Unless otherwise stated or the context otherwise indicates, (i) references to the “company”, “we”, “our” or “us” refer to Immatics N.V., together with its subsidiaries, including Immatics Biotechnologies GmbH; (ii) references to “Immatics” refer solely to Immatics N.V.; and (iii) references to “Immatics OpCo” refer solely to Immatics Biotechnologies GmbH. Immatics N.V. is a Dutch public limited liability company () incorporated on March 10, 2020 and the holding company of Immatics Biotechnologies GmbH, a German biopharmaceutical company incorporated in 2000 focused on the development of T cell receptor-based immunotherapies for the treatment of cancer. Immatics Biotechnologies GmbH holds all material assets and conducts all business activities and operations of Immatics N.V.

The Immatics logo , Immatics, XPRESIDENT, ACTengine, ACTallo, ACTolog, XCEPTOR, TCER, AbsQuant, IMADetect and other trademarks or service marks of Immatics appearing in this Annual Report are the property of the company. Solely for convenience, some of the trademarks, service marks, logos and trade names referred to in this Annual Report are presented without the and symbols, but such references are not intended to indicate, in any way, that we will not assert, to the fullest extent under applicable law, our rights or the rights of the applicable licensors to these trademarks, service marks and trade names. This Annual Report contains additional trademarks, service marks and trade names of others. All trademarks, service marks and trade names appearing in this Annual Report are, to our knowledge, the property of their respective owners. We do not intend our use or display of other companies’ trademarks, service marks, copyrights or trade names to imply a relationship with, or endorsement or sponsorship of us by, any other companies.

Our operations have consumed substantial amounts of cash since inception. The development of biotechnology product candidates is capital intensive and we expect that we will continue to expend substantial resources for the foreseeable future to develop and commercialize our current and future product candidates. Our expenditures in the foreseeable future may include costs associated with conducting research and development activities, conducting preclinical studies and clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals, undertaking commercialization activities, establishing our sales and marketing capabilities, manufacturing and selling approved products and potentially acquiring or new technologies.

Additional funds may not be available when we need them or on terms that are acceptable to us. In addition, market volatility resulting from the pandemic and other factors could also adversely impact our ability to access capital as and when needed. If adequate funds are not available to us on a timely basis or on terms acceptable to us, we may be required to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our research and development efforts.

Not all patients suffering from a specific cancer that is in principle addressable by our product candidates are eligible for our clinical trials and therapies. First, patients must express a specific genetic marker called While this marker is found on approximately of individuals in North America and Europe, it is less frequent in other populations, such as China or Japan. If human leukocyte antigen (“HLA”) screening for a patient shows that is not expressed, he or she cannot be treated with our current product candidates. Second, the prevalence of the targets addressed by IMA201, IMA202 and IMA203 differs between different tumor entities. For a given patient, a biomarker assay must be performed in order to find out whether he or she expresses one of the targets and can be treated with one of our product candidates. We cannot be certain that the anticipated and assumed target prevalence rates are confirmed in the patient populations of our Phase 1 trials, and lower target prevalence rates may be experienced. Third, further eligibility criteria are in place to ensure that the patients can tolerate and potentially benefit from the treatment. Thus, only a few of the patients screened for our clinical trials will receive cellular products. Patients may therefore be hesitant to consent to our trials, and overall, many more patients will have to be screened to treat the targeted number of patients. It is uncertain how many more patients we will be required to screen. If the required number of patient screenings is much higher than anticipated, our clinical trial costs may increase. We may combine two or more product candidates into multi-target trials to mitigate this risk. However, we cannot be certain whether this measure will be effective in enhancing recruitment.

Clinical trials are expensive and difficult to design, implement and conduct, in part because they are subject to rigorous regulatory requirements. Because our ACT product candidates are based on new cell therapy technologies and manufactured on a basis, we expect that such candidates will require extensive research and development and have substantial manufacturing costs per dose. Our TCR Bispecific product candidates also require extensive research and development, as the applicable technology is new and experience with developing such biologics is rare in the field. Moreover, the development of a companion diagnostic will also require extensive research and development, and such companion diagnostic must be suitable to support both enrollment into larger clinical trials and routine hospital procedures after marketing approval. Any failure or delay in developing a suitable companion diagnostic will delay or make it impossible to conduct larger clinical trials for ACT product candidates and/or TCR Bispecific product candidates.

In addition, costs to treat patients with recurrent and/or refractory cancer and to treat potential side effects that may result from our product candidates, medicinal products, rescue or prophylactic medication applied in our clinical trials can be significant. Some clinical trial sites do not bill or obtain coverage from Medicare, Medicaid, health insurance or other third-party payors for some or all of these costs for patients enrolled in our clinical trials, and we can be required by those trial sites to pay such costs. In countries outside the United States, we expect that all costs related to the clinical trial and to the management of study patients (for example, management of adverse reactions or hospitalization) are paid by the sponsor of the clinical trial. As trial designs for development of our product candidates are complex, our clinical trial costs are likely to be significantly higher per patient than those of more conventional therapeutic technologies or drug products. We may combine two or more of our ACT product candidates within one clinical trial or within a concept in order to achieve durable clinical efficacy results and to increase the patient population. The setup and conduct of such clinical trials is expensive and may bear unknown risks, such as regulatory, preclinical, safety and manufacturing risks. In addition, our proposed personalized product candidates involve several complex and costly manufacturing and processing steps, the costs of which will be borne by us. We are also responsible for the manufacturing costs of products for patients that do not receive the product due to any reason (for example, rapid degradation of general health status, not meeting inclusion/exclusion criteria for infusion). Depending on the number of patients that we ultimately screen and enroll in our trials, the number of trials that we may need to conduct, and the companion diagnostic we need to develop, our overall clinical trial costs may be higher than for more conventional treatments.

In our clinical trials, reported Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (“TEAEs”) included lymphopenia, neutropenia, leukopenia, anemia, thrombocytopenia. In addition, we observed a dose-limiting toxicity (“DLT”) of Grade 3 atrial fibrillation in a patient treated with IMA203. There can be no assurance that patients treated with our product candidates will not experience these and other serious adverse side effects and there can be no assurance that the FDA, the EMA or comparable regulatory authorities will not place clinical holds on our current or future clinical trials, the result of which could delay or prevent us from obtaining regulatory approval. In particular, our clinical trials enroll patients who have failed all available

Positive and promising results from preclinical studies and early-stage clinical trials may not be predictive of results from late-stage clinical trials or from clinical trials of the same product candidates. The primary objectives of our current Phase 1 clinical trials are to establish safety and tolerability and, for our ACTengine Phase 1 clinical trials, to determine the recommended Phase 2 dose. Results from those and future early-stage clinical trials may not be representative of results from later-stage clinical trials. Product candidates in later stages of clinical trials may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy traits despite having progressed through preclinical studies and initial clinical trials. Late-stage clinical trials could differ in significant ways from early-stage clinical trials, including changes to inclusion and exclusion criteria, efficacy endpoints, dosing regimen and statistical design. In particular, we expect there may be greater variability in results for products processed and administered on a basis, as for our cellular therapy product candidates, than for products, like many other drugs. Many companies in the biotechnology industry have suffered significant setbacks in late-stage clinical trials after achieving encouraging or positive results in early-stage development. There can be no assurance that we will not face similar setbacks. Therefore, despite positive results observed in early-stage clinical trials, our product candidates may fail to demonstrate sufficient efficacy in our pivotal or confirmatory clinical trials.

From time to time, we may announce or publish preliminary interim or data from clinical trials. Positive preliminary data may not be predictive of such trial’s subsequent or overall results. Preliminary data are subject to the risk that one or more of the outcomes may materially change as more data become available. Additionally, preliminary data are subject to the risk that one or more of the clinical outcomes may materially change as patient enrollment continues and more patient data become available.

For example, our studies of cellular therapies in patients without any indicated treatment utilize an “open-label, single arm, trial design. An open-label, single arm, trial is one where both the patient and investigator know what investigational treatment (monotherapy or combination) at which dose the patient is receiving. This trial design has the potential to create selection bias by encouraging the investigators to enroll a more favorable patient population (for example, indications better suitable for immunotherapies, fitter patients, fewer prior therapies) compared to a broader patient population. In our current Phase 1 clinical trials, investigators have significant discretion over the selection of patient participants. As the trials continue, the investigators may prioritize patients with more progressed forms of cancer and/or worse general health condition than the initial patient population, based on the safety/success or perceived safety/success of that initial population. Patients with more progressed forms of cancer or worse general health conditions may experience more and/or worse adverse events or be less responsive to treatment, and accordingly, interim or final safety and efficacy data may show an increase in frequency or severity of adverse events and/or a decline in patient response rate or change in other assessment metrics. As the trials continue or in subsequent trials, investigators may shift their approach to the patient population, which may ultimately experience more and/or worse adverse events and/or result in a decline in both interim and final efficacy data from the preliminary data, or conversely, a decrease in frequency and/or severity of adverse events or an increase in final efficacy data following a decline in the interim efficacy data, as patients with more progressed forms of cancer or worse general health condition are cycled out of the trials and replaced by patients with less advanced forms of cancer or with better general health conditions. This opportunity for investigator selection bias in our trials as a result of open-label design, which is standard in dose-escalation/

trials, may not be adequately handled and may cause a decline in or distortion of clinical trial data from our preliminary results. Any future trial which utilizes an open-label design is similarly susceptible to such bias.

may require additional studies before permitting us to enter clinical trials with our product candidates. Regulatory authorities may also ask for additional early-stage trials or production of additional batches of TCR Bispecific product candidates before permitting larger clinical trials or registration trials. To comply with those requests would increase costs and timelines for the development of our TCR Bispecific product candidates.

If and when our ongoing Phase 1 clinical trials for IMA201, IMA202 and IMA203 are completed and, assuming positive data, we expect to advance to potential registrational trials. We anticipate pursuing registrational trials, for example for IMA201, IMA202 and IMA203, as single agents or in combination that are designed to evaluate the efficacy of the respective product candidate in a single open-label, pivotal, multicenter, clinical trials in patients who have exhausted available treatment options.

In Europe, the EMA has implemented the “PRIME” (PRIority MEdicines) status in order support the development and accelerate the approval of complex innovative medicinal products addressing an unmet medical need. The PRIME status enables early dialogue with the relevant EMA scientific committees and, possibly, some payers; and thus, reinforces the EMA’s scientific and regulatory support. It also opens accelerated assessment of the marketing authorization application (150 days instead of 210 days). The PRIME status, which is decided by the EMA, is reserved to medicines that may benefit from accelerated assessment, i.e., medicines of major interest from a public health perspective, in particular from a therapeutic innovation perspective and that target unmet medical need.

In addition, any product candidates for which we receive regulatory approval in a particular jurisdiction and the activities associated with their commercialization, including testing, manufacture, recordkeeping, labeling, storage, approval, advertising, promotion, sale and distribution, will be subject to comprehensive regulation by the FDA, the EMA or comparable regulatory authorities. These requirements include, without limitation, submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, registration and listing requirements, the FDA’s cGMP and cGTPs requirements or comparable requirements in foreign jurisdictions, requirements relating to manufacturing, quality control, quality assurance and corresponding maintenance of records and documents, including periodic inspections by the FDA, the EMA or comparable regulatory authorities, requirements regarding the distribution of samples to physicians, tracking and reporting of payments to physicians and other healthcare providers and recordkeeping. In the United States, the FDA closely regulates the post-approval marketing and promotion of drugs to ensure drugs are marketed only for the approved indications and in a manner consistent with the provisions of the approved labeling. The FDA also imposes stringent restrictions on manufacturers’ communications regarding use of their products and, if we promote our products beyond their approved indications or in a manner inconsistent with the approved labeling, we may be subject to enforcement action for promotion. Violations of the U.S. Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the “FDCA”) relating to the promotion of prescription drugs may lead to investigations alleging violations of federal and state healthcare fraud and abuse laws, as well as state consumer protection laws.

involves complex processes, including, for example, for ACTengine genetically modified autologous T cell products (IMA201, IMA202, IMA203, and IMA204), harvesting and transporting blood cells from every patient for T cell isolation, engineering of the T cells to express a specific T cell receptor for a tumor target, multiplying the T cells to obtain the desired cell numbers for the dose, and finally transporting of the T cell product back to the patient for infusing the modified T cells back into the same patient. As a result of the complexities, the cost to manufacture cellular products per dose is generally higher than traditional small molecule chemical compounds or biologics, and the manufacturing process is less reliable, more variable and is more difficult to reproduce. Our manufacturing process may be susceptible to product loss or failure due to logistical issues associated with the collection of patients’ blood cells, shipping such material to the manufacturing site, shipping the final product back to the patient, and infusing the patient with the product. Product loss or failure may also be caused by manufacturing issues associated with the variability in patient starting material especially from heavily treated cancer patients, interruptions in the manufacturing process, contamination, equipment failure, assay failures, improper installation or operation of equipment, vendor or operator error, inconsistency in cell growth, and variability in product characteristics. Even minor deviations from normal manufacturing processes could result in reduced production yields, product defects, and other supply disruptions. If for any reason we lose a patient’s starting material, or any intermediate product at any point in the process, or if any product does not meet the preset specifications, the manufacturing process for that patient will need to be restarted, sometimes including of blood cells from the patient, and the resulting delay may adversely affect that patient’s outcome. It may even happen, that failed product manufacture may prevent a patient from getting a T cell product. If microbial, environmental 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. If such contaminations or other product quality issues are not discovered and if as a result thereof patients are exposed to a health risk, we may be held liable. Our insurance may not cover those cases, or the financial coverage may not be sufficient.

Currently, our cellular product candidates are manufactured using processes developed or modified by us but based on current industry standards and are designed to deliver a clinical proof of concept (“PoC”). We have selected an open process as the manufacturing process for early-stage clinical trials through PoC. However, we are currently developing a second-generation process that is closed, partially automated and viable for advanced clinical trials through product registration, and all ongoing and future company-sponsored clinical trials. Although we believe that the second-generation process is commercially viable, there are risks associated with scaling to the level required for advanced clinical trials or commercialization, including, among others, cost overruns, potential problems with process upscaling, process reproducibility, technology transfer, stability issues, lot consistency, and timely availability of raw materials. This includes potential risks associated with FDA not agreeing with all of the details of our validation data or our potency assay for our Phase 1 or future Phase 2 clinical trials. Furthermore, some of our CMOs may not be able to establish comparability of their products with the ACT products used in our Phase 1 or future Phase 2 clinical trials or may not be fully validated prior to starting our pivotal or registration clinical trial. As a result of these challenges, we may experience delays in our clinical development and/or commercialization plans. We may ultimately be unable to reduce the cost of

Manufacturing of TCR Bispecifics (TCER), such as IMA401, IMA402 and potential future product candidates, is susceptible to product loss due to contamination, equipment failure or improper installation or operation of equipment, vendor or operator error, inconsistency in yields, issues with purity, variability in product characteristics and difficulties in scaling the production process. Even minor deviations from normal manufacturing processes could result in reduced production yields, inacceptable purity, product defects, loss of production batches and other supply disruptions. In such cases, our development program may experience major delays and we may have to produce a new batch of a given TCER. This will be costly and will delay our TCER development program. In particular, production of a new cGMP batch may be time-consuming, as it relies on the availability of facilities with cGMP capabilities at our CMO, and such facilities must be booked far in advance. We may also experience failure of production of the master cell bank that is used to produce our TCER molecules. For example, missing clonality of the cell line or of the cell bank may require production of a new master cell bank which would be associated with additional costs and delays.

Currently, we have no immediate plans to operate our own manufacturing facility for our product candidates in late-stage clinical testing or for our marketed products. However, we may not be able to achieve clinical or commercial manufacturing and cell processing at a scale to satisfy demands for late-stage clinical trials or commercialization on our own or with a CMO and thus may decide to operate a manufacturing facility for our product candidates. While we believe the manufacturing and processing approaches are appropriate to support our clinical product development, we have limited experience in managing a large-scale manufacturing facility. We cannot be sure that the manufacturing processes we employ or the technologies that we incorporate for manufacturing will result in cell product candidates suitable for clinical trials or commercialization.

We have exclusive access to the early-stage facility at UTH designed for the manufacturing of cellular products comprised of three fully functional cGMP suites and support areas where our hired and trained personnel perform all manufacturing related activities. The current lease extends through the end of 2024. In case the lease is not extended, we may decide to build our own manufacturing facility. There can be no assurance that we will complete the of our manufacturing facility in a timely manner, or at all. We also do not yet have sufficient information to reliably estimate the cost of the clinical and commercial manufacturing and processing of our product candidates, and the actual cost to manufacture and process our product candidates could materially and adversely affect the commercial viability of our product candidates. In addition, the ultimate clinical and any commercial dose will affect our ability to scale our costs per dose. As a result, we may never be able to develop a commercially viable product. The commercial manufacturing facility we may build will also require regulatory approval, including from FDA, which we may never obtain. Even if approved, we would be subject to ongoing periodic unannounced inspection by the FDA or authorities from other jurisdictions, the Drug Enforcement Administration and corresponding state agencies to ensure strict compliance with cGMP and cGTP requirements, and other government regulations.

We have collaboration agreements and license agreements with, for example, MD Anderson, Genmab, Celgene Corporation, Bristol-Myers Squibb (“BMS”), and GlaxoSmithKline (“GSK”). These agreements provide us with important funding for our development programs and technology platforms. If our therapeutic programs and related collaborations do not result in the successful development and commercialization of products or if one of our collaborators or licensors terminates its agreement with us, we may not receive any future research funding or milestone or royalty payments associated with such collaboration or license arrangement. For example, our collaboration agreements with Amgen and with MorphoSys AG were terminated in 2021, and our collaboration agreement with Roche Ltd and Roche Inc. was terminated in 2020. As a result, we will not receive any future milestone or royalty payments under these collaborations. In addition, any termination of an agreement by the relevant collaborators could affect our ability to develop further such product candidates or adversely affect how we are perceived in scientific and financial communities. All of the risks relating to product development, regulatory approval and commercialization described in this Annual Report also apply to the activities of our program collaborators.

We may form or seek strategic alliances, create joint ventures or collaborations or enter into additional licensing arrangements with third parties that we believe will complement or augment our development and commercialization efforts with respect to our product candidates and any future product candidates that we may develop. Additionally, although we intend to develop product candidates through our own internal research, we may need to obtain additional licenses from others to advance our research or allow commercialization of our product candidates and it is possible that we may be unable to obtain additional licenses at a reasonable cost or on reasonable terms, if at all. Any of these relationships may require us to incur and other charges, increase our near and long-term expenditures, issue securities that dilute our existing shareholders or disrupt our management and business. In addition, we face significant competition in seeking appropriate strategic collaborations and licenses and the negotiation process is time-consuming and complex. 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

and acquisition of third-party intellectual property is a competitive area, and a number of more established companies are also pursuing strategies to or acquire third-party intellectual property rights 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 may be unwilling to assign or license rights to us. We also may not be successful in our efforts to establish strategic collaborations or other alternative arrangements for our product candidates because they may be deemed to be at too early a stage of development for collaborative effort and third parties may not view our product candidates as having the requisite potential to demonstrate safety and efficacy. Any delays in entering into new strategic collaboration agreements related to our product candidates could delay the development and commercialization of our product candidates in certain geographies for certain indications, which would harm our business prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

We are dependent or may depend in the future on patents, and proprietary technology licensed from others. We may also enter into additional license agreements that are material to the development of our product candidates. Our current license agreements impose, and future agreements may impose, various development, diligence, commercialization and other obligations on us and require us to meet development timelines, or to exercise commercially reasonable efforts to develop and commercialize licensed products, in order to maintain the licenses. Disputes may arise between us and our licensors and licensees regarding intellectual property subject to a license agreement, including those related to: