Franz-Werner Haas: Thank you. So the expectation, and this is what we tried to put into the presentation there as well, the readouts, what we want to see is certainly chemical modified versus non-chemical modified as we tried to explain that the second-generation backbone is playing a role on our technology level, then also for oncology where we want to start clinical trials in the next year. So it’s going far beyond infectious disease, therefore, non-chemical modified as well as chemical modified, then certainly the monovalent versus the multivalent, which is the first clinical trial we started in South America earlier this year, to see exactly this one because this is a technological effort there as well, if you put more RNAs into the same vial, especially starting with a low dose, and that certainly, of course, is our three other points.
One is the reactogenicity, which was giving us a bit of a problem in the first CVnCoV, as you know. The second one is the immunogenicity. So what is really the antigen expression and various neutralizing titers. And the third one is certainly also the T cell presentation, which then again plays a role beyond infectious disease for oncology there as well. So these are the main points we’re looking into next to what does it mean — and this is to address your last part of the question, what does it mean for further product development in COVID as well as in flu?
Evan Wang: Great. Looking forward to the data. I’ll jump back in the queue. Thanks.
Franz-Werner Haas: Thank you.
Operator: . Our next question comes from Jonathan Miller with Evercore. Please proceed.
Jonathan Miller: Hi, guys. Thanks for taking my question. Maybe on those COVID trials, how much visibility do you have currently into the unmodified product? Because it seems like obviously that was expected this year, it seems like it’s getting pushed back a little bit to share the stage with the modified RNA. Is it fair to say you’re waiting on those modified results before you want to message anything on the unmodified? And to what extent is that decision being driven by GSK holding disclosures back here versus the results that you’re seeing from the unmodified backbone? And then secondarily, I’d love to check in on the IP lawsuits that are ongoing on the COVID products. Where are you in the process now? And what’s the typical timeline to visibility on those lawsuits in German courts, and any plans you have to pursue similar suits in other jurisdictions?
Franz-Werner Haas: Thank you for this question. On the data, it was always considered when we started these clinical trials that we didn’t want to compare separately — that we didn’t want to communicate separately on chemical modified versus non-chemical modified in the same indication here because this would just not make sense. We are, and that’s the goal, what is the next step for product development? And for that you need to have the completion of the data on the modified as well as the non-modified. And this has nothing to do with holding back data. This is exactly meeting the expectations when we started this program. And therefore, the visibility is not high at the moment, because the readout is really to see, okay, what is the next step for product development?
