10. Commitments and Contingencies

Patent License Agreements

Duke University

In March 2006, the Company entered into a license agreement with Duke University (“Duke”), which was subsequently amended in 2011, 2014, 2015, 2018, 2019 and 2022 (as amended, the “Duke License Agreement”). Under the Duke License Agreement, Duke granted the Company a worldwide, exclusive, sublicensable license to certain patents related to decellularized tissue engineering, referred to as the patent rights, as well as a non-exclusive license to use and practice certain know-how related to the patent rights. The relevant licensed patent on decellularization of tissue expired in 2021. The Company has agreed to use commercially reasonable efforts to develop, register, market and sell products utilizing the patent rights, referred to as the licensed products. Any services provided to a third party utilizing licensed products are referred to as licensed services. The Company has also agreed to meet certain benchmarks in its development efforts, including as to development events, clinical trials, regulatory submissions and marketing approval, within specified timeframes. Under the Duke License Agreement, Duke retains the right to use the patent rights for its own educational and research purposes, and to provide the patent rights to other non-profit, governmental or higher-learning institutions for non-commercial purposes without paying royalties or other fees.

In connection with the Company’s entry into the Duke License Agreement, the Company granted equity consideration to Duke in the form of 52,693 shares of Common Stock. Under the Duke License Agreement, the Company also agreed to pay Duke:

The Duke License Agreement remains effective until the later of (i) the last of the patent rights expires or (ii) four years after the Company’s first commercial sale, unless terminated earlier. Either party may terminate the agreement for fraud, willful misconduct or illegal conduct, or uncured material breach. Duke may terminate the agreement if the Company becomes insolvent. Duke may also terminate the license, convert the license into a non-exclusive license or seek assignment of any sublicense if the Company fails to reach diligence milestones within the applicable time period. If the Company abandons any claim, patent or patent application, its rights under the license with respect to such patent rights will be terminated in the territory in which the Company abandons such rights. The Company may terminate the license agreement unilaterally upon three months’ prior notice to Duke. The Company agrees to indemnify Duke against certain third-party claims.

In December 2023, the Company filed a BLA with the FDA for urgent arterial repair following extremity vascular trauma when synthetic graft is not indicated, and autologous vein use is not feasible. Based on the achievement of this milestone under the Duke License Agreement, the Company paid a $0.5 million license fee to Duke during the first quarter of 2024.

In December 2024, the FDA approved the Company’s BLA for urgent arterial repair following extremity vascular trauma when autologous vein use is not feasible. Based on the achievement of this milestone under the Duke License Agreement, the Company paid $0.5 million of license fee to Duke during the third quarter of 2025. Other payments to Duke under the Duke License Agreement were immaterial during the periods presented.

Yale University

In August 2019, the Company entered into a license agreement with Yale University (“Yale”) that granted the Company a worldwide license to the patents related to the biovascular pancreas (“BVP”) product candidate (the “BVP License Agreement”). The license granted under the BVP License Agreement is exclusive in the field of engineered vascular tissues that deliver pancreatic islet cells to patients, except that it is subject to Yale’s non-exclusive right, on behalf of itself and all other non-profit academic institutions, to use the licensed products for research, teaching, and other non-commercial purposes. The Company has agreed to pay to Yale an annual maintenance fee, increasing between the first and fourth anniversaries of the BVP License Agreement up to a maximum of less than $0.1 million per year for this license.

In August 2019, the Company entered into a license agreement with Yale that granted the Company a worldwide license to the patents related to tubular prostheses (the “Tubular Prosthesis License Agreement”). The license granted under the Tubular Prosthesis License Agreement is exclusive in the field of engineered urinary conduits, engineered tracheas/airways, and engineered esophagi, except that it is subject to Yale’s non-exclusive right, on behalf of itself and all other non-profit academic institutions, to use the licensed products for research, teaching, and other non-commercial purposes.

The Company has agreed to use reasonable commercial efforts to develop and commercialize the licensed patents and any licensed products and methods, and to use reasonable efforts to make the licensed products available to patients in low and low-middle income countries. The Company is also obligated to provide Yale periodically an updated and revised copy of its plan for each license, which must indicate progress of its development and commercialization. The Company may also sublicense the Company’s rights without Yale’s prior written consent, but such sublicense is subject to certain conditions.

In connection with its entry into the Tubular Prosthesis License Agreement, the Company paid Yale upfront cash fees. The Company has also agreed to pay Yale:

If the Company or any of its future sublicensees bring a patent challenge against Yale or assists another party in bringing a patent challenge against Yale, the license fees described above will be subject to certain increases and penalties.

The BVP License Agreement and Tubular Prosthesis License Agreement expire on a country-by-country basis on the date on which the last of the patents in such country expires, lapses or is declared invalid. Yale may terminate the BVP License Agreement and Tubular Prosthesis License Agreement if the Company fails to (i) provide written diligence reports, (ii) provide commercially reasonable diligence plans, (iii) implement the plans in accordance with the obligations under the agreements, or (iv) reach certain research and development milestones within the scheduled timeframe set forth in the agreements; however, any such termination right would be limited in scope to the country to which such failure relates. Yale may also terminate for the Company’s non-payment, uncured material breach, failure to obtain adequate insurance, bringing or assisting in bringing of a patent challenge against Yale, abandonment of the research and development of the Company’s products or insolvency. The Company may terminate the BVP License Agreement and Tubular Prosthesis License Agreement (i) on 90 days’ prior written notice to Yale, provided the Company is not in breach of the license agreements and has made all required payments to Yale thereunder and (ii) on written notice to Yale following an uncured material breach. With respect to the BVP License Agreement, the Company’s rights under the agreement will also terminate automatically with respect to a patent application or patent within the licensed patents in a specified country if, upon receipt of written notice from Yale, the Company does not agree to pay the patent filing, prosecution and maintenance fees incurred by Yale for such patent applications or patents in the specified country. Under certain circumstances, Yale may, at its option, convert the exclusive licenses to non-exclusive licenses if the Company declines to initiate certain infringement or interference proceedings with respect to the licensed patents. The Company has agreed to indemnify Yale against certain third-party claims. Payments to Yale under the BVP License Agreement and Tubular Prosthesis License Agreement were immaterial during the periods presented.

JDRF Agreement

On April 1, 2023, the Company entered into an Industry Discovery and Development Partnership Agreement with Breakthrough T1D (f/k/a JDRF International) (“JDRF,” and such agreement, the “JDRF Agreement”) to further develop and perform preclinical testing of the BVP, a product candidate designed to deliver insulin-producing islets using the ATEV as a means of treating patients with type 1 diabetes. According to the terms of the JDRF Agreement, JDRF will provide funding up to $0.8 million (“JDRF Award”) based on the achievement of certain research and development milestones related to the Company’s BVP. The JDRF Agreement refers to the total cumulative payments the Company has received from JDRF as of any point in time as the “Actual Award.”

As of March 31, 2026 and December 31, 2025, the Company had received an aggregate Actual Award of $0.5 million under the JDRF Agreement upon execution of the agreement and achievement of various research and development milestones.

In accordance with the JDRF Agreement, the Company has agreed to pay JDRF:

The JDRF Agreement expires on the date on which the Company has paid all of the royalty payments described above. Either party may terminate the JDRF Agreement for cause by providing the other party with written notice and allowing the other party 30 days to cure such breach. JDRF may terminate the JDRF Agreement without cause by providing 90 days’ notice to the Company at any time after April 1, 2024. Royalties based on previously received milestone payments would remain due after a termination by JDRF without cause. As the royalties are contractually required to be paid upon achieving these milestones even after the termination of the JDRF Agreement, the Company determined that the JDRF Actual Award payments are to be classified as a liability in the condensed consolidated balance sheets. The JDRF liability related to the Actual Award payments is reported at amortized cost and is included in Other long-term liabilities in the condensed consolidated balance sheets. As of March 31, 2026 and December 31, 2025, the carrying value of the JDRF liability was $0.6 million and $0.5 million, respectively. During the three months ended March 31, 2026, the Company recorded $0.1 million of interest expense related to the JDRF liability. During the three months ended March 31, 2025, interest expense related to the JDRF liability was insignificant.

Workforce Reduction

On April 28, 2025, the Company implemented a cost reduction action to reduce its workforce by 30 employees, cease recruitment of additional planned new hires, and reduce other operating expenses. The Company undertook these cost reductions to improve cash runway and to better align the Company’s organizational structure with its top business objectives. Employee severance costs associated with this action were $0.7 million, which were expensed during the second quarter of 2025. Employee severance costs included $0.6 million recognized in research and development expenses and $0.1 million recognized in selling, general and administrative expenses on the Company’s condensed consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive (loss) income. There are no further costs associated with this cost reduction action expected to be incurred in the future.

Legal Matters

From time to time, the Company may be involved in various lawsuits, claims, assessments and proceedings, including securities, commercial, intellectual property, product liability, contractual, governmental, employment or other matters that arise in the normal course of business. The Company accrues a liability for a contingency when management believes information available prior to the issuance of the consolidated financial statements indicates it is probable a loss has been incurred as of the date of the consolidated financial statements and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company adjusts its accruals to reflect the impact of negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice of legal counsel and other information and events pertaining to a particular case. Legal costs are expensed as incurred.

On November 18, 2024, James A. Cutshall filed a putative class action lawsuit, captioned Cutshall v. Humacyte, Inc., et al., No. 1:24-cv-00954 (the “Securities Litigation”), against the Company and certain of the Company’s officers in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. The complaint in the Securities Litigation (the “Initial Complaint”) asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act on behalf of a putative class of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired securities of the Company between May 10, 2024 and October 17, 2024, based on allegations that the defendants made or were responsible for false or misleading statements and omissions related to the BLA for the vascular trauma indication and to alleged deficiencies at the Company’s Durham, North Carolina manufacturing facility. The Initial Complaint seeks a variety of relief, including unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys fees and costs. On January 31, 2025, the court appointed co-lead plaintiffs. On May 22, 2025, the co-lead plaintiffs filed the amended complaint in the Securities Litigation. The amended complaint expands the putative class to include persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired securities of the Company between August 14, 2023 and March 25, 2025. It alleges that the defendants made or were responsible for false or misleading statements and omissions related to the safety of Symvess, alleged deficiencies at the Company’s Durham, North Carolina manufacturing facility, and the Company’s financial condition and liquidity. On July 25, 2025, defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety and with prejudice. On March 31, 2026, the court partially granted and partially denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss in the Securities Litigation. Claims about financial condition, liquidity and manufacturing facility deficiencies were dismissed without prejudice, while claims related to product safety misrepresentations and omissions were sustained at the pleading stage. Discovery on the remaining claims is expected to start shortly.

On January 7 and 10, 2025, putative stockholders of the Company filed two verified stockholder derivative actions in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, captioned Silva v. Sebelius, et al., No. 1:25-cv-00005 (the “Silva Action”) and Misko v. Niklason, et al., No. 1:25-cv-00028 (the “Misko Action”). Each of these derivative actions was brought on behalf of the Company against certain of its current or former directors and officers, as well as Ayabudge LLC. The complaints in each action assert claims for violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets, based on a variety of allegations including claims that the defendants are responsible for any damages sustained by the Company as a result of the Securities Litigation. The Misko Action also includes a claim for contribution against certain defendants under Sections 10(b) and 21(d) of the Exchange Act for any liability the Company may sustain as a result of the Securities Litigation. On February 18, 2025, the court issued an order consolidating the Silva Action and the Misko Action (collectively, the “Consolidated Derivative Action”) and staying the defendants’ obligation to respond to any complaint in the Consolidated Derivative Action pending the submission of a proposed scheduling order. On March 11, 2025, the parties entered a joint motion to stay the Consolidated Derivative Action pending final resolution of the Securities Litigation, which the court granted. On April 21, 2026, the parties in the Consolidated Derivative Action filed a joint motion to stay the case pending a decision on summary judgment in the Securities Litigation. The court requested additional briefing explaining the need for this stay on April 24, 2026.

On December 19, 2024, the Company received a demand letter (the “2024 Demand Letter”) from a purported stockholder of the Company, demanding that the Board assert claims against certain of the Company’s current or former officers and directors for breach of fiduciary duty, gross mismanagement, corporate waste, unjust enrichment, aiding and abetting, violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, and insider trading, based on a variety of allegations including claims that the Company’s current and former officers and directors are responsible for any damages sustained by the Company as a result of the Securities Litigation. On January 24, 2025, the Board appointed a demand evaluation committee to evaluate the claims made in the 2024 Demand Letter and report back to the full Board. On February 19, 2025, the purported stockholder who sent the 2024 Demand Letter filed a stockholder derivative action in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, captioned Olson v. Niklason, et al., No. 1:25-cv-00123 (the “Olson Action”), alleging that the Company had refused his demand. The complaint in the Olson Action asserts substantive claims and allegations that are substantially similar to those asserted in the Consolidated Derivative Action. On April 22, 2025, the parties filed a joint motion to stay the Olson Action pending final resolution of the Securities Litigation, which the court granted. Similarly, in the Olson Action, a joint motion to stay was entered on April 21, 2026, with the court ordering additional briefing on April 24, 2026.

On May 19, 2025, the Company received a demand letter (the “2025 Demand Letter”) from a purported stockholder of the Company, making demands and stating allegations substantially similar to those in the 2024 Demand Letter. The letter was referred to the demand evaluation committee for evaluation, and the demand evaluation committee recommended that the board of directors of the Company defer action on the demand until after the resolution of the pending motion to dismiss in the securities class action. The board of directors accepted the demand evaluation committee’s recommendation, and counsel for the demand evaluation committee informed the shareholder of the board of director’s determination to defer action on the demand by letter dated September 24, 2025.

On June 9, 2025, a putative stockholder of the Company filed a verified stockholder derivative action in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, captioned Dusci v. Bamforth, et al., No. 1:25-cv-00722 (the “Dusci Action”). The complaint in the Dusci Action asserts substantive claims and allegations that are substantively similar to those asserted in the Consolidated Derivative Action and Olson Action. On September 8, 2025, the parties filed a joint stipulation to stay the Dusci Action pending final resolution of the Securities Litigation, which the court granted. On April 20, 2026, the parties filed another joint stipulation to continue the stay in the Dusci Action after the Court’s decision on the motion to dismiss in the Securities Litigation, which the court granted.

The Company disputes all claims asserted against it in the Securities Litigation and disputes that the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Derivative Action, the Dusci Action and Olson Action have standing to assert claims derivatively on its behalf. The Company is currently unable to estimate the potential loss or range of loss, if any, associated with these lawsuits, which could be material. Although there can be no assurance of the outcome of these lawsuits, based on information known by management, the Company has not accrued any material liabilities related to these lawsuits in the consolidated financial statements, as a negative outcome is deemed not probable, nor is any range of loss estimable as of March 31, 2026. Since the outcome of these matters cannot be predicted with certainty, any associated costs could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash flows.

Indemnification

To the extent permitted under Delaware law, the Company has agreed to indemnify its directors and officers for certain events or occurrences while the director or officer is, or was serving, at the Company’s request in such capacity. The indemnification period covers all pertinent events and occurrences during the director’s or officer’s service. The maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make under these indemnification arrangements is not specified in such arrangements; however, the Company has director and officer insurance coverage that is intended to reduce its exposure and enable the Company to recover a portion of any potential future amounts the Company could be required to make. To date, the Company has not incurred any costs as a result of such obligations and has not accrued any liabilities related to such obligations in the condensed consolidated financial statements.