibodies (and other patentable technology) developed with our technology. In the event that our partners determine to relinquish any such patent right, we generally have a first right to obtain ownership of such patents. We are generally entitled to milestone payments during the course of development of the therapeutic product and to royalty payments (generally a mid single-digit to low-teens percentage rate) upon the commercial sale of the products. The royalty term generally will be on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis starting on

85

the first commercial sale and ending on the later of: (i) the expiration of certain specified patent rights, (ii) a certain defined period of years following the first commercial sale, or (iii) the expiration of regulatory exclusivity. The agreements will generally terminate or expire once the obligation of the licensee to pay royalties has ceased.

Below is a description of our current significant, or material, collaboration and license agreements.

Collaboration and License Agreement with Xencor

In June 2010, we entered into a collaboration and license agreement with Xencor which was subsequently amended in March 2012 (which we refer to, as amended, as the Xencor Collaboration Agreement). Under the Xencor Collaboration Agreement, Xencor granted us an exclusive, worldwide license, including the right to sublicense under certain conditions, for tafasitamab.

Under the terms of the agreement, Xencor initiated and sponsored a phase 1 clinical trial for tafasitamab in patients with CLL which was completed in January 2013. Since the completion of such clinical trial, we have been responsible for all additional clinical development of tafasitamab.

Xencor already received an upfront payment of US$ 13 million and received US$ 15.5 million for development milestones under the Xencor Collaboration Agreement and is entitled to receive up to an additional US$ 286.5 million in aggregated milestone payments upon the achievement of certain development events including US$ 50 million in the aggregate with respect to sales of licensed antibody products. Furthermore, Xencor will also be eligible to receive tiered royalty payments upon commercialization of tafasitamab in the mid single-digit to sub-teen double-digit percentage range based upon net sales of licensed antibody sold by us or our licensees. Our royalty obligations continue on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis until the later to occur of the expiration of the last valid claim in the licensed patent covering a licensed product in such country, or 11 years after the first sale of a licensed product following marketing authorization in such country.

Under the Xencor Collaboration Agreement, Xencor retained the rights to prosecute, maintain and enforce certain patents licensed to us, including those patents licensed to us that were already filed as of the effective date of the Xencor Collaboration Agreement and whose claims cover tafasitamab and certain other antibodies. We retain the right to prosecute, maintain and enforce patents that cover tafasitamab and no other antibody. Furthermore, Xencor retained the rights to prosecute, maintain and enforce certain patents directed to inventions developed under the Xencor Collaboration Agreement that were solely invented by or on behalf of Xencor.

The term of the Xencor Collaboration Agreement will continue until all of our royalty payment obligations have expired, unless terminated earlier. The Xencor Collaboration Agreement may be terminated by either party upon written notice to the other party immediately in the event of the other party’s insolvency or upon 120 days’ written notice for the other party’s uncured material breach (or upon 30 days’ written notice in the case of a breach of a payment obligation). Moreover, we may terminate the Xencor Collaboration Agreement without cause upon 90 days’ advance written notice to Xencor. In the event that (i) we terminate this agreement for convenience or (ii) Xencor terminates due to our material breach, our challenge of Xencor’s licensed patents or our insolvency, worldwide rights to develop, manufacture and commercialize licensed products, including tafasitamab, revert back to Xencor.

Collaboration and license agreement with Incyte

On January 13, 2020, we entered into a collaboration and licensing agreement with Incyte to further develop and commercialize our proprietary anti-CD19 antibody tafasitamab globally. Under the terms of the agreement, MorphoSys will receive an upfront payment of US$750 million. In addition, Incyte has made an equity investment into MorphoSys of US$150 million in new American Depositary Shares (ADS) of MorphoSys at a premium to the share price at signing of the agreement. Depending on the achievement of certain developmental,

86

regulatory and commercial milestones, MorphoSys will be eligible to receive milestone payments amounting to up to US$1.1 billion. MorphoSys will also receive tiered royalties on ex-U.S. net sales of tafasitamab in a mid-teens to mid-twenties percentage range.

In the U.S., MorphoSys and Incyte will co-commercialize tafasitamab, with MorphoSys leading the commercialization strategy and booking all revenues from sales of tafasitamab. Incyte and MorphoSys will be jointly responsible for commercialization activities in the U.S. and will share profits and losses on a 50:50 basis. Outside the U.S., Incyte will have exclusive commercialization rights, and will lead the commercialization strategy and book all revenues from sales of tafasitamab, paying MorphoSys royalties on ex-U.S. net sales.

Furthermore, the companies will share development costs associated with global and U.S.-specific trials at a rate of 55% (Incyte) and 45% (MorphoSys); Incyte will cover 100% of the future development costs for trials that are specific to ex-U.S.countries.

The agreement between MorphoSys and Incyte, including the equity investment, received clearance by the U.S. antitrust authorities under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act as well as by the German and Austrian antitrust authorities on or before March 2, 2020, and became effective on March 3, 2020.

Research and License Agreement with Janssen (formerly Centocor)

In December 2000, we entered into a research and license agreement with Centocor (now Janssen), which was amended and restated in December 2004 (which we refer to as the Janssen Collaboration Agreement). Under the Janssen Collaboration Agreement, we obtained technology license fees and research and development funding and are now eligible to receive milestone payments, including up to € 21.5 million in aggregated development and commercial milestone payments for therapeutic products, on a per target basis. In addition, we are eligible to receive tiered royalty payments in the mid single-digit percentage range, on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis, until the later of (i) the expiration of the last licensed patent in such country having a valid claim covering such product and (ii) twelve years beginning from the first commercial sale of such product in such country.

Under the Janssen Collaboration Agreement, we shared certain research and development responsibilities with Janssen to generate and develop HuCAL antibodies. Janssen provided funding for our research costs in support of the collaboration at a predetermined fee per full-time equivalent employee involved in research at our facilities. All of our research and development responsibilities have now ceased. Janssen is solely responsible for the further research, development, manufacturing, and commercialization of the products.

Either party may terminate the Janssen Collaboration Agreement for the other party’s uncured material breach or bankruptcy. We may terminate certain of Janssen’s commercial licenses if Janssen fails to diligently pursue the development of at least one therapeutic antibody product under such licenses, and Janssen may terminate its commercial licenses under the agreement at its sole discretion at any time, in each case after a certain notice period to the other party. Unless earlier terminated, the Janssen Collaboration Agreement will expire when all of Janssen’s obligations to pay royalties to us have ceased.

Intellectual property

Our commercial success depends in part on our ability to obtain and maintain proprietary or intellectual property protection for our product candidates and our core technologies and other know-how to operate without infringing, misappropriating or otherwise violating the proprietary rights of others and to prevent others from infringing, misappropriating or otherwise violating our proprietary or intellectual property rights. We protect our proprietary and intellectual property position by, among other methods, licensing or filing of patent applications covering our proprietary technologies and products in our home country and all major markets, with a particular emphasis on the United States. We also rely on trade secrets, know-how and continuing technological innovation to develop and maintain our proprietary and intellectual property position, which we generally seek to protect through contractual obligations with third-parties.

87

Patents

Patents, patent applications and other intellectual property rights are important in the sector in which we operate. We consider on a case-by-case basis filing patent applications with a view to protecting certain innovative technologies, products, processes, and methods of treatment. We may also license or acquire rights to patents, patent applications or other intellectual property rights owned by third-parties, academic partners or commercial companies, which are of interest to us or necessary for our business.

As with other biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, our ability to maintain and solidify our proprietary and intellectual property position for our product candidates and technologies will depend on our success in obtaining effective patent claims and enforcing those claims if granted. However, our pending patent applications, and any patent applications that we may in the future file or license from third-parties may not result in the issuance of patents. We also cannot predict the breadth of claims that may be allowed or enforced in our patents or whether the claims of any issued patent will provide sufficient proprietary protection from competitors. Any issued patents that we may receive or license in the future may be challenged, invalidated or circumvented. For example, we cannot be certain of the priority of our patents and patent applications over third-party patents and patent applications. In addition, because of the extensive time required for clinical development and regulatory review of a product candidate we may develop, it is possible that, before any of our product candidates can be commercialized, any related patent may expire or remain in force for only a short period following commercialization, thereby limiting the protection such patent would afford the respective product and any competitive advantage such patent may provide.

In April 2016, we filed a lawsuit in the United States at the District Court of Delaware against Janssen Biotech and Genmab A/S for patent infringement of U.S. Patent Number 8,263,746. U.S. Patents 9,200,061 and 9,758,590 were added to the case in 2017. In filing the lawsuit, we sought redress for alleged infringement of these patents by Janssen’s and Genmab’s daratumumab, a CD38-directed monoclonal antibody indicated for the treatment of certain patients with multiple myeloma. The U.S. District Court of Delaware, based on a hearing held November 27, 2018, has ruled in a Court Order on January 25, 2019, that the asserted claims of the MorphoSys patents are invalid. The Court thus granted a motion for Summary Judgement of invalidity filed by Janssen Biotech and Genmab, A/S against the three patents held by MorphoSys. As a result of this decision, the jury trial scheduled to start February 11, 2019 to consider Janssen’s and Genmab’s alleged infringement and the validity of the MorphoSys patents did not take place. On January 31, 2019 we announced that we have settled the dispute with Janssen Biotech and Genmab A/S. The parties agreed to drop the mutual claims related to the litigation: MorphoSys dismissed claims for alleged patent infringement against Janssen Biotech and Genmab A/S and will not appeal from the court order dated January 25, 2019. Janssen and Genmab dismissed their counterclaims against MorphoSys.

At the end of the financial year 2019, we maintained over 60 different proprietary patent families worldwide in addition to the numerous patent families we pursue with our partners.

HuCAL

Our HuCAL platform patent portfolio is wholly owned and the platform is protected by several patent families. The basic HuCAL patents covering the composition of the library, methods to isolate antibodies from the library and methods to diversify antibodies isolated from the library expired in August 2016. At least four additional patent families protecting other technological aspects of the library, such as the specific CDR design (based on WO2008/053275) and certain display methods used with the library (based on WO2001/05950) as well as improvements of this method (based on WO2009/024593) are still in force in major jurisdictions, including Australia, Canada, China, the European Union (EP2190987), Israel, Japan, New Zealand, South Africa and the United States. The last U.S. patent (US9062097) expires on February 18, 2030. Patents in other jurisdictions expire in August 2028. The HuCAL library is also protected by considerable know-how proprietary to us.

88

Ylanthia

Our Ylanthia antibody library patent portfolio is wholly owned and the platform is protected by two key patent families covering the composition of the library and nucleic acid collections encoding the library. Patent applications (based on WO2010/136598 and WO2012/066129) are filed in major jurisdictions, including Australia, Canada, China, the European Union, Hong Kong, India, Israel, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Russia, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea and the United States. Exemplary patents include EP2640742, US8367586, and US9541559. The patent term is expected to last at least until November 2031. One material U.S. patent, US9541559, expires on May 6, 2032. Additional patent families relate to ancillary technologies, including the Slonomics technology. Like the HuCAL antibody library, the Ylanthia library encompasses considerable know-how proprietary to us.

Slonomics

Our Slonomics technology is protected by five patent families. The patent family covering the key technology, being a method used for the generation of diversified libraries, such as antibody libraries, has an expiry date of March 2029 or later. The most relevant U.S. patent, US9115352, has an expiry date of December 6, 2030. Counterparts in the European Union (EP2110435) and Japan expire in March 2029.

Tafasitamab

As of December 31, 2019, our tafasitamab patent portfolio was fully owned and/or exclusively licensed from Xencor and the program is currently protected by at least ten different patent families covering various aspects of the molecule, its compositions, methods of use, combination treatments, and formulation, as well as other aspects. The basic composition-of-matter patent family was in-licensed from Xencor and applications were filed in Australia, Canada, the European Union, Hong Kong, India, Japan and the United States. The expiry date for the composition of matter patent is August 2029 for the United States and August 2027 for the other countries, not including any potential patent term extensions.

Other patent families were filed and are prosecuted in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the European Union, Israel, India, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Qatar, Russia, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea and the United States.

MOR202

Our MOR202 patent portfolio is fully owned and the program is currently protected by about ten different patent families covering various aspects of the molecule, its compositions, combination treatments, dosage regimens, radioconjugates, as well as assays utilized in clinical development. The basic composition-of-matter patent expires in October 2026, outside the United States, and in January 2028, in the United States, in both cases not including any potential patent term extensions. Patent applications were filed and are prosecuted in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the European Union, Hong Kong, Israel, India, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Russia, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Taiwan and the United States. Rights to the Greater Chinese territory were exclusively licensed to I-Mab.

Otilimab

Our otilimab patent portfolio is wholly owned and exclusively licensed to GSK. The patent portfolio related to otilimab consists of at least eight patent families covering various aspects of the program (composition-of-matter, indications, combination therapy, aspects of patient selection, as well as assays utilized in clinical development). Some of the patents were in-licensed from the University of Melbourne. Patent applications directed to composition-of-matter were filed and are prosecuted in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the European Union, Hong Kong, India, Israel, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Russia, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan and the United States and have an expected expiration date in May 2026, not including potential patent term adjustments or extensions. Patent families relating to additional aspects were filed and are prosecuted in these and additional jurisdictions.

89

MOR106

The MOR106 patent portfolio is co-owned by us and Galapagos. The program is currently protected by about ten different patent families covering various aspects of the molecule, its composition, indications, methods of use, as well as other aspects. The basic composition-of-matter patent is prosecuted in more than 30 jurisdictions worldwide. The projected expiry date for the composition of matter patent is February 2037, not including any potential patent term extensions. Other patent families were filed and are being prosecuted in Australia, Canada, China, the European Union, Hong Kong, Israel, India, Japan, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Russia, Singapore, United States and South Africa. Pursuant to the Exclusive License Agreement among Galapagos NV, MorphoSys AG and Novartis Pharma AG, as of July 19, 2018, Novartis has a first right to file, prosecute and enforce patent rights related to MOR106. On October 28, 2019, we announced the end of the clinical development program of MOR106 in atopic dermatitis. The joint decision of all three involved parties, Galapagos NV, MorphoSys AG and Novartis Pharma AG, was based on an interim analysis for futility that was performed in the Phase 2 IGUANA trial.

Patent Term

The term of an individual patent depends upon the legal term for patents in the countries in which such patent is granted. In most countries, including the United States, the patent term is 20 years from the earliest filing date of a non-provisional patent application to which the patent claims priority. In the United States, a patent’s term may, in certain cases, be lengthened by patent term adjustment, which compensates a patentee for administrative delays by the USPTO in examining and granting a patent, or may be shortened if a patent is terminally disclaimed over a commonly owned patent or a patent naming a common inventor and having an earlier expiration date. The Hatch-Waxman Act permits a patent term extension of up to five years beyond the expiration date of a U.S. patent as partial compensation for the length of time the product is under regulatory review while the patent is in force. The length of the patent term extension is related to the length of time the product is under regulatory review. Patent term extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval and only one patent applicable to an approved product may be extended. Similar provisions are available in other jurisdictions to extend the term of a patent that covers an approved product, or to offer similar protection for an extended period, as is the case in the European Union. In the future, if and when our product candidates receive approval from the FDA or other regulatory authorities, we expect to apply for patent term extensions on patents covering those products where such extensions are available; however there is no guarantee that the applicable authorities, including the FDA, will agree with our assessment of whether such extensions should be granted and, even if granted, the length of such extensions.

Trade Secrets

In addition to patents, we rely upon unpatented trade secrets and know-how and continuing technological innovation to develop and maintain our competitive position. However, trade secrets and know-how can be difficult to protect. We seek to protect our proprietary information, in part, by executing confidentiality agreements with our partners, collaborators, scientific advisors, employees, consultants and other third-parties, and invention assignment agreements with our consultants and employees. We have also executed agreements requiring assignment of inventions with selected scientific advisors and collaborators. The confidentiality agreements we enter into are designed to protect our proprietary information and the agreements or clauses requiring assignment of inventions to us are designed to provide mechanisms to grant us ownership of technologies that are developed through our relationship with the respective counterparty. We cannot guarantee that we have entered into such agreements with each party that may have or have had access to our trade secrets or proprietary technology and processes or that these agreements will afford us adequate protection of our intellectual property and proprietary information rights. If any of the partners, collaborators, scientific advisors, employees and consultants who are parties to these agreements breaches or violates the terms of any of these agreements or otherwise discloses our proprietary information, we may not have adequate remedies for any such breach or violation, and we could lose our trade secrets as a result.

90

Trademarks and Domain Names

We conduct our business using trademarks with various forms of the “MorphoSys” brand and numerous additional trademarks, as well as domain names incorporating some or all of these trademarks. Key trademarks are protected in all major jurisdictions, including the United States, the European Union, Switzerland, Canada, Australia and Japan. Additionally we have protected the possible brand name of tafasitamab in all key jurisdictions worldwide. Such protection includes the filing of trademarks, as well as the registration of domain names.

Manufacturing

We have adopted a manufacturing strategy of contracting with third-parties in accordance with cGMP for the manufacture of drug substances and products. Additional contract manufacturers are used to fill, label, package and distribute investigational drug products. This allows us to maintain a more flexible infrastructure while focusing our expertise on developing our products. We will ultimately depend on contract manufacturers, or CMOs, for the manufacture of our products for commercial sale, as well as for process development. CMOs are subject to extensive governmental regulation. We currently rely on single source CMOs for each of tafasitamab, MOR202, MOR106 and MOR107. Although multiple potential CMOs are available as additional or alternative manufacturing partners for these product candidates, any such change in CMO would likely result in a delay in the development process of such product candidate.

We are able to internally manufacture the quantities of our product candidates required for relatively short non-GLP animal studies. We believe that this allows us to accelerate the product development process by not having to rely on third-parties for all of our manufacturing needs. However, we do rely and expect to rely on a number of CMOs to produce sufficient quantities of our product candidates for use in lengthier non-GLP or GLP preclinical research.

We have also selected industry-leading partners for secondary packing, freight forwarding, and logistics in the U.S.

Competition

We compete in an industry that is characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition and a strong emphasis on proprietary products. Our competitors include pharmaceutical companies, biotechnology companies, academic institutions and other research organizations. While we believe that our technology, knowledge, experience and scientific resources provide us with competitive advantages, we compete with these parties for promising targets for antibody-based therapeutics, new technology for optimizing antibodies and novel antibody formats and in recruiting highly qualified personnel. There are a large number of major pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies developing or marketing treatments for cancer disorders and several antibody drug discovery companies that may compete with us in the search for novel therapeutic antibody targets. We expect that our antibody platforms will serve as the basis for future product candidates and collaborations with pharmaceutical companies. Other companies also have developed platform technologies that compete with us including Genmab, Seattle Genetics and Xencor.

Many of our competitors have significantly greater financial, manufacturing, marketing, drug development, technical and human resources than we do. Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical, biotechnology and diagnostic industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining top qualified scientific and management personnel and establishing clinical study sites and patient registration for clinical studies, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs.

91

The key competitive factors affecting the success of all of our therapeutic product candidates, if approved, are likely to be their efficacy, safety, dosing convenience, price, the effectiveness of companion diagnostics in guiding the use of related therapeutics, our marketing capabilities, the level of generic competition and the availability of reimbursement from government and other third-party payors. Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient or are less expensive than any products that we may develop. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market. In addition, our ability to compete may be affected in many cases by insurers or other third-party payors seeking to encourage the use of biosimilar products. Biosimilar products are expected to become available over the coming years. The regulatory framework to approve biosimilar products has already been created in Europe and the United States.

The most common methods of treating patients with cancer are surgery, radiation and drug therapy. There are a variety of available drug therapies marketed for cancer. In many cases, these drugs are administered in combination to enhance efficacy. While our product candidates may compete with many existing drug and other therapies, to the extent they are ultimately used in combination with or as an adjunct to these therapies, our product candidates will not be competitive with them as such. Some of the currently approved drug therapies are branded and subject to patent protection, and others are available on a generic basis. Many of these approved drugs are well established therapies and are widely accepted by physicians, patients and third-party payors. The commercial opportunity for antibody-like therapies for instance may be reduced by cellular therapies such like CAR-Ts.

In addition to currently marketed therapies, there are also a number of products in late stage clinical development to treat cancer. These product candidates in development may provide efficacy, safety, dosing convenience and other benefits that are not provided by currently marketed therapies or our drugs. As a result, they may provide significant competition for any of our product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. If our lead product candidates are approved for the indications for which we are currently undertaking clinical studies, they will compete with the therapies and currently marketed drugs discussed elsewhere in this document.

Government Regulation

Government authorities in the United States, at the federal, state and local level, and in the European Union and other countries and jurisdictions, extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, quality control, approval, packaging, storage, recordkeeping, labeling, advertising, promotion, distribution, marketing, post-approval monitoring and reporting, and import and export of pharmaceutical products, including biological products. In addition, some jurisdictions regulate the pricing of pharmaceutical products. The processes for obtaining marketing approvals in the United States and in foreign countries and jurisdictions, along with subsequent compliance with applicable statutes and regulations and other requirements of regulatory authorities, require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources.

Regulation and Procedures Governing Approval of Biological Products in the United States

In the United States, our product candidates are regulated as biological products, or biologics, under the Public Health Service Act, or PHSA, and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and their implementing regulations. The failure to comply with the applicable U.S. requirements at any time during the product development process, including during non-clinical testing, clinical testing, the approval process or post-approval process, may subject an applicant to delays in the conduct of a study or regulatory review and approval, and/or to administrative or judicial sanctions and adverse publicity. Sanctions may include, but are not limited to, the FDA’s refusal to allow an applicant to proceed with clinical testing, refusal to approve pending applications, withdrawal of an approval, warning or untitled letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, debarment, disgorgement of profits and civil or criminal investigations and penalties brought by the FDA or the Department of Justice or other governmental entities.

92

An applicant seeking approval to market and distribute a new biologic in the United States generally must satisfactorily complete each of the following steps:

Non-clinical Studies and Investigational New Drug Application

Before testing any biologic product candidate in humans, the product candidate must undergo non-clinical testing. Non-clinical tests include laboratory evaluations of product chemistry, formulation and stability, as well as animal studies to evaluate the potential for activity and toxicity. The conduct of the non-clinical tests and formulation of the compounds for testing must comply with federal regulations and requirements. The results of the non-clinical tests, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature and a proposed clinical protocol, are submitted to the FDA as part of an IND application. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless before that time the FDA raises concerns or questions about the product or conduct of the proposed clinical trial, including concerns that human research subjects will be exposed to unreasonable health risks, and places the trial on a clinical hold. In that case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding FDA concerns before the clinical trial can begin.

As a result, submission of the IND may result in the FDA not allowing the trial to commence or not be conducted on the terms originally specified by the sponsor in the IND. If the FDA raises concerns or questions either during this initial 30-day period, or at any time during the IND process, it may choose to impose a partial or complete clinical hold. If the FDA imposes a clinical hold, trials may not recommence without FDA authorization and then only under terms authorized by the FDA. A clinical hold issued by the FDA may therefore delay either a proposed clinical study or cause suspension of an ongoing study, until all outstanding concerns have been adequately addressed and the FDA has notified the company that investigation may proceed. This could cause significant difficulties in completing planned clinical trials in a timely manner.

93

The FDA may impose clinical holds on a biologic product candidate at any time before or during clinical trials due to safety concerns or non-compliance.

Human Clinical Trials in Support of a BLA

Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational product candidate to healthy volunteers or patients with the disease to be treated under the supervision of a qualified principal investigator in accordance with GCP requirements. Clinical trials are conducted under study protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the study, inclusion and exclusion criteria, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety, dosing procedures and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. A protocol for each clinical trial and any subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND.

A sponsor who wishes to conduct a clinical trial outside the United States may, but need not, obtain FDA authorization to conduct the clinical trial under an IND. If a foreign clinical trial is not conducted under an IND, the sponsor may submit data from the clinical trial to the FDA in support of the BLA so long as the clinical trial is well-designed and well-conducted in accordance with GCP, including review and approval by an independent ethics committee, and the FDA is able to validate the study data through an onsite inspection, if necessary.

Further, each clinical trial must be reviewed and approved by an IRB either centrally or individually at each institution at which the clinical trial will be conducted. The IRB will consider, among other things, clinical trial design, patient informed consent, ethical factors and the safety of human subjects. An IRB must operate in compliance with FDA regulations. The FDA, IRB, or the clinical trial sponsor may suspend or discontinue a clinical trial at any time for various reasons, including a finding that the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with FDA requirements or that the subjects or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Clinical testing also must satisfy extensive GCP rules and the requirements for informed consent. The IRB also approves the form and content of the informed consent that must be signed by each clinical trial subject or his or her legal representative and must monitor the clinical trial until completed. Additionally, some clinical trials are overseen by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the clinical trial sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board or committee. This group may recommend the continuation of the study as planned, changes in study conduct, or cessation of the study at designated checkpoints based on access to certain data from the study.

Clinical trials typically are conducted in three sequential phases, but the phases may overlap or be combined. Additional studies may be required after approval.