Beta Bionics, Inc. 10-K

10-K UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 FORM 10-K (Mark One) ☒ ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the fiscal year ended December 31 , 2025 OR ☐ TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 FOR THE TRANSITION PERIOD FROM TO Commission File Number 001 -42491 BETA BIONICS, INC. (Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter) Delaware 47-5386878 (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization) (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) 11 Hughes Irvine , California 92618 (Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code) Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: ( 949 ) 427-7785 Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: Title of each class Trading Symbol(s) Name of each exchange on which registered Common Stock, $0.0001 par value per share BBNX Nasdaq Global Market Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None Indicate by check mark if the Registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes ☐ No ☒ Indicate by check mark if the Registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Act. Yes ☐ No ☒ Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant: (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes ☒ No ☐ Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to submit such files). Yes ☒ No ☐ Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company,” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. Large accelerated filer ☐ Accelerated filer ☐ Non-accelerated filer ☒ Smaller reporting company ☒ Emerging growth company ☒ If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the Registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ☐ Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant has filed a report on and attestation to its management’s assessment of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting under Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (15 U.S.C. 7262(b)) by the registered public accounting firm that prepared or issued its audit report. ☐ If securities are registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act, indicate by check mark whether the financial statements of the Registrant included in the filing reflect the correction of an error to previously issued financial statements. ☐ Indicate by check mark whether any of those error corrections are restatements that required a recovery analysis of incentive-based compensation received by any of the Registrant’s executive officers during the relevant recovery period pursuant to §240.10D-1(b). ☐ Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes ☐ No ☒ As of June 30, 2025, the last business day of the Registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter, the aggregate market value of the Registrant’s Common Stock held by non-affiliates of the Registrant was approximately $ 631,998,349 , based on the closing price of the Registrant’s Common Stock on the Nasdaq Global Market on June 30, 2025 of $ 14.56 per share. The number of shares of the Registrant’s Common Stock outstanding as of February 20, 2026 was 44,382,146 . DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE Portions of the Registrant’s definitive proxy statement relating to its 2026 annual meeting of stockholders (Proxy Statement) are incorporated by reference into Part III of this Annual Report on Form 10-K where indicated. The Proxy Statement will be filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission within 120 days after the end of the fiscal year to which this report relates. Table of Contents Page PART I Item 1. Business 5 Item 1A . Risk Factors 36 Item 1B . Unresolved Staff Comments 102 Item 1C . Cybersecurity 102 Item 2. Properties 103 Item 3 . Legal Proceedings 103 Item 4 . Mine Safety Disclosures 103 PART II Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities 104 Item 6. [Reserved] 105 Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations 106 Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk 128 Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data 128 Item 9. Changes in and Disagreements With Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure 128 Item 9A. Controls and Procedures 128 Item 9B. Other Information 129 Item 9C. Disclosure Regarding Foreign Jurisdictions that Prevent Inspections 129 PART III Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance 130 Item 11 . Executive Compensation 130 Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters 130 Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence 130 Item 14. Principal Accounting Fees and Services 130 PART IV Item 15 . Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules 166 Item 16 . Form 10-K Summary 168 Signatures i Special Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements This Annual Report on Form 10-K (Annual Report) contains forward-looking statements about us and our industry that involve substantial risks and uncertainties. All statements other than statements of historical facts contained in this Annual Report, including statements regarding our future results of operations, financial condition, business strategy and plans and objectives of management for future operations, are forward-looking statements. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements because they contain words such as “anticipate,” “believe,” “contemplate,” “continue,” “could,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “may,” “plan,” “potential,” “predict,” “project,” “should,” “target,” “will” or “would,” or the negative of these words or other similar terms or expressions. We have based these forward-looking statements largely on our current expectations and projections about future events and trends that we believe may affect our financial condition, results of operations, business strategy and financial needs. These forward-looking statements are subject to a number of risks, uncertainties, factors and assumptions described under Part I. Item 1A. “Risk Factors” and elsewhere in this Annual Report, regarding, among other things: • our expected future growth; • the size and growth potential of the markets for our products, and our ability to serve those markets; • our ability to accurately forecast demand for our products; • the rate and degree of market acceptance of our products; • the expected future growth of our sales and marketing organization; • our ability to implement our multi-channel coverage and reimbursement strategy; • the performance of, and our reliance on, third parties in connection with the commercialization of our products, including single source suppliers; • our ability to accurately forecast and manufacture appropriate quantities of our products to meet commercial demand; • regulatory developments in the United States; • our ability to maintain regulatory approval for our products or obtain regulatory approval for new products in the United States; • our research and development for existing products and any future products; • the development, regulatory approval and commercialization of competing products; • our ability to retain and hire senior management and key personnel; • our expectations regarding the period during which we qualify as an emerging growth company under the JOBS Act; • our expectations regarding the impact of geopolitical and macroeconomic factors; 1 • our financial performance and capital requirements; • our expectations regarding our ability to obtain and maintain intellectual property protection for our products, as well as our ability to operate our business without infringing the intellectual property rights of others; • our expected use of our existing cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments; and • other risks and uncertainties, including those described under Part I. Item 1A. “Risk Factors” in this Annual Report. These risks are not exhaustive. Other sections of this Annual Report may include additional factors that could harm our business and financial performance. We operate in a very competitive and rapidly changing environment where new risk factors may emerge from time to time, and it is not possible for our management to predict all risk factors, nor can we assess the impact of all factors on our business or the extent to which any factor, or combination of factors, may cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in, or implied by, any forward-looking statements. You should not rely on forward-looking statements as predictions of future events. We have based the forward-looking statements contained in this Annual Report primarily on our current expectations and projections about future events and trends that we believe may affect our business, financial condition and operating results. These forward-looking statements speak only as of the date of this Annual Report. We undertake no obligation to update any forward-looking statements made in this Annual Report to reflect events or circumstances after the date of this Annual Report or to reflect new information or the occurrence of unanticipated events, except as required by law. We may not actually achieve the plans, intentions or expectations disclosed in our forward-looking statements, and you should not place undue reliance on our forward-looking statements. Our forward-looking statements do not reflect the potential impact of any future acquisitions, mergers, dispositions, joint ventures or investments. We intend the forward-looking statements contained in this Annual Report to be covered by the safe harbor provisions for forward-looking statements contained in Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (Securities Act), and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (Exchange Act). In addition, statements that “we believe” and similar statements reflect our beliefs and opinions on the relevant subject. These statements are based on information available to us as of the date of this Annual Report. While we believe that information provides a reasonable basis for these statements, that information may be limited or incomplete. Our statements should not be read to indicate that we have conducted an exhaustive inquiry into, or review of, all relevant information. These statements are inherently uncertain, and investors are cautioned not to unduly rely on these statements. You should read this Annual Report and the documents that we reference in this Annual Report and have filed as exhibits with the understanding that our actual future results, levels of activity, performance and achievements may be different from what we expect. We qualify all of our forward-looking statements by these cautionary statements. 2 Summary of Risks Related to Our Business Our business is subject to a number of risks of which you should be aware before making a decision to invest in our common stock. These risks are more fully described in Part I. Item 1A. “Risk Factors” in this Annual Report, including the following: • We have a limited commercial history and limited experience marketing and selling our products. We only recently launched our commercial product, which may make it difficult to evaluate the prospects for our future viability and predict our future performance. • We have incurred significant operating losses since inception and cannot assure you that we will be able to achieve or sustain profitability. • Our quarterly and annual financial condition, operating results, cash flows and key business metrics may fluctuate in the future, which could cause the market price of our stock to decline substantially. • We currently rely on sales of our iLet and related single-use products to generate all of our revenue, and any factors that negatively impact sales of these products may adversely affect our business, financial condition and operating results. • We may need to raise additional funds in the future, and these funds may not be available on acceptable terms, if at all. • The failure of our iLet and related products to achieve and maintain market acceptance could result in us achieving sales below our expectations, which would cause our business, financial condition and operating results to be materially and adversely affected. • We face competition from numerous competitors, most of whom have far greater resources than we have, which may make it more difficult for us to achieve significant market penetration and which may allow them to develop additional products for the treatment of diabetes that compete with our iLet. • Our results of operations will be harmed if we are unable to accurately forecast customer demand for our products and manage our inventory. • Competing products, therapeutic techniques or other technological developments and breakthroughs for the monitoring, treatment or prevention of diabetes may render our products obsolete or less desirable. • We currently have a limited marketing and sales organization and have limited experience as a commercial-stage company marketing devices. If we are unable to successfully expand our marketing and sales capabilities or enter into additional agreements with third parties to market and sell devices, we may not be able to generate product revenue, and our business may be adversely affected. • If our information technology systems or those third parties with whom we work or our data, are or were compromised, we could experience adverse consequences resulting from such compromise, including, but not limited to, regulatory investigations or actions; litigation; fines and penalties; disruptions of our business operations; reputational harm; loss of revenue or profits; loss of customers or sales; and other adverse consequences. • If we were to be sued for product liability, we could face substantial liabilities that exceed our resources, limit sales of our iLet and limit commercialization of any products that we may develop. • International trade policies, including tariffs, sanctions and trade barriers may adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. • We are highly dependent on the success of our iLet for the treatment of T1D, which is cleared by the FDA for commercial sale in the United States for the treatment of T1D, and we do not have any other commercial products. If we are unable to obtain and maintain regulatory clearance or approval for planned modifications to the iLet or for new indications, or for any future development-stage products, or if we are unsuccessful in our efforts to continue to commercialize our cleared version of the iLet, our business will be materially harmed. • We are subject to a post-market surveillance order issued by the FDA for our iLet. If the FDA determines that our iLet does not perform as anticipated, or if the FDA identifies new concerns 3 related to the safety and effectiveness of the device, we may need to make changes to or recall or withdraw the iLet from the field, which could harm our business. • The regulatory authorization process of the FDA, or any comparable foreign regulatory authorities, is lengthy, time-consuming and inherently unpredictable. Even if we complete the necessary clinical trials, we cannot predict when, or if, we will obtain marketing authorization or clearance for any of our product candidates. Modifications to our currently commercialized version of the iLet may require new marketing authorizations or clearance. • Use of our commercial or development-stage products may cause adverse events or undesirable side effects or present other safety concerns which may cause us to suspend or discontinue clinical trials, delay or prevent marketing authorization, limit the commercial profile of labeling for any product that has received marketing authorization, or result in significant negative consequences following marketing authorization. • Our future growth depends on the continued success, enhancement, and expanded use of the iLet. If we fail to advance the iLet platform or expand its indications, our business may be adversely affected. • Maintaining regulatory clearance for our iLet as an automated insulin dosing system for the treatment of T1D and obtaining and maintaining marketing authorization or clearance for a bihormonal system for T1D or other indication in one jurisdiction does not mean that we will be successful in obtaining marketing authorization of the iLet in any configuration or indication in other jurisdictions. • Coverage and reimbursement may be limited or unavailable in certain market segments for our iLet, which could make it difficult for us to sell any investigational devices profitably. • If we experience pricing pressure for our products and we are unable to reduce our expenses, including the per unit cost of producing our products, there may be a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. • Healthcare reform measures could hinder or prevent the commercial success of our solutions. • Uncertainty related to CMS reimbursement policies could adversely affect our pricing and revenue. • We are substantially dependent on various third parties for the continued development of our iLet and product candidates. Certain of our current and future collaborators may control aspects of our clinical trials, which could result in delays or other obstacles in the development of the investigational devices or other development-stage candidates, such as glucagon, we develop. If our collaborations are terminated or are not successful, our ability to further enhance our iLet and product candidates may be adversely affected. • We obtain some of the components and subassemblies included in our iLet from single source suppliers, and the partial or complete loss of one or more of these suppliers could cause significant production delays, an inability to meet customer demand and a substantial loss in revenue. • Our iLet is complex in design and may contain defects that are not detected until use, which could increase our costs, including warranty costs, and reduce our revenue. If our iLet does not perform as expected or the reliability of the technology on which our products is based is questioned, our operating results, reputation and business will suffer. • Our iLet or any of its components may be subject to product recalls in the future. A recall of our products, either voluntarily or at the direction of the FDA or another governmental authority, or the discovery of serious safety issues with our iLet, could have a significant adverse impact on us. • Our iLet is currently cleared only for the treatment of T1D in adults and children six years of age and older. If our iLet is authorized for marketing or cleared in a bihormonal system for the treatment of T1D or for any other indications, such marketing authorization or clearance will be limited by the FDA to the specific indication for which granted. We are prohibited from marketing the iLet for other indications, such as T2D. • If we are unable to obtain or protect intellectual property rights related to the iLet, we may not be able to compete effectively in our market. • If we fail to comply with our obligations in our current and future intellectual property licenses with third parties, we could lose rights, which may be important to our business. 4 PA RT I Item 1. B usiness. Overview We are a commercial-stage medical device company engaged in the design, development, and commercialization of innovative solutions to improve the health and quality of life of insulin-requiring people with diabetes (PWD) by utilizing advanced adaptive closed-loop algorithms to simplify and improve the treatment of their disease. Our product, the iLet Bionic Pancreas (iLet), was cleared by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of Type 1 diabetes in adults and children six years and older and commercially launched in May 2023 in the United States. Since we began commercializing the iLet, our installed base has grown to 35,011 iLets as of December 31, 2025. Market Opportunity: Management of Diabetes Diabetes is a serious, chronic, and often lifelong condition with no known cure that is characterized by extended periods of elevated levels of glucose in the bloodstream (hyperglycemia), resulting from the body’s inability to either produce or effectively utilize the hormone insulin. To treat their diabetes, PWD must undergo a rigorous regimen of daily insulin substitution, as elevated levels of glucose in the blood over time can lead to serious and often life-threatening cardiovascular, metabolic and nervous system complications. Despite decades of innovation that have advanced the quality of care available, a significant unmet need remains as the vast majority of PWD still cannot manage their diabetes effectively. There are two principal types of diabetes within the overall population: • Type 1 diabetes (T1D): an autoimmune disorder that often develops during childhood or adolescence, but can occur at any age, arising from a person’s immune system attacking and destroying the insulin-producing beta cells in the pancreas leading to elevated blood-glucose (BG) levels. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), there are currently approximately 1.9 million people with T1D in the United States, all of whom require daily insulin replacement to manage their disease. • Type 2 diabetes (T2D): a metabolic disorder that typically develops in adulthood, whereby the body becomes resistant to insulin, and, consequently, increased insulin production or replacement is needed to regulate BG levels. As T2D progresses, the body’s beta cells cannot maintain the increased insulin levels needed to regulate BG. There are currently approximately 38 million people with T2D in the United States according to the CDC, of whom an estimated 1.9 million require daily intensive insulin therapy, based on public and industry data. According to the American Diabetes Association (ADA), the central objectives for disease management in the treatment of T1D are sustaining HbA1c levels at or below 7.0% over time while maintaining daily BG levels between 70 and 180 mg/dL, near the range experienced by healthy individuals, for 17 or more hours per day. Those accomplishing these goals have been shown to significantly reduce their risk of developing the long-term complications of diabetes. These guidelines were established based on the results of the landmark Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT). These results demonstrated that failure to maintain BG near an acceptable range had long-term negative health consequences for PWD, exacerbating the complications of the disorder. The achievement of glycemic goals, however, is a daunting task due to the lifelong, daily requirements and the complex and dynamic nature of the factors that drive BG levels. Currently, only about 20% of adults in the United States with T1D meet these established therapy goals for HbA1c. We believe that one of the principal reasons for these suboptimal outcomes is that, despite decades of innovation and clinical data demonstrating their superiority to alternatives, insulin pumps have only been adopted by approximately one-third of people with T1D (based on our internal estimates and publicly available industry data, including sales data publicly disclosed by the leading device manufacturers). We believe that one reason for this relatively low 5 adoption rate is the demands placed on users to perform the complex tabulations and calculations required for even the most advanced pumps (other than the iLet) to function optimally. The dynamic evolution of care in the field of diabetes over the past several decades has been characterized by continuous cycles of innovation that have produced several generations of increasingly sophisticated and complex devices to help maintain BG levels within the normal range or achieve goal, as established by the ADA. The capabilities of devices range from offering convenience features to allowing transformative improvements in efficacy. We believe that, while these new technologies have managed to remove or reduce some “twentieth-century burdens” of disease management (e.g., logbooks, fingerstick measurements, not knowing BG levels for large stretches of the day and night), they have also added new, “twenty-first-century burdens” (e.g., bombardment with overwhelming amounts of data, constant alerts and alarms, and 24/7 information overload). The psychological, emotional and cognitive burden imposed by the continuous need for user engagement to manage the disease is substantial, unsustainable by most and unachievable by many. We believe that the iLet marks a significant breakthrough in the achievement of our ultimate goal, as it has been shown to enable clinically relevant improvements in glycemic control across broad populations of PWD, while dramatically reducing necessary user engagement. Our Mission: Life-Changing Solutions Our mission is to simplify and alleviate the burden of managing diabetes with life-changing solutions. Our vision is to make diabetes easier, for everyone, every day. Our goal is to establish the iLet as the standard of care for insulin delivery. Our Solution: The iLet Bionic Pancreas The iLet was cleared by the FDA in May 2023 for the treatment of T1D in adults and children six years and older. Unlike hybrid closed-loop systems that still require users to calculate boluses or enter carbohydrate counts, the iLet is the first and only insulin-delivery device that autonomously determines and delivers 100% of all insulin doses. This level of automation establishes an entirely new category in automated insulin delivery (AID)—true fully closed-loop dosing. The iLet’s compact design integrates with leading continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) via Bluetooth and features an intuitive app-based interface that provides real-time updates and enables secure data sharing with caregivers, supporting easier and more effective glycemic control with minimal user input. 6 Figure 1. The Suite of Components of the iLet As shown above, the iLet includes: • A pumping platform, which consists of the pump itself and related single-use products, including cartridges for storing and delivering insulin, and infusion sets that connect the insulin pump to a user’s body. The pumping platform is designed to deliver analog insulin alone using either a prefilled cartridge or an empty cartridge that the user fills using an external insulin source of their choice. The iLet is not compatible with third-party infusion sets or insulin cartridges. • A suite of adaptive control algorithms that autonomously analyze and administer the delivery of insulin doses based on CGM data. • An intuitive touchscreen display that enables user interactions through a custom graphical user interface embracing smartphone simplicity. • A wirelessly rechargeable battery, which must be recharged every 5-7 days, similar to the battery life of other competitive pump products, and wireless software update capabilities. 7 The iLet integrates with the user’s CGM device (either DexCom G6 or G7 or Abbott’s FreeStyle Libre 3 Plus), which measures the user’s glucose levels. The iLet’s suite of three adaptive algorithms then work together, using the user’s glucose levels from the CGM and the user’s qualitative meal announcements, to understand the user’s distinct patterns of food intake and insulin needs, allowing the iLet to make all insulin dosing decisions with minimal human intervention. The three algorithms described below, refined over more than a decade, are the key enabling innovation of the iLet. Our Strategy and Future Technologies Our strategy to achieve our mission and expand our market share focuses on driving adoption of the iLet through targeted commercialization, superior customer support, operational efficiency, and continued innovation. We are executing a focused commercial approach that leverages our internal sales force to educate PWD and healthcare providers (HCPs) on the benefits of fully autonomous insulin delivery, while building strong customer relationships through responsive service and training programs. Our initial commercial efforts are concentrated in high-volume endocrinology practices, and over time we plan to extend our outreach to primary care settings, where a significant portion of the T1D population is managed and where the iLet’s minimal user input requirements may provide meaningful clinical and operational advantages. Markets and Distribution Methods We market and distribute the iLet in the United States through a direct commercial organization that includes sales, clinical, and customer support teams. Our commercial focus is centered on endocrinology practices that manage a high concentration of people using intensive insulin therapy, with plans to broaden over time into primary care practices that manage an estimated half of the T1D population. When we are not contracted with a specific health plan for direct fulfillment, we utilize independent distributors to support order processing, benefits investigation, and product delivery. Our customer-facing infrastructure is designed to support onboarding, training, and long-term retention. We provide comprehensive education programs for patients and healthcare professionals, delivered through certified trainers, virtual resources, and digital tools. Our customer support team provides continuous technical assistance, order support, and product guidance throughout the life of the device. We also engage users, caregivers, and clinicians through community-focused initiatives such as the Bionic Universe, which helps share real-world experiences and informs future product refinements. This integrated commercial, training, and support model is intended to ensure a high quality user experience and strengthen long-term customer loyalty. Multi-Channel Coverage and Reimbursement Strategy We are pursuing a multi-channel coverage and reimbursement strategy designed to maximize access to the iLet across the T1D population and provide PWD greater flexibility and affordability in selecting their insulin delivery system. Historically, most insulin pumps have been reimbursed through the durable medical equipment (DME) channel, which continues to cover the iLet for a growing portion of payors. Under this model, patients typically make a significant upfront payment and are eligible for device replacement only after the standard four-year warranty period. While this structure ensures predictable reimbursement for payors, it can create financial and timing barriers that limit adoption of new and more effective technologies. To expand access beyond the DME coverage, we are working with commercial and government payors to increase availability of the iLet through the pharmacy benefit plan (PBP) channel, which follows a “pay-as-you-go” model. This structure removes large upfront costs and allows more rapid adoption of new innovations, while providing payors the opportunity to capture longer-term healthcare savings through improved disease management and reduced complications. We believe this dual-channel approach improves accessibility for PWD, enhances flexibility for healthcare providers, and increases overall market penetration of the iLet, while positioning us to generate more consistent recurring revenue over the expected life cycle of the device. 8 Third-Party Reimbursement In the United States, customer orders for the iLet are typically fulfilled by billing third-party payors on behalf of customers or through our network of distributors that bill payors directly. Historically, most insulin pumps, including the iLet, are eligible for insurance reimbursement for replacement approximately once every four years, though certain health plans may extend this period or impose additional restrictions. We have entered into contracts with national and regional third-party payors to establish reimbursement for the iLet and related supplies, and we continue to expand the number of payors that provide direct coverage under both the DME and PBP channels. If we are not contracted with a prospective customer’s payor, and in-network status cannot otherwise be obtained, we seek to fulfill orders through alternate distribution partners where possible. A payor’s decision to cover our product does not guarantee an adequate reimbursement rate, and coverage policies or reimbursement levels may change over time. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement are achieved, future changes in payor policies or healthcare reform measures could adversely affect reimbursement terms or patient access. Product Development Pipeline and Future Initiatives We are committed to advancing innovation in automated insulin delivery and expanding the capabilities of the iLet platform to reach more people living with insulin-requiring diabetes. Our research and development initiatives are focused on simplifying diabetes management, improving outcomes, and expanding access through new form factors, additional therapeutic configurations, and future indication expansions. Patch Pump (Mint) We are developing Mint, a next-generation, tubeless insulin patch pump designed to provide the same adaptive closed-loop automation of the iLet in a discreet, wearable format. The device features a two-part design, including a reusable controller that houses the electronics and adaptive algorithm paired with a disposable cartridge. The system will be waterproof, smartphone-controlled through iOS and Android applications, and designed for efficient large-scale manufacturing with reduced environmental waste. We expect Mint to expand the addressable insulin delivery market, particularly among people seeking a tubeless form factor reimbursed through the pharmacy channel. Subject to receiving FDA 510(k) clearance as an alternate controller enabled (ACE) pump, we are targeting commercial launch by the end of 2027. Bihormonal iLet We are developing a first-of-its-kind bihormonal system of the iLet designed to autonomously deliver both insulin and glucagon using adaptive closed-loop algorithms that determine 100% of all dosing decisions. This system aims to transform diabetes care by actively preventing and correcting both high and low blood glucose levels, potentially eliminating the fear of hypoglycemia that affects many people with T1D. Through an exclusive collaboration and license agreement with Xeris Pharmaceuticals (Xeris), we are developing a pump-compatible, shelf-stable glucagon formulation utilizing Xeris’ XeriSol technology. We plan to initiate at least one pre-pivotal and one pivotal clinical trial prior to submitting the device and algorithm for FDA 510(k) clearance and submitting a new drug application (NDA) for the glucagon formulation. If approved, the bihormonal iLet could represent a major advancement in automated glycemic control, reduce challenges associated with diabetes management and expand our reach across a broader diabetes population. As part of our development plans, in September 2025, we completed a clinical trial in Canada assessing the pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) of our glucagon product candidate (also referred to as the glucagon asset, and referred to herein as the PK-PD Trial). The completion of the PK-PD Trial enables us to bridge our previous bihormonal clinical data, which tested prior formulations of glucagon in three pre-pivotal inpatient and six pre-pivotal outpatient clinical trials, to our glucagon product candidate. We believe that the results from the PK-PD Trial are supportive of the continued development of our glucagon product candidate for use in our bihormonal system of the iLet. 9 In the fourth quarter of 2025, we completed our first-in-human Phase 2a feasibility trial in New Zealand evaluating the integrated bihormonal system, including the glucagon formulation, pump, and dosing algorithms. This study represents an important step in the development of the complete bihormonal configuration and is part of our Phase 2 feasibility program. We observed no safety signals related to the glucagon formulation in this study. We expect to initiate an additional Phase 2a feasibility trial in the first half of 2026 to further evaluate the system as we advance development. We intend to pursue the development of the iLet for expanded patient populations and indications, including people with T2D, which we believe represents a significant long-term opportunity. Type 2 Diabetes We intend to pursue expanded use of the iLet to treat people with insulin-dependent T2D, as we believe the size and composition of this population make it a compelling opportunity. We believe our planned expansion for the iLet’s use in T2D will require an additional 510(k) clearance. We expect we will need to conduct studies to determine the iLet’s applicability for T2D and in order to obtain the additional 510(k) clearance. Although we continue to analyze the timing related to this expansion, we do not currently have a specific timeline. While there are certain differences in how T2D is treated relative to T1D, these differences primarily relate to the amount and rate of insulin delivered. Among the T2D population, approximately 1.9 million require intensive insulin therapy, but fewer than 10% have adopted pump technology to date. This is based on our internal estimates factoring epidemiologic data from government and leading industry organizations such as the CDC as well as industry sales data from public filings and disclosures made by the leading device manufacturers (Medtronic, Tandem and Insulet) and aggregated by third-party data service providers. We believe these PWD, who span socioeconomic and educational levels, and their HCPs, 90% of whom are PCP, may find the iLet’s combination of simplicity and efficacy particularly appealing, if authorized for marketing for this use. Competition The medical device industry is intensely competitive, subject to rapid change, and highly sensitive to the introduction of new products, treatment techniques or technologies, and other market activities of industry participants. We primarily compete with a number of companies that manufacture and sell insulin pumps, such as Medtronic, Tandem, and Insulet. The iLet has certain characteristics that other insulin pumps manufactured by such competitors, as far as we are aware, do not currently have, such as the ability to be initialized with only the user’s body weight, being enabled by algorithms that determine 100% of the user’s insulin doses, no carb counting, an option for pay-as-you-go pharmacy reimbursement and prefilled cartridges. Outside of the insulin pump market, we face competition from a number of companies, medical researchers and pharmaceutical companies that offer or are pursuing competing delivery devices, technologies and procedures, such as prefilled insulin syringes, insulin pens and inhalable insulin products, as well as companies with approved therapeutics or in-development therapeutic candidates impacting diabetes. Many of our competitors are either publicly-traded companies or divisions or subsidiaries of publicly-traded companies that have several competitive advantages over us, including greater market share and name recognition, greater financial and human resources for sales and marketing and product development, more well-established relationships with HCPs, customers and third-party payors, greater experience, additional lines of products with the ability to offer rebates or bundle products, and larger and more established distribution networks. In some instances, our competitors also offer products that include features that we do not currently offer. For example, Insulet offers a product with a patch form factor. Mergers and acquisitions in the medical device industry may result in even greater resource concentration among a smaller number of competitors. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, either alone or through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. Key competitive factors affecting our success are likely to be health efficacy, safety, ease of use (including complexity and disease management burden), price, reimbursement, user retention, and ability to continue to effectively innovate. 10 Manufacturing and Quality Assurance We manufacture and assemble the iLet and related insulin cartridges at our facility in Irvine, California, which serves as our primary manufacturing and distribution center. Our facility is designed for scalability, enabling us to meet anticipated commercial demand while maintaining flexibility for future product iterations. Certain components and subassemblies are sourced from qualified third-party suppliers, and we maintain multi-sourcing strategies to help mitigate supply chain risk. We perform final assembly, software installation, functional testing, and quality control internally to ensure each product meets design specifications and performance standards. We believe that controlling our own manufacturing processes provides advantages in quality assurance, cost management, and the ability to rapidly implement design improvements. We manufacture and assemble the iLet and related supplies using a quality management system designed to meet applicable FDA requirements for medical devices. We are subject to and maintain compliance with ISO manufacturing standards, including ISO 13485 certification, current good manufacturing practices (cGMP), and the relevant Quality Management System Regulation (QMSR) requirements. Our processes cover design controls, supplier oversight, production, verification and release testing, and post-market surveillance. We also utilize external suppliers for certain components and services and apply documented qualification and ongoing monitoring procedures for such suppliers. We are subject to periodic inspections and audits by regulatory authorities to assess compliance with applicable regulations. Intellectual Property Our success depends in substantial part on our ability to obtain, defend and enforce patents, maintain trade secrets and operate our business without infringing the proprietary rights of others, both in the United States and abroad. We rely on a combination of patents, trademarks, trade secrets, and confidentiality and invention assignment agreements to protect our intellectual property rights. We license from third parties certain patent rights and proprietary know-how that we believe to be necessary or useful to our business. We also rely upon trade-secret protection for certain confidential and proprietary information and take active measures to control access to that information. There is also substantial proprietary know-how surrounding the iLet development and manufacturing processes that remains a trade secret, which we protect by maintaining and implementing appropriate policies and procedures for ensuring secrecy and confidentiality. Our U.S. and foreign patents and patent applications generally relate to ACE insulin and bihormonal pumps, software and algorithms for modular blood glucose control systems, graphical user interfaces (GUIs) including animations and transitional GUI screens, and/or communication interfacing including disposables and wearables for connecting pumps to infusion sets. As of December 31, 2025, our owned and licensed patent estate contains approximately 67 issued U.S. patents, 20 pending U.S. nonprovisional patent applications, 107 issued foreign patents (including at least 9 issued European patents and their national validations), and 43 pending foreign patent applications. The 107 issued foreign patents include one or more issued patents in jurisdictions such as Australia, Canada, China, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hong Kong, Italy, Japan, Mexico and Spain. The 43 pending foreign patent applications include one or more pending applications in jurisdictions such as Australia, Canada, China, Europe, Israel, Japan, Mexico, and Saudi Arabia. Assuming payment of all appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity or other governmental fees, as applicable, our owned or licensed issued U.S. patents expire between 2026 and 2042. Depending on circumstances, we intend to file and prosecute patent applications for our technology in jurisdictions where we believe that patent protection is available and commercially important. Generally, for investigational devices that we believe are appropriate for patent protection, we will attempt to obtain patents in the United States, as well as key markets in Europe. However, depending on circumstances, we may not apply for patents in all or any of those jurisdictions, or we may pursue patent protection elsewhere. We plan to enforce our issued patents and our rights to proprietary information and technology as circumstances permit. We review third-party patents and patent applications in our fields of endeavor, both to shape our own patent strategy and to identify useful licensing opportunities. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the patent positions of medical device companies, including our company, are uncertain and involve complex and evolving legal and factual questions. The coverage sought in a patent 11 application can be denied or significantly reduced either before or after the patent is issued. Consequently, there can be no assurance that any of our pending patent applications will result in an issued patent. There is also no assurance that any existing or future patent will provide significant protection or commercial advantage, or that any existing or future patent will not be circumvented by a more basic patent, thus requiring us to obtain a license to produce and sell the product. Generally, patent applications can be maintained in secrecy for at least 18 months after their earliest priority date. In addition, publication of discoveries in the scientific or patent literature often lags behind actual discoveries. Therefore, we cannot be certain that we were the first to invent the subject matter covered by each of our pending U.S. patent applications or that we were the first to file either U.S. or non-U.S. patent applications for such subject matter. If a third party files a patent application relating to an invention claimed in our patent application, we may be required to participate in an interference or derivation proceeding declared by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to determine who is entitled to the patent rights. Such a proceeding could involve substantial uncertainties and cost, even if the eventual outcome is favorable to us. There can be no assurance that our patents, if issued, would be upheld as valid in court. Third parties may claim that our products infringe their patents and other intellectual property rights. Some companies in the medical device industry have used intellectual property infringement litigation to gain a competitive advantage. If a competitor were to challenge our patents, licenses or other intellectual property rights, or assert that our products infringe its patent or other intellectual property rights, we could incur substantial litigation costs, be forced to make expensive changes to our product designs, license rights in order to continue manufacturing and selling our products or pay substantial damages. Third party infringement claims, regardless of their outcome, would not only consume our financial resources but also divert our management’s time and effort. Such claims could also cause our customers or potential customers to defer or limit their purchase or use of the affected products until resolution of the claim. In addition to patents, we rely on trademarks, trade secrets, and know-how relating to our proprietary technology and programs, continuing innovation, and in-licensing opportunities to develop, strengthen and maintain our proprietary position and protect our product brands. As of December 31, 2025, our trademark portfolio consists of six (6) registered trademarks and eleven (11) pending trademark applications. For example, our trademark portfolio includes: house marks (BETA BIONICS, stylized), product marks (iLet® bionic pancreas system) and tag-lines (DIABETES WITHOUT NUMBERS). We rely on trade secret protection for certain unpatented aspects of other proprietary technology. There can be no assurance that others will not independently develop or otherwise acquire substantially equivalent proprietary information or techniques, that others will not gain access to our proprietary technology or disclose such technology, or that we can meaningfully protect our trade secrets. We have a policy of requiring key employees and consultants to execute confidentiality agreements upon the commencement of an employment or consulting relationship with us. Our confidentiality agreements also require our employees to assign to us all rights to any inventions made or conceived during their employment with us. We also require our consultants to assign to us any inventions made during the course of their engagement by us. There can be no assurance, however, that these agreements will provide meaningful protection or adequate remedies for us in the event of unauthorized use, transfer or disclosure of confidential information or inventions. The laws of foreign countries generally do not protect our proprietary rights to the same extent as do the laws of the United States. In addition, we may experience more difficulty enforcing our proprietary rights in certain foreign jurisdictions. We work with subject matter experts internationally, and our licensing partners to best manage foreign intellectual property matters, with their advice and consent to assure that our business and proprietary data strategies are co-extensive and consistent. These intellectual property statements are subject to a number of risks, uncertainties, factors and assumptions described under Part I. Item IA. “Risk Factors —Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property .” License and Collaboration Agreements Device License Agreement with Boston University 12 In December 2015, we and Boston University (BU), entered into a device license agreement, which was amended in December 2017, September 2020, February 2022 and November 2024 (collectively, the Device License Agreement). Under the Device License Agreement, we received a royalty-bearing license (with the right to sublicense) under certain of BU’s patent rights related to a system and individual components thereof for delivering multiple medicaments to a patient without medicament mis-channeling to make, use, sell, and import products, and practice processes covered by the licensed patent rights (collectively, the Licensed Products and Licensed Processes). The rights granted to us by BU under the Device License Agreement are exclusive, subject to certain reserved rights, including BU’s right to practice and/or use the licensed patent rights for non-profit purposes such as sponsored research and collaborations, government rights and other third party rights. Furthermore, at BU’s request, we will be required to negotiate a sublicense in good faith with a third party if we are unable or unwilling to use the patent rights licensed to us under the Device License Agreement to address the unmet needs of neglected people or geographic areas that such party is willing and able to address. The exclusivity may be terminated by BU if we fail to meet a specified percentage of the applicable minimum royalty amount for a given calendar year. The minimum royalty amount is a non-material amount. Pursuant to the Device License Agreement, we agreed to use commercially reasonable efforts to market Licensed Products in the United States and elsewhere in the world. Additionally, we are obligated to meet certain diligence milestones under the Device License Agreement. We have satisfied all the milestones set forth under the Device License Agreement required to be achieved to date, with regulatory milestones relating to our marketing applications to the FDA remaining to be achieved in connection with our development of the Licensed Products and Licensed Processes. In consideration for the licensed patent rights and other rights granted to us under the Device License Agreement, we issued 1,160 shares of our Class B common stock to BU, representing a specified ownership percentage on a fully diluted basis at the time of entering into the Device License Agreement, subject to anti-dilution adjustments, which have been satisfied and extinguished by the issuance of additional shares of Class B common stock. We are also required to pay (i) quarterly royalties of a mid-single-digit percentage based on net sales of all Licensed Products and Licensed Processes by us or our affiliates, (ii) quarterly royalties of a low double-digit percentage based on net sales by our sublicensees (in each case (i) and (ii), which royalties are creditable against the minimum royalty amount) and (iii) agreed to make quarterly lump sum payments of a low-double-digit percentage based on certain non-royalty sublicensing revenue received by us from our sublicensees. The foregoing payments are subject to customary increase under certain specified circumstances. We also granted BU board observer rights and agreed to bear the patent costs, including prior patent costs incurred by BU in respect of the licensed patent rights. Additionally, if we assign the Device License Agreement in connection with the sale of all or substantially all of our assets relating to the licensed patent rights, we will be required to pay BU an assignment fee to be agreed on with BU at the time of such assignment. The Device License Agreement remains in effect for the Licensed Products and Licensed Processes on a country-by-country basis until the expiration, invalidation or termination of the last to expire, terminate, or invalidated licensed patent right, unless earlier terminated by BU. BU may terminate the Device License Agreement (i) for our uncured material breach, including our failure to meet any diligence milestone by the specified achievement date or our failure to make a payment due pursuant to the Device License Agreement, (ii) our breach of certain representations and warranties, (iii) upon our challenge of the validity of the licensed patent rights, or (iv) upon our bankruptcy or insolvency. BU may also terminate the agreement if it determines we are not diligently pursuing commercialization of the Licensed Products. We may terminate the Device License Agreement upon advance written notice to BU. Control Algorithm License Agreement with Boston University In December 2015, we and BU entered into a control algorithm license agreement, which was amended in December 2017, September 2020, and February 2022 (collectively, the Control Algorithm Agreement). Under the Control Algorithm Agreement, we received a royalty-bearing license (with the right to sublicense) to (i) make, use, sell, and import products, and practice processes, covered by certain of BU’s patent rights related to automated control systems for treatment of T1D and similar conditions, involving monitoring and/or delivering 13 insulin, glucagon, and glucose (collectively, the Automated Control System Technology); and (ii) use, reproduce, prepare derivative works, perform, display, and distribute all or any part of the software, source code, object code and/or related documentation, covered by certain copyright rights, and related to (a) the Automated Control System Technology and (b) the iLet control algorithm. The licenses granted by BU to us pursuant to the Control Algorithm Agreement are exclusive, subject to certain reserved rights including BU, BU’s third party licensors’ and other not-for profit institutions’ rights to practice and/or use the patent rights for non-profit purposes such as sponsored research and collaborations and to permit other academic, government and not-for-profit institutions to make use of the same for educational purposes. Furthermore, at BU’s request, we will be required to negotiate a sublicense in good faith with a third party if we are unable or unwilling to use the technology licensed to us under the Control Algorithm Agreement to address the unmet needs of neglected people or geographic areas that such third party is willing to address. The exclusivity may be terminated by BU if we fail to meet a specified percentage of the applicable minimum royalty amount for a given calendar year. The minimum royalty amount is a non-material amount. Additionally, under the Control Algorithm Agreement, we granted a perpetual, non-exclusive, royalty-free license back to BU with respect to the copyrights and patents covering any derivative works of the licensed software for BU’s educational and academic purposes and to practice their reserved rights. Pursuant to the Control Algorithm Agreement, we agreed to use commercially reasonable efforts to market Licensed Products in the United States and elsewhere in the world. In consideration for the licensed patent rights and other rights granted to us under the Control Algorithm Agreement, we issued 1,140 shares of our Class B common stock to BU, representing a specified ownership percentage on a fully diluted basis at the time of entering into the license agreement, subject to anti-dilution adjustments, which have been satisfied and extinguished by the issuance of additional shares of Class B common stock to BU. We are also required to pay BU (i) quarterly royalties of a mid-single-digit percentage based on net sales by us and our affiliates, (ii) royalties of a low double-digit percentage of net sales by sublicensees (in each case (i) and (ii), which royalties are creditable against the minimum royalty amount) and (iii) agreed to make quarterly lump sum payments of a low double-digit percentage of the non-royalty sublicensing revenue received by us from our sublicensees. The foregoing payments are subject to customary increase under certain specified circumstances. We also granted BU board observer rights and agreed to bear the patent costs, including prior patent costs incurred by BU in respect of the licensed patent rights. Additionally, if we undergo a change of control (as defined in the Control Algorithm Agreement) we will owe BU a one-time change of control payment of $65,000. We will also be required to pay BU an assignment fee to be agreed on with BU at the time of such assignment if we assign the Control Algorithm License Agreement in connection with the sale of all or substantially all of our assets relating to the licensed patent rights and copyright. The Control Algorithm Agreement remains in effect (i) with respect to the patent rights for the Licensed Products and Processes, on a country-by-country basis until the expiration, invalidation or termination of the last to expire, terminate, or invalidated patent right and (ii) with respect to the copyright for the software-based products and processes for thirty (30) years from the effective date of the Control Algorithm Agreement. BU may terminate the Control Algorithm Agreement (i) for our uncured material breach, including our failure to meet a milestone our failure to make a payment due to BU pursuant to the agreement, (ii) our breach of certain representations and warranties, (iii) upon our challenge of the validity of the patent rights, or (iv) upon our bankruptcy or insolvency. BU may also terminate the Control Algorithm Agreement if it determines we are not diligently pursuing commercialization of the Automated Control System. We may terminate the Control Algorithm Agreement for any reason upon advance written notice to BU. Collaboration and License Agreement with Xeris Pharmaceuticals, Inc. In May 2024, we and Xeris, entered into a collaboration and license agreement (Collaboration and License Agreement). Under the Collaboration and License Agreement, we received a worldwide, exclusive, royalty-bearing, sublicensable license under certain patent rights and know-how related to Xeris’ proprietary non-aqueous formulation technology and technology developed during the collaboration (Xeris Technology) to 14 develop and commercialize glucagon products that are reformulated using the Xeris Technology and developed by Xeris under a development plan under the Collaboration and License Agreement for use in a pump product or system for glycemic control (Glucagon Products) in the field of chronic glycemic control in diabetes mellitus, excluding single-dose, one-time use form for treatment of severe hypoglycemia and diagnostic uses (Field). We also received a worldwide, exclusive, sublicensable manufacturing license under the Xeris Technology to manufacture Glucagon Products in the Field following a future manufacturing transfer date to be agreed with Xeris and subject to a separate commercial supply agreement. We and Xeris will conduct certain development activities for the Glucagon Products in accordance with the mutually agreed development plan. Xeris will be responsible for the cost of completing the activities under the development plan up to a certain development stage, and we will reimburse Xeris for any later-stage or additional work required under the development plan. We and Xeris each agree not to directly or indirectly develop, commercialize or otherwise exploit any drug product comprising glucagon or a glucagon analogue, other than a Glucagon Product, for use with a pump system in the Field worldwide for the duration of the Collaboration and License Agreement, subject to certain specified exceptions. Pursuant to the Collaboration and License Agreement, we agreed to use commercially reasonable efforts to develop and seek regulatory approval for a Glucagon Product in certain specified countries. In consideration for the licenses and other rights granted to us under the Collaboration and License Agreement, we paid Xeris a one-time payment of $0.5 million for upfront fees and an additional $3.0 million upon our achievement of certain development milestone events. In addition, we are required to pay Xeris tiered royalties of low double-digit percentages based on net sales of Glucagon Products by us or our sublicensees, subject to certain customary reductions. Our obligation to pay Xeris royalties will commence, on a Glucagon Product-by-Glucagon Product and country-by-country basis, on the first commercial sale of such Glucagon Product in such country and expire on the later of (i) ten years after the first commercial sale of such Glucagon Product in such applicable country; (ii) expiration of the last valid claim of a specified patent right licensed by Xeris covering such Glucagon Product in such country; and (iii) expiration or termination or regulatory exclusivity for such Glucagon Product in the applicable country (Royalty Term). The Collaboration and License Agreement will expire on a country-by-country and Glucagon Product-by-Glucagon Product basis upon the expiration of the Royalty Term with respect to such Glucagon Product in such country and will expire in its entirety upon the expiration of all Royalty Terms with respect to all Glucagon Products in all countries within the territory, and our licenses with respect to the Glucagon Products will automatically become fully paid-up, royalty-free, perpetual, and irrevocable. We may terminate the Collaboration and License Agreement in its entirety, or with respect to certain specified regions, on advance notice to Xeris for any or no reason. We or Xeris may terminate the Collaboration and License Agreement if the other party is in material breach of its obligations or if the other party becomes insolvent. Xeris may terminate the Collaboration and License Agreement if we commence any action or challenge regarding the scope, validity or enforceability of any of Xeris’ patent rights within the Xeris Technology licensed to us under the Collaboration and License Agreement. Development and Commercial Agreements Commercialization Agreement with DexCom, Inc. In July 2023, we and DexCom, entered into a commercialization agreement (the Commercialization Agreement). Under the Commercialization Agreement, we and DexCom agreed to commercialize an AID system that is comprised of our system and DexCom’s G6 or G7 iCGM system (the Combined Platform), which we and DexCom developed under a separate development agreement executed in December 2016. We and DexCom will use commercially reasonable efforts to commercialize the Combined Platform in accordance with an agreed commercialization plan, in the territories specified in the commercialization plan. We and DexCom 15 will conduct certain development activities for the Combined Platform in accordance with an agreed development plan. We granted DexCom a non-exclusive, limited license to use certain of our trademarks in connection with commercialization of the Combined Platform under the Commercialization Agreement. DexCom granted us (a) a non-exclusive, limited license to use the specifications and communication protocol integrating our system with DexCom’s G6 and G7 iCGM devices and (b) a non-exclusive, limited license to use certain of DexCom’s trademarks, in each case (a) and (b), in connection with the development and commercialization of the Combined System. On termination of the Commercialization Agreement, each party’s license will terminate, subject to any wind down period. We and DexCom also granted each other limited licenses to use certain data generated by the other’s devices in the Combined System. Unless earlier terminated, the Commercialization Agreement remains in effect for three years from the date of First Commercial Launch of the Combined Platform, after which it renews for successive one-year periods. Either party may terminate the Commercialization Agreement on written notice to the other party prior to the expiration of the initial term or any renewal term. We or DexCom may also terminate the Commercialization Agreement (i) in the event of any infringement of a third party’s intellectual property rights by the terminating party’s system, and the terminating party is unable to modify its system to be non-infringing or upon certain events relating to intellectual property matters, (ii) for the other party’s uncured material breach, or (iii) if the other party becomes insolvent. DexCom may terminate the Commercialization Agreement in certain circumstances if we are acquired. Development and Commercialization Agreement with Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. In April 2024, we and Abbott, entered into a development and commercialization agreement (Development and Commercialization Agreement). Under the Development and Commercialization Agreement, we and Abbott agree to develop and commercialize an automated insulin delivery system comprised of our subcutaneous insulin infusion delivery system combined with Abbott’s CGM sensor (Libre-Beta System). Under the Development and Commercialization Agreement, we and Abbott agreed to jointly prepare a development plan setting forth each party’s responsibilities in developing the Libre-Beta System in the United States. We are responsible for all development and clinical trials for the Libre-Beta System, and Abbott is responsible for all development for the continuous glucose monitoring system. We and Abbott agreed to jointly develop a regulatory plan for the Libre-Beta System, setting out the regulatory activities to be performed by each party. We and Abbott also agreed to jointly prepare a commercialization plan for the Libre-Beta System to launch the Libre-Beta System in the United States. Abbott granted us a non-exclusive, limited license under Abbott’s existing background intellectual property and any intellectual property developed solely by Abbott under the Development and Commercialization Agreement for us to perform our obligations under the Development and Commercialization Agreement. Abbott also granted us a non-exclusive, limited license to use Abbott’s trademarks for the sole purposes of developing and marketing the Libre-Beta System. We granted Abbott a non-exclusive, limited license under our existing background intellectual property and any intellectual property developed solely by us under the Development and Commercialization Agreement for Abbott to perform its obligations under the Development and Commercialization Agreement. We also granted Abbott a non-exclusive, limited license to use our trademarks for the sole purposes of developing the Libre-Beta System and marketing the continuous glucose monitoring system for use with the Libre-Beta System. If the Development and Commercialization Agreement terminates prior to the first commercial sale of a Libre-Beta System, the foregoing licenses will terminate upon termination of the Development and Commercialization Agreement. If the Development and Commercialization Agreement terminates after the first 16 commercial sale of a Libre-Beta System, such licenses will continue for a defined period following such termination in order to provide continued access and support to users of the Libre-Beta System. The Development and Commercialization Agreement remains in effect for a five-year term, after which it will renew for successive two-year periods. We or Abbott may terminate the Development and Commercialization Agreement on prior written notice to the other party at any time after a defined period following the first commercial sale of the Libre-Beta System in the United States. We or Abbott may also terminate the Development and Commercialization Agreement (i) for the other party’s material breach, (ii) upon the other party’s bankruptcy or insolvency, or (iii) if the other party is acquired by or merges with any one of certain named competitors. In addition, if the first commercial sale of the Libre-Beta System has not occurred by a specified date, then either party may terminate the Development and Commercialization Agreement on written notice to the other party. Government Regulation and Product Approval Our products and operations are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA, and other federal and state authorities in the United States, as well as comparable authorities and bodies in foreign jurisdictions. Our products are subject to regulation as drugs and medical devices in the United States under the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), as implemented and enforced by the FDA. FDA Regulation of Medical Devices The FDA and other U.S. and foreign governmental agencies regulate, among other things, with respect to medical devices to ensure medical devices distributed in the United States are safe and effective for their intended uses and otherwise meet the requirements of the FDCA: • product design, development and manufacturing; • pre-clinical and clinical testing, labeling, content and language of instructions for use and storage; • product safety; • marketing, sales and distribution; • pre-market clearance or approval; • record keeping procedures; • advertising and promotion; • recalls and field safety corrective actions; • post-market surveillance, including reporting of deaths or serious injuries and malfunctions that, if they were to recur, could lead to death or serious injury; • post-market approval studies; and • product import and export. FDA Pre-Market Clearance and Approval Requirements Each medical device we seek to commercially distribute in the United States must first receive 510(k) clearance, de novo classification, or approval of a pre-market approval (PMA) application from the FDA, unless specifically exempted. Both the 510(k) clearance and PMA processes can be resource intensive, expensive and lengthy, and require payment of significant user fees, unless an exemption is available. 17 The FDA classifies medical devices into one of three classes—Class I, Class II or Class III—depending on the degree of risk associated with each medical device and the extent of manufacturer and regulatory control needed to ensure its safety and effectiveness. Class I includes devices with the lowest risk to the patient and are those for which safety and effectiveness can be assured by adherence to the FDA’s General Controls for medical devices, which include compliance with the applicable portions of the QMSR, facility registration and product listing, reporting of adverse medical events and certain device malfunctions (known as medical device reporting (MDR), and truthful and non-misleading labeling, advertising, and promotional materials. Class II devices are subject to the FDA’s General Controls, and special controls as deemed necessary by the FDA to ensure the safety and effectiveness of the device. These special controls can include performance standards, post-market surveillance, patient registries and additional conditions set forth in FDA guidance documents. While most Class I devices are exempt from the 510(k) pre-market notification requirement, manufacturers of most Class II devices are required to submit to the FDA a pre-market notification under Section 510(k) of the FDCA requesting permission to commercially distribute the device. The FDA’s permission to commercially distribute a device subject to a 510(k) pre-market notification is generally known as 510(k) clearance. Devices deemed by the FDA to pose the greatest risks, such as life-sustaining, life-supporting or some implantable devices are placed in Class III, requiring approval of a PMA application. Some pre-amendment devices are unclassified but are subject to the FDA’s pre-market notification and clearance process in order to be commercially distributed. Novel devices that have not yet been classified are automatically classified as Class III and are subject to the PMA approval process, except that such novel devices that are low to moderate risk may obtain marketing authorization through the de novo classification process rather than the PMA process. Our currently commercialized iLet is comprised of hardware and software devices, which are classified as Class II. The FDA has established three different classification regulations for components of glycemic control systems. These regulations establish the classification (and thus the regulatory path to market), as well as the requirements, such as special controls, to which such components must adhere. These classification regulations govern: (1) the ACE insulin infusion pump; (2) the interoperable automated glycemic controller (iAGC); and (3) the iCGM, each of which is determined by the FDA to be Class II. The FDA defines an ACE insulin pump as a device intended for the infusion of insulin into a patient. The ACE pump may include basal and bolus drug delivery at set or variable rates. ACE pumps are designed to reliably and securely communicate with external devices, such as automated insulin dosing systems, to allow drug delivery commands to be received, executed, and confirmed. ACE insulin pumps are intended to be used both alone and in conjunction with digitally connected medical devices for the purpose of insulin delivery. The FDA defines an iAGC as a device intended to automatically calculate drug doses based on inputs such as glucose and other relevant physiological parameters, and to command the delivery of such drug doses from a connected infusion pump. iAGCs are designed to reliably and securely communicate with digitally connected devices to allow drug delivery commands to be sent, received, executed, and confirmed. iAGCs are intended to be used in conjunction with digitally connected devices for the purpose of maintaining glycemic control. The FDA defines an iCGM as a system intended to automatically measure glucose in bodily fluids continuously or frequently for a specified period of time. iCGM systems are designed to reliably and securely transmit glucose measurement data to digitally connected devices, including automated insulin dosing systems, and are intended to be used alone or in conjunction with these digitally connected medical devices for the purpose of managing a disease or condition related to glycemic control. The iLet pumping platform is cleared by FDA as an ACE insulin pump. Our proprietary automated dosing algorithms embedded within the iLet are cleared by FDA as an iAGC. Our partner’s iCGM makes up the third Class II component of our automated glycemic control system. 18 510(k) Clearance Process To obtain 510(k) clearance, a manufacturer must submit a pre-market notification to the FDA demonstrating that the proposed device is substantially equivalent to a previously-cleared 510(k) device, a device that was in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976 for which the FDA has not yet called for the submission of PMA applications, or is a device that has been reclassified from Class III to either Class II or I. In rare cases, Class III devices may be cleared through the 510(k) process. The FDA’s 510(k) clearance process usually takes from three to 12 months from the date the application is submitted and filed with the FDA, but may take significantly longer, particularly for a novel type of product. Although many 510(k) pre-market notifications are cleared without clinical data, in some cases, the FDA requires significant clinical data to support substantial equivalence. In reviewing a pre-market notification submission, the FDA may request additional information, including clinical data, which may significantly prolong the review process. If the FDA agrees that the device is substantially equivalent to a predicate device currently on the market, it will grant 510(k) clearance to commercially market the device. If the FDA determines that the device is “not substantially equivalent” to a previously cleared device, the device is automatically designated as a Class III device. The device sponsor must then fulfill more rigorous PMA requirements, or can request a risk-based classification determination for the device in accordance with the de novo classification process, which is a route to market for novel medical devices that are low to moderate risk and are not substantially equivalent to a predicate device. Once a de novo application is reviewed and approved, it results in the device having a Class II status and future devices from the company or a competitor may use the company’s de novo- classified device as a 510(k) predicate. After a device receives 510(k) clearance, any subsequent modification of the device that could significantly affect its safety or effectiveness, or that would constitute a major change in its intended use, will require a new 510(k) clearance or could require a PMA. The FDA requires each manufacturer to make this determination initially, but the FDA may review any such decision and may disagree with a manufacturer’s determination. If the FDA disagrees with a manufacturer’s determination, the FDA may require the manufacturer to cease marketing and/or recall the modified device until 510(k) clearance or approval of a PMA is obtained. Under these circumstances, the FDA may also subject a manufacturer to significant regulatory fines or other penalties. Over the last several years, the FDA has proposed reforms to its 510(k) clearance process, and such proposals could include increased requirements for clinical data and a longer review period, or could make it more difficult and costly for manufacturers to utilize the 510(k) clearance process for their products. De Novo Classification Process Devices of a new type that FDA has not previously classified based on risk are automatically classified into Class III, regardless of the level of risk they pose. However, the FDA may authorize such novel devices that are low- to moderate-risk through the de novo classification process. A medical device may be eligible for de novo classification if the manufacturer first submitted a 510(k) premarket notification and received a determination from the FDA that the device was not substantially equivalent or a manufacturer may request de novo classification directly without first submitting a 510(k) premarket notification to the FDA and receiving a not substantially equivalent determination. The FDA is required to classify the device within 120 days following receipt of the de novo application, although in practice, the FDA’s review may take significantly longer. When FDA grants a request for de novo classification, the device is granted marketing authorization and can serve as a predicate for future devices of that type, through a 510(k) premarket notification. 19 Pre-market Approval Process A PMA application must be submitted and approved prior to marketing if the medical device is in Class III (although the FDA has the discretion to continue to allow certain pre-amendment Class III devices to use the 510(k) process) or cannot be cleared through the 510(k) process. A PMA application must be supported by, among other things, extensive technical, preclinical, and clinical trials, as well as manufacturing and labeling data to demonstrate to the FDA’s satisfaction the safety and effectiveness of the device. After a PMA application is submitted and found to be sufficiently complete, the FDA begins an in-depth review of the submitted information. During this review period, the FDA may request additional information or clarification of information already provided. In addition, an advisory panel of experts from outside the FDA may be convened to review and evaluate the application and recommend to the FDA whether, or upon what conditions, the device should be approved. Although the FDA is not bound by the advisory panel decision, the panel’s recommendation is important to the FDA’s overall decision-making process. Further, the FDA generally will conduct a pre-approval inspection of the manufacturing facility(ies) to evaluate compliance with QMSR, which requires manufacturers to implement and follow design, testing, control, documentation and other quality assurance procedures. FDA review of a PMA application typically takes one to three years but could take longer. The review time is often significantly extended as a result of the FDA asking for additional information or clarification of information already provided. If an FDA evaluation of a PMA application is favorable, the FDA may issue either an approval letter, or approvable letter, which usually contains a number of conditions that must be met in order to secure final approval of the PMA. When and if those conditions have been fulfilled to the satisfaction of the FDA, the agency will issue a PMA approval letter authorizing commercial marketing of a device, subject to the conditions of approval and the limitations established in the approval letter. If the FDA’s evaluation of a PMA application or manufacturing facility(ies) is not favorable, the FDA will deny approval of the PMA or issue a not-approvable letter. The FDA also may determine that additional tests or clinical trials are necessary, in which case the PMA approval may be delayed for several months or years while the trials are conducted and data is submitted in an amendment to the PMA. The PMA process can be expensive, uncertain and lengthy and a number of devices for which FDA approval has been sought by other companies have never been approved by the FDA for marketing. New PMA applications or PMA supplements may be required for modifications to the manufacturing process, indications, labeling, device specifications, materials or design of a device that has been approved through the PMA process. PMA supplements often require submission of the same type of information as an initial PMA application, except that the supplement is limited to information needed to support any changes from the device covered by the approved PMA application and may or may not require as extensive technical or clinical data or the convening of an advisory panel. The FDA uses the same procedures and actions in reviewing PMA supplements as it does in reviewing original PMAs. Exempt Devices If a manufacturer’s device falls into a generic category of Class I or Class II devices that FDA has exempted by regulation, a premarket notification is not required before marketing the device in the United States. Manufacturers of such devices are required to register their establishments and list their devices. Some 510(k)-exempt devices are also exempt from QMSR requirements, except for the QMSR’s complaint handling and recordkeeping requirements. 20 Regulation of Combination Products in the United States Certain products may be comprised of components, such as drug components and device components, that would normally be regulated under different types of regulatory authorities, and frequently by different centers at the FDA. These products are known as combination products. Specifically, under regulations issued by the FDA, a combination product may be: • a product comprised of two or more regulated components that are physically, chemically, or otherwise combined or mixed and produced as a single entity; • two or more separate products packaged together in a single package or as a unit and comprised of drug and device products, device and biological products, or biological and drug products; • a drug, or device, or biological product packaged separately that according to its investigational plan or proposed labeling is intended for use only with an approved individually specified drug, or device, or biological product where both are required to achieve the intended use, indication, or effect and where upon approval of the proposed product the labeling of the approved product would need to be changed, e.g., to reflect a change in intended use, dosage form, strength, route of administration, or significant change in dose; or • any investigational drug, or device, or biological product packaged separately that according to its proposed labeling is for use only with another individually specified investigational drug, device, or biological product where both are required to achieve the intended use, indication, or effect. Under the FDCA and its implementing regulations, the FDA is charged with assigning a center with primary jurisdiction, or a lead center, for review of a combination product. The designation of a lead center generally eliminates the need to receive approvals from more than one FDA component for combination products, although it does not preclude consultations by the lead center with other components of FDA. The determination of which center will be the lead center is based on the “primary mode of action” of the combination product. Thus, if the primary mode of action of a drug-device combination product is attributable to the device product, the FDA center responsible for premarket review of the device product would have primary jurisdiction for the combination product. The FDA has also established an Office of Combination Products to address issues surrounding combination products and provide more certainty to the regulatory review process. That office serves as a focal point for combination product issues for agency reviewers and industry. It is also responsible for developing guidance and regulations to clarify the regulation of combination products, and for assignment of the FDA center that has primary jurisdiction for review of combination products where the jurisdiction is unclear or in dispute. A combination product with a device primary mode of action generally would be reviewed and cleared or approved pursuant to the device review processes under the FDCA. In reviewing the PMA, 510(k), or De Novo request for such a product, however, FDA reviewers in the device center could consult with their counterparts in the drug center to ensure that the drug component of the combination product met applicable requirements regarding safety and effectiveness. In addition, under FDA regulations, combination products are subject to cGMP requirements applicable to both drugs and devices, including the QMSR applicable to medical devices. 21 Clinical Trials Clinical trials are almost always required to support a PMA or de novo classification and are sometimes required to support a 510(k) submission. All clinical investigations of devices to determine safety and effectiveness must be conducted in accordance with the FDA’s investigational device exemption (IDE) regulations, which govern investigational device labeling, prohibit promotion of the investigational device, and specify an array of recordkeeping, reporting and monitoring responsibilities of study sponsors and study investigators. If the device presents a “significant risk” to human health, as defined by the FDA, the FDA requires the device sponsor to submit an IDE application to the FDA, which must become effective prior to commencing human clinical trials. A significant risk device is one that presents a potential for serious risk to the health, safety or welfare of a patient and either is implanted, used in supporting or sustaining human life, substantially important in diagnosing, curing, mitigating or treating disease or otherwise preventing impairment of human health, or otherwise presents a potential for serious risk to a subject. An IDE application must be supported by appropriate data, such as animal and laboratory test results, showing that it is safe to test the device in humans and that the testing protocol is scientifically sound. The IDE will automatically become effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA unless the FDA notifies the company that the investigation may not begin. If the FDA determines that there are deficiencies or other concerns with an IDE for which it requires modification, the FDA may permit a clinical trial to proceed under a conditional approval. In addition, the study must be approved by, and conducted under the oversight of, an Institutional Review Board (IRB) for each clinical site. The IRB is responsible for the initial and continuing review of the IDE, and may impose additional requirements for the conduct of the study. If an IDE application is approved by the FDA and one or more IRBs, human clinical trials may begin at a specific number of investigational sites with a specific number of patients, as approved by the FDA. If the device presents a non-significant risk to the patient, a sponsor may begin the clinical trial after obtaining approval for the trial by one or more IRBs without separate approval from the FDA, but must still follow abbreviated IDE requirements, such as monitoring the investigation, ensuring that the investigators obtain informed consent, and labeling and record-keeping requirements. An IDE supplement must be submitted to, and approved by, the FDA before a sponsor or investigator may make a change to the investigational plan that may affect its scientific soundness, study plan or the rights, safety or welfare of human subjects. During a study, the sponsor is required to comply with the applicable FDA requirements, including, for example, trial monitoring, selecting clinical investigators and providing them with the investigational plan, ensuring IRB review, adverse event reporting, record keeping and prohibitions on the promotion of investigational devices or on making safety or effectiveness claims for them. The clinical investigators in the clinical study are also subject to FDA’s regulations and must obtain patient informed consent, rigorously follow the investigational plan and study protocol, control the disposition of the investigational device, and comply with all reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Additionally, after a trial begins, the sponsor, the FDA or the IRB could suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time for various reasons, including a belief that the risks to study subjects outweigh the anticipated benefits. Although the QMSR does not fully apply to investigational devices, the requirement for controls on design and development does apply. The sponsor also must manufacture the investigational device in conformity with the quality controls described in the IDE application and any conditions of IDE approval that FDA may impose with respect to manufacturing. Investigational devices may only be distributed for use in an investigation and must bear a label with the statement: “CAUTION—Investigational device. Limited by Federal law to investigational use.” Sponsors of certain clinical trials of medical devices are required to register with clinicaltrials.gov, a public database of clinical trial information, and disclose certain clinical trial information. Information related to the product, patient population, phase of investigation, study sites and investigators, and other aspects of the clinical trial is made public as part of the registration. Sponsors are also obligated to disclose the results of these trials after completion. Disclosure of the results of these trials can be delayed until the product being studied has been approved or cleared. Competitors may use this publicly available information to gain knowledge regarding the design and progress of our development programs. 22 Expedited Development and Review Programs The Breakthrough Devices Program, is a voluntary program offered to manufacturers of certain medical devices and device-led combination products that may provide for more effective treatment or diagnosis of life-threatening or irreversibly debilitating diseases or conditions. The goal of the program is to provide patients and health care providers with more timely access to qualifying devices by expediting their development, assessment and review, while preserving the statutory standards for PMA approval, 510(k) clearance and de novo classification. The program is available to medical devices that meet certain eligibility criteria, including that the device provides more effective treatment or diagnosis of life-threatening or irreversibly debilitating diseases or conditions, and that the device meets one of the following criteria: (i) the device represents a breakthrough technology, (ii) no approved or cleared alternatives exist, (iii) the device offers significant advantages over existing approved or cleared alternatives, or (iv) the availability of the device is in the best interest of patients. Breakthrough Device designation provides certain benefits to device developers, including more interactive and timely communications with FDA staff, use of post-market data collection, when scientifically appropriate, to facilitate expedited and efficient development and review of the device, opportunities for efficient and flexible clinical study design, and prioritized review of premarket submissions. Post-Market Regulation of Medical Devices After a medical device is placed on the market, numerous FDA regulatory requirements apply, including, but not limited to the following: • the QMSR, which requires manufacturers to follow design, testing, control, documentation and other quality assurance procedures during the manufacturing process; • establishment registration, which requires establishments involved in the production and distribution of medical devices, intended for commercial distribution in the United States, to register with the FDA; • medical device listing, which requires manufacturers to list the devices they have in commercial distribution with the FDA; • clearance or approval of product modifications to 510(k)-cleared devices that could significantly affect safety or effectiveness or that would constitute a major change in intended use; • medical device reporting regulations, which require that a manufacturer report to the FDA if a device it markets may have caused or contributed to a death or serious injury, or has malfunctioned and the device or a similar device that it markets would be likely to cause or contribute to a death or serious injury, if the malfunction were to recur; • correction, removal and recall reporting regulations, which require that manufacturers report to the FDA field corrections and product recalls or removals if undertaken to reduce a risk to health posed by the device or to remedy a violation of the FDCA that may present a risk to health; • complying with federal law and regulations requiring Unique Device Identifiers (UDI) on devices and also requiring the submission of certain information about each device to the FDA’s Global Unique Device Identification Database; • the FDA’s recall authority, whereby the agency can order device manufacturers to recall from the market a product that is in violation of governing laws and regulations; • labeling regulations, which prohibit “misbranded” devices from entering the market, as well as prohibit the promotion of products for unapproved or “off-label” uses and impose other restrictions on labeling; and • post-market surveillance regulations, which apply when necessary to protect the public health or to provide additional safety and effectiveness data for the device. 23 The FDA has broad post-market and regulatory enforcement powers. Medical device manufacturers are subject to unannounced inspections by the FDA and other state, local and foreign regulatory authorities to assess compliance with the QMSR and other applicable regulations, and these inspections may include the manufacturing facilities of any suppliers. Failure to comply with applicable regulatory requirements may result in enforcement or other adverse action by the FDA, which may include one or more of the following sanctions: • untitled letters or warning letters; • customer notifications for repair, replacement or refunds; • fines, injunctions, consent decrees and civil penalties; • mandatory recall or seizure; • administrative detention or bans; • operating restrictions, partial suspension or total shutdown of production; • refusing requests for or denying 510(k) clearance or PMA of new product versions; • revocation of 510(k) clearance or PMAs previously granted; • reclassification of a marketed device; and • criminal prosecution and penalties. Advertising and promotion of medical devices, in addition to being regulated by the FDA, are also regulated by the Federal Trade Commission depending on the type of device and by state regulatory and enforcement authorities. Promotional activities for FDA-regulated products of other companies have been the subject of enforcement action brought under healthcare reimbursement laws and consumer protection statutes. Furthermore, under the federal U.S. Lanham Act and similar state laws, competitors and others can initiate litigation relating to advertising claims. In addition, we are required to meet regulatory requirements in countries outside the United States, which can change rapidly with relatively short notice. FDA Regulation of Drug Products In the U.S., pharmaceutical products are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA. The FDCA and other federal and state statutes and regulations, govern, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, storage, recordkeeping, approval, labeling, promotion and marketing, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, sampling, and import and export of pharmaceutical products. Failure to comply with applicable U.S. requirements may subject a company to a variety of administrative or judicial sanctions, such as clinical hold, FDA refusal to approve pending NDAs warning or untitled letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, civil penalties, and criminal prosecution. Pharmaceutical product development for a new product or certain changes to an approved product in the U.S. typically involves nonclinical laboratory and animal tests, the submission to the FDA of an investigational new drug application (IND), which must become effective before clinical testing may commence, and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to establish the safety and effectiveness of the drug for each indication for which FDA approval is sought. Satisfaction of FDA pre-market approval requirements typically take many years and the actual time required may vary substantially based upon the type, complexity, and novelty of the product or disease. A 30-day waiting period after the submission of each IND is required prior to the commencement of clinical testing in humans. If the FDA has not issued a clinical hold within this 30-day period, the clinical trial may begin. Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational drug to healthy volunteers or patients 24 under the supervision of a qualified investigator. Clinical trials must be conducted: (i) in compliance with federal regulations; (ii) in compliance with Good Clinical Practice (GCP), an international standard meant to protect the rights and health of patients and to define the roles of clinical trial sponsors, administrators, and monitors; and (iii) under protocols detailing the objectives of the trial and the criteria to be evaluated. Each protocol involving testing on U.S. patients and subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. The FDA may order the temporary or permanent discontinuation of a clinical trial at any time or impose other sanctions if it believes that the clinical trial either is not being conducted in accordance with FDA regulations or presents an unacceptable risk to the clinical trial patients. Imposition of a clinical hold may be full or partial. The study protocol and informed consent information for patients in clinical trials must also be submitted to an IRB for approval. The IRB will also monitor the clinical trial until completed. An IRB may also require the clinical trial at the site to be halted, either temporarily or permanently, for failure to comply with the IRB’s requirements, or may impose other conditions. Clinical trials to support NDAs for marketing approval are typically conducted in three sequential phases, but the phases may overlap. In Phase 1, the initial introduction of the drug into patients, the product is tested to assess safety, dosage tolerance, metabolism, pharmacokinetics, pharmacological actions, side effects associated with drug exposure, and to obtain early evidence of a treatment effect if possible. Phase 2 usually involves trials in a limited patient population to determine the effectiveness of the drug for a particular indication, determine optimal dose and regimen, and to identify common adverse effects and safety risks. If a drug demonstrates evidence of effectiveness and an acceptable safety profile in Phase 2 evaluations, Phase 3 trials are undertaken to obtain additional information about clinical effects and confirm efficacy and safety in a larger number of patients, typically at geographically dispersed clinical trial sites, to permit the FDA to evaluate the overall benefit-risk relationship of the drug and to provide adequate information for the labeling of the product. In most cases, the FDA requires two adequate and well-controlled Phase 3 clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of the drug. In rare instances, a single Phase 3 trial may be sufficient when either (1) the trial is a large, multicenter trial demonstrating internal consistency and a statistically very persuasive finding of a clinically meaningful effect on mortality, irreversible morbidity or prevention of a disease with a potentially serious outcome and confirmation of the result in a second trial would be practically or ethically impossible or (2) the single trial is supported by confirmatory evidence. After completion of the required clinical testing, an NDA is prepared and submitted to the FDA. FDA approval of the NDA is required before marketing and distribution of the product may begin in the U.S. The NDA must include the results of all nonclinical, clinical, and other testing and a compilation of data relating to the product’s pharmacology, chemistry, manufacture, and controls. The cost of preparing and submitting an NDA is substantial. The submission of most NDAs is additionally subject to a substantial application user fee unless a waiver applies. Under an approved NDA, the applicant is also subject to an annual program fee. These fees typically increase annually. The FDA has 60 days from its receipt of an NDA to determine whether the application will be filed based on the FDA’s determination that it is sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. Once the submission is filed, the FDA begins an in-depth review. The FDA has agreed to certain performance goals to complete the review of NDAs. Most applications are classified as Standard Review products that are reviewed within ten months of the date the FDA files the NDA; most applications classified as Priority Review are reviewed within six months of the date the FDA files the NDA. An NDA can be classified for Priority Review when the FDA determines the drug has the potential to treat a serious or life-threatening condition and, if approved, would be a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness compared to available therapies. The review process for both standard and priority reviews may be extended by the FDA for three or more additional months to consider certain late-submitted information or information intended to clarify information already provided in the NDA submission. Most innovative drug products (other than biological products) obtain FDA marketing approval pursuant to an NDA submitted under Section 505(b)(1) of the FDCA, commonly referred to as a traditional or “full NDA.” In 1984, with passage of the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act, informally known as the Hatch-Waxman Act, that established an abbreviated regulatory scheme authorizing the FDA to approve generic drugs based on an innovator or “reference” product, Congress also enacted Section 505(b)(2) of the FDCA, which provides a hybrid pathway combining features of 25 a traditional NDA and a generic drug application. Section 505(b)(2) enables the applicant to rely, in part, on the FDA’s prior findings of safety and efficacy data for an existing approved product, or published literature, in support of its application. Section 505(b)(2) NDAs may provide an alternate path to FDA approval for new or improved formulations or new uses of previously approved products that would require new clinical data to demonstrate safety or effectiveness. Section 505(b)(2) permits the filing of an NDA in which the applicant relies, at least in part, on information from studies made to show whether a drug is safe or effective that were not conducted by or for the applicant and for which the applicant has not obtained a right of reference or use. A Section 505(b)(2) applicant may eliminate or reduce the need to conduct certain preclinical or clinical studies, if it can establish that reliance on studies conducted for a previously approved product is scientifically appropriate. The FDA may also require companies to perform additional studies or measurements, including nonclinical and clinical studies, to support the change from the approved product. The FDA may then approve the new product for all or some of the labeled indications for which the referenced product has been approved, as well as for any new indication for which the Section 505(b)(2) NDA applicant has submitted data. Before approving an NDA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCP. Additionally, the FDA will inspect the facility or the facilities at which the drug is manufactured. The FDA will not approve the product unless compliance with cGMP is satisfactory and the NDA contains data that provide evidence that the drug is safe and effective in the indication studied. After the FDA evaluates the NDA and completes any clinical and manufacturing site inspections, it issues either an approval letter or a complete response letter. A complete response letter generally outlines the deficiencies in the NDA submission and may require substantial additional testing, or information, in order for the FDA to reconsider the application for approval. If, or when, those deficiencies have been addressed to the FDA’s satisfaction in a resubmission of the NDA, the FDA will issue an approval letter. The FDA has committed to reviewing such resubmissions in two or six months depending on the type of information included. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing and distribution of the drug with specific prescribing information for specific indications. As a condition of NDA approval, the FDA may require a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) to help ensure that the benefits of the drug outweigh the potential risks to patients. A REMS can include medication guides, communication plans for healthcare professionals, and elements to assure safe use (ETASU). An ETASU can include, but is not limited to, special training or certification for prescribing or dispensing the product, dispensing the product only under certain circumstances, special monitoring, and the use of patient-specific registries. The requirement for a REMS can materially affect the potential market and profitability of the product. Moreover, the FDA may require substantial post-approval testing and surveillance to monitor the product’s safety or efficacy. Once granted, product approvals may be withdrawn if compliance with regulatory standards is not maintained or problems are identified following initial marketing. Changes to some of the conditions established in an approved NDA, including changes in indications, product labeling, or manufacturing processes or facilities, require submission and FDA approval of a new NDA or supplement to an approved NDA, before the change can be implemented. An NDA supplement for a new indication typically requires clinical data similar to that in the original application, and the FDA uses the same procedures and actions in reviewing NDA supplements as it does in reviewing original NDAs. Post-Approval Requirements Once an NDA is approved, a product will be subject to certain post-approval requirements. For instance, the FDA closely regulates the post-approval marketing and promotion of drugs, including direct-to-consumer advertising, off-label promotion, industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities and promotional activities involving the Internet. Drugs may be marketed only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved labeling. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant liability, including investigation by federal and state authorities. Adverse event reporting and submission of periodic safety summary reports is required following FDA approval of an NDA. The FDA also may require post-marketing testing, known as Phase 4 testing, REMS, and 26 surveillance to monitor the effects of an approved product, or the FDA may place conditions on an approval that could restrict the distribution or use of the product. In addition, quality control, drug manufacture, packaging, and labeling procedures must continue to conform to cGMPs after approval. Drug manufacturers and certain of their subcontractors are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies. Registration with the FDA subjects entities to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA, during which the agency inspects a drug’s manufacturing facilities to assess compliance with cGMPs. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money, and effort in the areas of production and quality-control to maintain compliance with cGMPs. Regulatory authorities may withdraw product approvals or request product recalls if a company fails to comply with required regulatory standards, if it encounters problems following initial marketing, or if previously unrecognized problems are subsequently discovered. Regulatory Exclusivity and Approval of Follow-on Products Hatch-Waxman Exclusivity In addition to enacting Section 505(b)(2) of the FDCA as part of the Hatch-Waxman Amendments to the FDCA, Congress also established an abbreviated regulatory scheme authorizing the FDA to approve generic drugs that are shown to contain the same active ingredients as, and to be bioequivalent to, drugs previously approved by the FDA pursuant to NDAs. To obtain approval of a generic drug, an applicant must submit an abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) to the agency. An ANDA is a comprehensive submission that contains, among other things, data and information pertaining to the active pharmaceutical ingredient, bioequivalence, drug product formulation, specifications and stability of the generic drug, as well as analytical methods, manufacturing process validation data and quality control procedures. ANDAs are “abbreviated” because they cannot include preclinical and clinical data to demonstrate safety and effectiveness. Instead, in support of such applications, a generic manufacturer must rely on the preclinical and clinical testing previously conducted for a drug product previously approved under an NDA, known as the reference listed drug (RLD). In order for an ANDA to be approved, the FDA must find that the generic version is identical to the RLD with respect to the active ingredients, the route of administration, the dosage form, the strength of the drug and the conditions of use of the drug. At the same time, the FDA must also determine that the generic drug is “bioequivalent” to the innovator drug. Under the statute, a generic drug is bioequivalent to an RLD if “the rate and extent of absorption of the drug do not show a significant difference from the rate and extent of absorption of the listed drug.” Unlike the 505(b)(2) NDA pathway that permits a follow-on applicant to conduct and submit data from additional clinical trials or nonclinical studies in order to support the proposed change(s) to the reference product, the ANDA regulatory pathway does not allow applicants to submit new clinical data other than bioavailability or bioequivalence data. Upon approval of an ANDA, the FDA indicates whether the generic product is “therapeutically equivalent” to the RLD in its publication “Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,” also referred to as the “Orange Book.” Physicians and pharmacists consider a therapeutic equivalent generic drug to be fully substitutable for the RLD. In addition, by operation of certain state laws and numerous health insurance programs, the FDA’s designation of therapeutic equivalence often results in substitution of the generic drug without the knowledge or consent of either the prescribing physician or patient. As part of the NDA review and approval process, applicants are required to list with the FDA each patent that has claims that cover the applicant’s product or method of therapeutic use. Upon approval of a new drug, each of the patents listed in the application for the drug is then published in the Orange Book. Drugs listed in the Orange Book can, in turn, be cited by potential follow-on competitors in support of approval of an ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA. 27 When an ANDA applicant submits its application to the FDA, it is required to certify to the FDA concerning any patents listed for the reference product in the FDA’s Orange Book. Specifically, the applicant must certify that: (i) the required patent information has not been filed; (ii) the listed patent has expired; (iii) the listed patent has not expired but will expire on a particular date and approval is sought after patent expiration; or (iv) the listed patent is invalid or will not be infringed by the new product. Moreover, to the extent that the Section 505(b)(2) NDA applicant is relying on studies conducted for an already approved product, the applicant also is required to certify to the FDA concerning any patents listed for the NDA-approved product in the Orange Book to the same extent that an ANDA applicant would. If the follow-on applicant does not challenge the innovator’s listed patents, the FDA will not approve the ANDA or 505(b)(2) application until all the listed patents claiming the referenced product have expired. A certification that the new product will not infringe the already approved product’s listed patents, or that such patents are invalid, is called a Paragraph IV certification. If the follow-on applicant has provided a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA, the applicant must also send notice of the Paragraph IV certification to the NDA and patent holders once the ANDA has been accepted for filing by the FDA. The NDA and patent holders may then initiate a patent infringement lawsuit in response to the notice of the Paragraph IV certification. The filing of a patent infringement lawsuit within 45 days of the receipt of a Paragraph IV certification automatically prevents the FDA from approving the ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA until the earlier of 30 months, expiration of the patent, settlement of the lawsuit, or a decision in the infringement case that is favorable to the ANDA or 505(b)(2) applicant. An ANDA or 505(b)(2) application also will not be approved until any applicable non-patent exclusivities listed in the Orange Book for the referenced product have expired. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments to the FDCA provided a five-year period of non-patent data exclusivity within the United States to the first applicant to gain approval of an NDA for a new chemical entity (NCE). For the purposes of this provision, an NCE is a drug that contains no active moiety that has previously been approved by the FDA in any other NDA. An active moiety is the molecule or ion responsible for the physiological or pharmacological action of the drug substance. In cases where such NCE exclusivity has been granted, an ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA may not be filed with the FDA until the expiration of five years unless the submission is accompanied by a Paragraph IV certification, in which case the applicant may submit its application four years following the original product approval. The FDCA also provides for a period of three years of data exclusivity if an NDA or NDA supplement includes reports of one or more new clinical investigations, other than bioavailability or bioequivalence studies, that were conducted or sponsored by the applicant are deemed by the FDA to be essential to the approval of the application. This three-year exclusivity period often protects changes to a previously approved drug product, such as new indications, dosage forms, route of administration or combination of ingredients. Three-year exclusivity would be available for a drug product that contains a previously approved active moiety, provided the statutory requirement for a new clinical investigation is satisfied. Unlike five-year NCE exclusivity, an award of three-year exclusivity does not block the FDA from accepting ANDAs or 505(b)(2) NDAs seeking approval for generic versions of the drug as of the date of approval of the original drug product; rather, this three-year exclusivity covers only the conditions of use associated with the new clinical investigations and, as a general matter, does not prohibit the FDA from approving follow-on applications for drugs containing the original active ingredient. Five-year and three-year exclusivity also will not delay the submission or approval of a traditional NDA filed under Section 505(b)(1) of the FDCA; however, an applicant submitting a traditional NDA would be required to conduct or obtain a right of reference to all of the preclinical studies and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials necessary to demonstrate safety and effectiveness. Patent Term Extension A patent claiming a prescription drug for which FDA approval is granted may be eligible for a limited patent term extension under the FDCA, which permits a patent restoration of up to five years for patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review provided that certain statutory and regulatory requirements are met. The length of the patent term extension is related to the length of time the drug is under regulatory review while the patent is in force. The restoration period granted on a patent covering a new 28 FDA-regulated medical product is typically one-half the time between the date a clinical investigation on human beings is begun and the submission date of an application for premarket approval of the product, plus the time between the submission date of an application for approval of the product and the ultimate approval date. However, the restoration period can be reduced for any time the FDA determines that the applicant did not diligently pursue approval. In addition, patent term restoration cannot be used to extend the remaining term of a patent past a total of 14 years from the product’s approval date. Only one patent applicable to an approved drug product is eligible for the extension, only those claims covering the approved product, a method for using it, or a method for manufacturing it may be extended, and the application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent in question. A patent that covers multiple products for which approval is sought can only be extended in connection with one of the marketing approvals. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension or restoration in consultation with the FDA. However, the USPTO may not grant an extension because of, for example, failing to exercise due diligence during the testing phase or regulatory review process, failing to apply within applicable deadlines, failing to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents or otherwise failing to satisfy applicable requirements. Moreover, the applicable time period or the scope of patent protection afforded could be less than requested. Foreign Government Regulation The regulatory review processes for medical devices and drugs varies from country to country, and many countries also impose product standards, packaging requirements, environmental requirements, labeling requirements and import restrictions on devices. Each country has its own tariff regulations, duties, and tax requirements. Failure to comply with applicable foreign regulatory requirements may subject a company to fines, suspension or withdrawal of regulatory approvals, product recalls, seizure of products, operating restrictions, criminal prosecution or other consequences. Other Healthcare Laws Our current and future business activities are subject to healthcare regulation and enforcement by the federal government and the states and foreign governments in which we conduct our business. These laws include, without limitation, state and federal anti-kickback, fraud and abuse, false claims and healthcare professional payment transparency laws and regulations. The federal Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) prohibits, among other things, any person or entity from knowingly and willfully offering, soliciting, receiving or providing remuneration, directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, in cash or in kind, to induce either the referral of an individual, for an item or service or the purchasing, leasing, ordering, or arranging for or recommending the purchase, lease or order of any good, facility, item or service, for which payment may be made, in whole or in part, under federal healthcare programs such as the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Although there are a number of statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting some common activities from prosecution, the exceptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly. Practices that involve remuneration that may be alleged to be intended to induce prescribing, purchases or recommendations may be subject to scrutiny if they do not qualify for an exception or safe harbor. Failure to meet all of the requirements of a particular applicable statutory exception or regulatory safe harbor does not make the conduct per se illegal under the AKS. Instead, the legality of the arrangement will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis based on a cumulative review of all its facts and circumstances. Several courts have interpreted the statute’s intent requirement to mean that if any one purpose of an arrangement involving remuneration is to induce referrals of federal healthcare covered business, the AKS has been violated. In addition, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of this statute or specific intent to violate it to have committed a violation. Additionally, the civil False Claims Act (FCA) prohibits, among other things, knowingly presenting or causing the presentation of a false or fraudulent claim for payment to, or approval by, the U.S. government. In addition to actions initiated by the government itself, the statute authorizes actions to be brought on behalf of the federal government by a private party having knowledge of the alleged fraud. Because the complaint is initially filed under seal, the action may be pending for some time before the defendant is even aware of the 29 action. If the government intervenes and is ultimately successful in obtaining redress in the matter, or if the plaintiff succeeds in obtaining redress without the government’s involvement, then the plaintiff will receive a percentage of the recovery. The federal government is using the FCA, and the accompanying threat of significant liability, in its investigation and prosecution of life sciences companies throughout the country, for example, in connection with the promotion of products for unapproved uses and other sales and marketing practices. In addition, the government may assert that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the civil FCA. The government has obtained multi-million and multi-billion dollar settlements under the FCA in addition to individual criminal convictions under applicable criminal statutes. Given the significant size of actual and potential settlements, it is expected that the government will continue to devote substantial resources to investigating healthcare providers’ and manufacturers’ compliance with applicable fraud and abuse laws. The civil monetary penalties statute imposes penalties against any person or entity that, among other things, is determined to have presented or caused to be presented a claim to a federal health program that the person knows or should know is for an item or service that was not provided as claimed or is false or fraudulent. The majority of states also have analogous laws which establish similar prohibitions and, in some cases, may apply to items or services reimbursed by any third-party payor, including commercial insurers. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) created new federal criminal statutes that prohibit, among other actions, knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program, including private third-party payors, and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services. Like the AKS, a person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it to have committed a violation. HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH) and their respective implementing regulations, which impose, among other things, requirements on certain covered HCPs, health plans, and healthcare clearinghouses and their respective business associates that perform services for them that involve the use, or disclosure of, individually identifiable health information as well as their covered subcontractors, relating to the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information without appropriate authorization. HITECH also created new tiers of civil monetary penalties, amended HIPAA to make civil and criminal penalties directly applicable to business associates, and gave state attorneys general new authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce the federal HIPAA laws and seek attorneys’ fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions. The Physician Payments Sunshine Act, enacted as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (collectively, the ACA), and its implementing regulations, also imposed annual reporting requirements on manufacturers of certain devices, drugs and biologics for payments available under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (with certain exceptions) and other transfers of value to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors), certain other healthcare professionals (such as physician assistants and nurse practitioners), and teaching hospitals; as well as ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members. Finally, there are analogous state and foreign laws and regulations, such as state and foreign laws that require device manufacturers to report information related to payments and other transfers of value to physicians and other HCPs, marketing expenditures or product pricing; state and local laws that require the registration of medical device sales representatives; state and foreign laws governing the privacy and security of health information in certain circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not preempted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts; and state and foreign laws governing the privacy and security of health information in certain circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not preempted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts. 30 The shifting commercial compliance environment and the need to build and maintain robust and expandable systems to comply with different compliance and/or reporting requirements in multiple jurisdictions increase the possibility that a healthcare company may violate one or more of the requirements. If our future operations are found to be in violation of any of such laws or any other governmental regulations that apply to us, we may be subject to significant penalties, including, without limitation, administrative civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, imprisonment, the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, additional reporting and oversight obligations, exclusion from participation in federal and state healthcare programs and imprisonment. United States Health Reform The United States and some foreign jurisdictions have enacted or are considering a number of health reform measures to change the healthcare system in ways that could affect our ability to sell our products profitably. Among policy makers and payors in the United States and elsewhere, there is significant interest in promoting changes in healthcare systems with the stated goals of containing healthcare costs, improving quality or expanding access. The implementation of the ACA in the United States, for example, has changed healthcare financing and delivery by both governmental and private insurers substantially, and affected medical device manufacturers significantly. There have been executive, judicial and congressional challenges, and a number of amendments that have impacted certain aspects of the ACA. For example, on August 16, 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA) into law, which among other things, extends enhanced subsidies for individuals purchasing health insurance coverage in Affordable Care Act marketplaces through plan year 2025. Congress is considering proposed legislation intended to further reduce healthcare costs with alternatives to replace the expiring ACA subsidies. It is possible that the ACA and the IRA will be subject to additional challenges and health reform measured by the second Trump administration in the future. We believe that there will continue to be proposals by legislators at both the federal and state levels, regulators and third-party payors to reduce costs while expanding individual healthcare benefits, particularly in light of the change of administration. For example, the current Trump administration is pursuing policies to reduce regulations and expenditures across government including at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the FDA, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), and related agencies. These actions include, for example, (1) directives to reduce agency workforce and cut programs; (2) eliminating the Biden administration’s executive order that directed HHS to establish an AI task force and develop a strategic plan; and (3) directing certain federal agencies to enforce existing law regarding hospital and price plan price transparency by standardizing prices across hospitals and health plans. It is possible that certain of these changes could impose additional limitations on the rates we will be able to charge for our current and future products or the amounts of reimbursement available for our current and future products from governmental agencies or third-party payors. Current and future healthcare reform legislation and policies could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition. Coverage and Reimbursement In the United States and markets in other countries, 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. Adequate coverage and reimbursement from governmental healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and commercial payors are critical to new device acceptance. Government authorities and third-party payors, such as private health insurers and health maintenance organizations, decide which drugs and devices they will cover and the amount of reimbursement. Coverage may be more limited than the purposes for which the drug or device is approved by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. In the United States, CMS, an agency within HHS, determines whether and to what extent a new drug or device will be covered and reimbursed under Medicare and private payors tend to follow CMS to a substantial degree. However, no uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for products exists 31 among third-party payors. Coverage and reimbursement by a third-party payor may depend upon a number of factors, including the third-party payor’s determination that use of a product is: • a covered benefit under its health plan; • safe, effective and medically necessary; • appropriate for the specific patient; • cost-effective; and • neither experimental nor investigational. As a result, obtaining coverage and reimbursement approval of a product from a government or other third-party payor is a time-consuming and costly process that could require us to provide to each payor supporting scientific, clinical and cost-effectiveness data for the use of our products on a payor-by-payor basis, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be obtained. Even if we obtain coverage for the iLet, in either configuration for T1D or other indications, the resulting reimbursement payment rates might not be adequate for us to maintain pricing sufficient to achieve or sustain profitability or may require co-payments that patients find unacceptably high. Additionally, third-party payors may not cover, or provide adequate reimbursement for, long-term follow-up evaluations. It is also possible that CMS and other third-party payors may continue to review and modify the current coverage and reimbursement of diabetes-related products in connection with anticipated changes to the regulatory approval process for insulin pumps and related products, software applications and services. Patients are unlikely to use our devices, once approved, unless coverage is provided and reimbursement is adequate to cover a significant portion of their cost. Because the iLet may have a higher cost of goods than conventional therapies, and may require long-term follow up evaluations, coverage and reimbursement rates may be inadequate for us to achieve profitability. Moreover, increasing efforts by governmental and third-party payors in the United States and abroad to cap or reduce healthcare costs may cause such organizations to limit both coverage and the level of reimbursement for newly approved products. Further, it is possible that some third-party payors will not offer any coverage for iLet or our future products. For instance, it is possible that third-party payors may adopt policies in the future that designate one or more of our competitors as their preferred, in-network provider of insulin pumps and that such policies would discourage or prohibit the payors’ members from purchasing our products, which would adversely impact our ability to sell the iLet. We are pursuing a multi-channel managed care strategy through both traditional DME and PBP channels. If covered, the iLet is typically reimbursed through traditional medical benefit channels. As a medical device company, reimbursement from government and/or commercial third-party healthcare payors, including Medicare and Medicaid, is an important element of our success. Our product is eligible for Medicare coverage as DME under Medicare Part B. Coverage criteria for DME is determined by CMS under national coverage determinations as well as by local Medicare Administrative Contractors under local coverage determinations. Therefore, Medicare reimbursement for the iLet is subject to various coverage conditions. We are also offering the iLet through the PBP channel. However, the commercial opportunity in the PBP channel may be limited unless a substantial portion of the sales price for the iLet is covered by third-party payors, including private insurance companies, health maintenance organizations, preferred provider organizations, federal and state government healthcare agencies, intermediaries, Medicare, Medicaid and other managed care providers. Medicare Part D plan sponsors may provide coverage for iLet under the Medicare Part D prescription drug program, which requires negotiating with third-party payors in order to provide iLet through the PBP channel in the United States. Securing and retaining adequate coverage or reimbursement for the iLet and our future products by third-party payors, and expedient processing approvals by those payors, is necessary for sales and the health of our business, financial condition and operating results. The BIOSECURE Act The United States recently passed legislation, namely the BIOSECURE Act (BIOSECURE Act), to prohibit U.S. federal executive agencies from procuring or obtaining any biotechnology equipment or service 32 produced or provided by a “biotechnology company of concern” or entering into or renewing a contract, loan, or grant with an entity that uses such biotechnology equipment or equipment. Specifically, on October 9, 2025, the U.S. Senate passed a revised version of the BIOSECURE Act as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2026. The final version of the NDAA containing this legislative language was passed by the Senate and House of Representatives and signed into law by President Trump on December 18, 2025. The BIOSECURE Act prohibits the U.S. government from procuring or obtaining biotechnology equipment or services produced or provided by a “biotechnology company of concern” (BCC); entering into, extending, or renewing government contracts with an entity that directly or indirectly uses biotechnology equipment or services from a BCC in performance of that federal contract; and/or issuing grants or loans to purchase, obtain, or use biotechnology equipment or services produced by a BCC. The BIOSECURE Act also prohibits U.S. government loan and grant recipients from using federal loan or grant money to enter into contracts with entities that use equipment from BCCs in the performance of any federal prime contract or subcontract. Companies designated as a BCC include those that are identified on the U.S. Department of Defense’s annual List of Chinese Military Companies, also known as the 1260H List, and the U.S. government also has the ability to designate entities as BCCs through a separate designation process. Given the BIOSECURE Act, we may be restricted in our ability to work with certain Chinese biotechnology companies to the extent we would contract with, or otherwise receive funding from, the U.S. government. Data Privacy and Security In the ordinary course of our business, we may process personal or sensitive data. Accordingly, we are or may become, subject to numerous data privacy and security obligations, including federal, state, local, and foreign laws, regulations, guidance, and industry standards related to data privacy, security, and protection. Such obligations may include, without limitation, the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), the Controlling the Assault of Non‑Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act (CANSPAM), the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), Washington’s My Health My Data Act (MHMD), the European Union General Data Protection Regulation (EU GDPR) and the United Kingdom General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR). Several states within the United States have enacted or proposed data privacy laws. For example, Virginia passed the Consumer Data Protection Act, and Colorado passed the Colorado Privacy Act. Additionally, we are, or may become, subject to various U.S. federal and state consumer protection laws which require us to publish statements that accurately and fairly describe how we handle personal data and choices individuals may have about the way we handle their personal data. The CCPA and other similar privacy laws described herein are examples of the increasingly stringent and evolving regulatory frameworks related to personal data processing that may increase our compliance obligations and exposure for any noncompliance. For example, the CCPA applies to personal information of consumers, business representatives, and employees who are California residents and imposes obligations on covered businesses to provide specific disclosures related to a business’s collecting, using, and disclosing personal data and to respond to certain requests from California residents related to their personal data (for example, requests to know of the business’s personal data processing activities, to correct the individual’s personal data, to delete the individual’s personal data, to opt out of certain personal data disclosures, and to limit use of the individual’s sensitive personal data in certain cases). Also, the CCPA provides for civil penalties and a private right of action for certain data breaches which may include an award of statutory damages. Moreover, cyber-attacks, malicious internet-based activity, online and offline fraud, and other similar activities threaten the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of our sensitive information and information technology systems, and those of the third parties with whom we work (including our current and future contract research organizations (CROs)). Such threats are prevalent, continue to rise, are increasingly difficult to detect and come from a variety of sources, including traditional computer "hackers," threat actors, "hacktivists," organized criminal threat actors, personnel, sophisticated nation states and nation-state supported actors, including via advanced persistent threat intrusions. If we (or the third parties with whom we work) experience a security incident or are perceived to have experienced a security incident, we could face adverse consequences. 33 Licensure To distribute our product through the pharmacy channel in the United States, we rely on intermediaries that hold the pharmacy licenses required in each jurisdiction. Certain states impose professional licensure requirements on individuals who provide diabetes education and related support. We believe our certified diabetes educators operate in compliance with these requirements, but if our educators or our company were found to be non-compliant, we may be required to modify how we deliver education, clinical support, or customer service. U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act The U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) prohibits U.S. individuals and corporations, as well as their representatives from, directly or indirectly offering, promising, authorizing or making corrupt payments, gifts or transfers of anything of value to any foreign government official, government staff member, political party or political candidate in an attempt to obtain or retain business. The scope of the FCPA would include interactions with certain healthcare professionals in many countries. The FCPA also requires public companies to make and keep books and records that accurately and fairly reflect the transactions of the corporation and to devise and maintain an adequate system of internal accounting controls. Facilities Our principal office is located in Irvine, California, where we lease approximately 50,000 square feet of office, laboratory and manufacturing space. We lease and sublease additional corporate offices in San Diego, California that consist of approximately 21,000 square feet of office space. We also lease corporate offices in Concord, Massachusetts that consist of approximately 13,000 square feet of office space. The lease for our office, laboratory and manufacturing space in Irvine, California expires in June 2032, the lease and sublease for our offices in San Diego, California expires in February 2027 and August 2028, respectively, and the lease for our office in Concord, Massachusetts expires in May 2026. We believe that our facilities are adequate for our current needs and that suitable additional or substitute space would be available if needed. Employees and Human Capital Resources As of December 31, 2025, we had 420 full-time employees and three part-time employees. None of our employees are represented by a labor union or covered by a collective bargaining agreement. Our human capital resources objectives include identifying, recruiting, retaining, incentivizing and integrating our existing and new employees, advisors and consultants. We have not experienced any work stoppages as a result of labor disputes or strikes. We have built a strong and positive workplace culture, and we pride ourselves on maintaining good relationships with our employees. All our employees enjoy a range of benefits including company-matching 401(k) contributions, participation in our equity incentive program, and employee stock purchase plan and our payment of health insurance premiums for both the employee and the employee’s family. Environmental Matters Our research and development and manufacturing processes involve the controlled use of hazardous materials, including flammables, toxics, corrosives and biologics. Our research operations produce hazardous biological and chemical waste products. We seek to comply with applicable laws regarding the handling and disposal of such materials. Given the small volume of such materials used or generated at our facilities, we do not expect our compliance efforts to have a material effect on our capital expenditures, earnings and competitive position. However, we cannot eliminate the risk of accidental contamination or discharge and any resultant injury from these materials. We do not currently maintain separate environmental liability coverage and any such contamination or discharge could result in significant cost to us in penalties, damages and suspension of our operations. 34 Legal Proceedings From time to time, we may become involved in legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of our business. There are currently no claims or actions pending against us, the ultimate disposition of which we believe could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations. Regardless of outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on us because of defense and settlement costs, diversion of management resources and other factors. Corporate Information We were originally incorporated under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in October 2015. In August 2024, we reincorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware. Our principal executive offices are located at 11 Hughes, Irvine, California 92618, and our telephone number is (949) 427-7785. Our website is www.betabionics.com. Information contained on, or accessible through, our website shall not be deemed incorporated into, and is not a part of, this Annual Report. We have included our website in this Annual Report solely as an inactive textual reference. Available Information Our Annual Report on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q and Current Reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act are available on our website, free of charge, as soon as reasonably practicable after the reports are electronically filed or furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC. The SEC maintains a website at www.sec.gov that contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information that we file with the SEC electronically. We intend to announce material information to the public through filings with the SEC, the investor relations page on our website, which is located at www.betabionics.com, press releases, public conference calls, and public webcasts. The information disclosed through the foregoing channels could be deemed to be material information. As such, we encourage investors, the media, and others to follow the channels listed above and to review the information disclosed through such channels. The information we post through these channels is not a part of this Annual Report. Any updates to the list of disclosure channels through which we will announce information will be posted on the investor relations page on our website. 35 Item 1A. Ris k Factors. Investing in our common stock involves a high degree of risk. You should carefully consider the risks described below, as well as all of the other information contained in this Annual Report, including our consolidated financial statements and related notes, before investing in our common stock. While we believe that the risks and uncertainties described below are the material risks currently facing us, additional risks that we do not yet know of or that we currently think are immaterial may also arise and materially affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. If any of the following risks materialize, our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects could be materially and adversely affected. In that case, the trading price of our common stock could decline, and you may lose some or all of your investment. Risks Related to Our Limited Commercial History, Financial Position and Need for Additional Capital We have a limited commercial history and limited experience marketing and selling our products. We only recently launched our commercial product, which may make it difficult to evaluate the prospects for our future viability and predict our future performance. We are a commercial-stage medical device company with limited commercial history and may encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays and other known and unknown obstacles. We launched our first commercial product, the iLet, in May 2023 and therefore do not have a long history operating as a commercial company. Our limited commercial history and limited number of cleared products makes it difficult to evaluate our current business and predict our future performance. These factors also make it difficult for us to forecast our future financial performance and growth. Although we have experienced revenue growth in prior periods, any assessment of our future revenue, profitability or prediction about our future success or viability is subject to significant uncertainty. We have encountered in the past, and will encounter in the future, risks and uncertainties frequently experienced by growing companies in emerging and rapidly changing industries, including scaling up our infrastructure and headcount. If our assumptions regarding these risks and uncertainties, which we use to plan and operate our business, are incorrect or change, or if we do not address these risks successfully, our results of operations could differ materially from our expectations, and our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected. We have incurred significant operating losses since inception and cannot assure you that we will be able to achieve or sustain profitability. Since our inception, we have incurred annual net losses. For the years ended December 31, 2025 and 2024, our net losses were $73.2 million and $54.8 million, respectively. As of December 31, 2025, we had an accumulated deficit of $369.9 million. We have devoted substantially all of our resources to the design, development and commercialization of our products, the scaling of our manufacturing and business operations, the clinical and regulatory initiatives to maintain and obtain marketing clearance, and the research and development of our current products and product candidates. To achieve consistent profitability, we need to, among other things, increase sales of our product and the gross profit associated with those sales, increase our sales force and commercialization efforts, maintain an appropriate customer service team, provide ongoing training and support infrastructure, fund research and development activities, create additional efficiencies in our manufacturing processes while adding to our capacity, maintain and obtain regulatory clearance or certification or clearance or other marketing authorization required to commercialize our product candidates in the United States, and obtain reimbursement coverage from payors. We expect our expenses will continue to increase as we pursue these objectives and make investments in our business. Additional increases in our expenses without commensurate increases in sales could significantly increase our operating losses. Accordingly, we expect to continue to incur operating losses for the foreseeable future, and we cannot assure you that we will achieve profitability in the future or that, if we do become profitable, we will sustain profitability. Our failure to achieve and sustain profitability in the future will make it more difficult to finance our business and accomplish our strategic objectives, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations and cause the market price of our common stock to decline. 36 Our quarterly and annual financial condition, operating results, cash flows and key business metrics may fluctuate in the future, which could cause the market price of our stock to decline substantially. As we continue to build our business, we expect our quarterly and annual financial condition, operating results, cash flows and key business metrics to fluctuate significantly due to a variety of factors including, but not limited to: • the timing of the launch of new products and product features by us and our competitors; • market acceptance of our products and competing products by PWD, their caregivers and HCPs; • the timing of regulatory clearance or certification of our products and the products of our competitors; • the actual efficiencies gained in our manufacturing processes; • the implementation and impact of third-party payor reimbursement and our multi-channel coverage and reimbursement strategy, including the mix of products sold via the DME and PBP channels; • expenditures that we may incur to acquire, develop or commercialize additional products; • sales and marketing efforts and expenses; • warranty expenses; • pricing pressures; • the purchasing patterns of our customers, including as a result of seasonality, which may be impacted by the timing and use of deductibles and out-of-pocket expense maximums; • the rate at which we grow our sales force and the speed at which newly hired salespeople become effective; • changes in the productivity of our sales force; • positive or negative coverage in the media or clinical publications of our products or products of our competitors or our industry; and • general economic, political, industry and market conditions. These fluctuations may make financial planning and forecasting uncertain. In addition, these fluctuations may result in unanticipated decreases in our available cash, which could negatively affect our business and prospects. In addition, one or more of such factors may cause our revenue or operating expenses in one period to be disproportionately higher or lower relative to the others. As a result, comparing our operating results on a period-to-period basis may be difficult to understand and may not be meaningful. You should not rely on our past results as indicative of our future performance. Furthermore, we may change our key business metrics or how we present our key business metrics from time to time, which may be perceived negatively. We regularly evaluate whether our key business metrics remain meaningful indicators of the performance of our business. As a result of these evaluations, we may make additional changes in the future to our key business metrics, including eliminating or replacing existing metrics. For example, in February 2026, we announced that we will no longer provide an exact quarterly new patient starts figure to better align our disclosure practices with industry peers. If investors or the media perceive any changes to our key business metrics disclosures negatively, our business could be adversely affected. We are pursuing a multi-channel DME and PBP coverage and reimbursement strategy to maximize access to the iLet within the T1D population, provide flexibility for PWD in choosing their device and provide PWD with advantageous coverage and reimbursement terms. We are working with payors to expand coverage and reimbursement under both DME and PBP channels. The DME and PBP channels for the iLet and its single-use products entail different payment outlays and therefore differentially impact PWD and our financial results. For a more detailed description of the strategy, see the section under Part II. Item 7. “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.” To the extent that our mix of distribution channels 37 fluctuates, our financial results may vary from period to period. Our ability to generate more revenue in the PBP channel over the patient’s lifespan will be dependent upon the continued use of our products by PWD. The variability and unpredictability caused by factors such as those described above could also result in our failing to meet the expectations of industry or financial analysts or investors for any period. If our revenue, results of operations or key business metrics fall below the expectations of analysts or investors or below any guidance we may provide, or if the guidance we provide is below the expectations of analysts or investors, the price of our common stock could decline substantially. Such a stock price decline could occur even when we have met any previously publicly stated guidance we may provide. We currently rely on sales of our iLet and related single-use products to generate all of our revenue, and any factors that negatively impact sales of these products may adversely affect our business, financial condition and operating results. We currently generate all of our revenue from the sale of our iLet and related single-use products. Physician awareness of, and experience with, our iLet and related single-use products is currently limited. As a result, our product has limited product and brand recognition within the medical industry for the treatment of T1D. The novelty of our product, together with our limited commercialization experience, makes it difficult to evaluate our current business and predict our future prospects. Sales of our iLet and related single-use products may be negatively impacted by many factors, including: • market acceptance of the insulin delivery devices and related products manufactured and sold by our key competitors; • any safety or effectiveness concerns that arise regarding our products; • the potential that breakthroughs for the monitoring, treatment or prevention of diabetes may render our insulin delivery devices obsolete or less desirable; • adverse regulatory or legal actions relating to our products, or similar products or technologies of our competitors; • the implementation of our multi-channel coverage and reimbursement strategy and any issues faced with such strategy, including the retention of PWD via the PBP channel; • changes in reimbursement rates or policies relating to insulin pumps or similar products or technologies by third-party payors; • competitive pricing and attrition rates of consumers who cease using our products; • our inability to enter into contracts with third-party payors on a timely basis and on acceptable terms; • problems arising from the expansion of our manufacturing capabilities and commercial operations, or destruction, loss, or temporary shutdown of our manufacturing facilities; • concerns regarding the perceived safety, reliability or cybersecurity of any of our products, or any component thereof, particularly in connection with the launch of additional mobile application features and functionality and other software products; and • claims that any of our products, or any component thereof, infringes on patent rights or other intellectual property rights of third parties. Additionally, we are subject to customer concentration risk as a result of our reliance on a relatively small number of DME distributors for a significant portion of our revenues. For the year ended December 31, 2025, our top four DME distributors represented approximately 52% of our total sales. In order to mitigate this concentration risk, we are actively pursuing our multi-channel DME and PBP coverage and reimbursement strategy. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be successful in executing this strategy and as such, we may need to continue to depend on the sales to a relatively small number of significant customers. Any reduction in the amount of revenues that we derive from these customers, without an offsetting increase in new sales to other customers, could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition. 38 Furthermore, any disruption in our supply chain could negatively impact our ability to manufacture or otherwise supply sufficient product quantities to meet demand. For example, sales of any of our current or future insulin delivery device products with CGM integration are subject to the continuation of our applicable agreements with DexCom, Abbott, or other third parties which, under some circumstances, may be subject to termination, with or without cause, on relatively short notice. Sales of our current or any future products may also be negatively impacted in the event of any regulatory or legal actions relating to CGM products that are compatible with our pumps, or in the event of any disruption to the availability of the applicable CGM-related supplies, such as sensors or transmitters, in a given market in which our products are sold. Sales of our products may also be adversely impacted if the CGM products that are compatible with our pumps are not viewed as superior to competing CGM products in markets where our products are sold, or if the price of these products is not competitive with similar products available in the market. Because we currently rely on sales of our iLet and related single-use products to generate all of our revenue, any factors that negatively impact sales of these products (or negatively impact the products or components integrated with these products) could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. We may need to raise additional funds in the future, and these funds may not be available on acceptable terms, if at all. The development of medical devices is capital-intensive. Our operations have consumed substantial amounts of cash since inception. As of December 31, 2025, our cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments were $219.2 million. In January 2025, we completed our initial public offering and a concurrent private placement, pursuant to which we received aggregate net proceeds of approximately $190.4 million and approximately $15.6 million, respectively, in each case after deducting underwriting discounts, commissions, and other offering expenses. Based on our current and planned use of the net proceeds of our initial public offering and the concurrent private placement and our current cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments, we estimate that our funds will be sufficient to enable us to fund our operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements through the first half of 2028. This estimate is based on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we could use our available capital resources sooner than we currently expect. Changing circumstances could cause us to consume capital significantly faster than we currently anticipate, and we may need to spend more than currently expected because of circumstances beyond our control. Our capital requirements, both near and long-term, will depend on many factors, including, but not limited to: • the cost of maintaining FDA clearance for the iLet as an automated insulin dosing system cleared for the treatment of T1D in adults and children six years of age and older; • the cost of obtaining and maintaining FDA marketing authorization or clearance for other future indications or other product candidates, including for the iLet for T1D using both insulin and glucagon (a bihormonal system), the iLet for T2D and the patch pump; • future revenue generated by sales of the iLet and any future products or product candidates, if approved; • expenses we incur in manufacturing and selling the iLet; • costs associated with scaling up and expanding our manufacturing capacity; • costs associated with building and expanding our sales and marketing efforts in the United States and, in the future, internationally; • costs associated with conducting research and development efforts for future improvements to the iLet; • costs associated with conducting research and development efforts for future product offerings, such as the bihormonal iLet and patch pump; • the cost of complying with regulatory requirements; • costs associated with capital expenditures; • the costs associated with hiring additional personnel as our business grows; 39 • the costs of operating as a public company; • costs associated with any future litigation; and • the costs and timing of preparing, filing and prosecuting patent applications, maintaining and enforcing our intellectual property rights and defending any intellectual property-related claims. We may require additional capital beyond the proceeds of our initial public offering and the concurrent private placement, which we may raise through public or private equity or debt financings or other capital sources, which may include strategic collaborations and other strategic arrangements with third parties. Furthermore, we expect to incur additional costs associated with operating as a public company. Adequate additional financing may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all. Our failure to raise capital as and when needed would have a negative effect on our financial condition and our ability to pursue our business strategy. In addition, attempting to secure additional financing may divert the time and attention of our management from day-to-day activities and harm our development, manufacturing and commercialization efforts. Our ability to raise additional funds may also be adversely impacted by potential worsening global economic conditions and the disruptions to, and volatility in, the credit and financial markets in the United States and worldwide resulting from geopolitical tensions, such as the ongoing war in Ukraine, the Israel and Palestine conflict, government actions implemented as a result of either of the foregoing, as well as tensions with and economic uncertainty in China, tariffs and other trade measurers, inflation, interest rates, liquidity concerns at, and failures of, banks and other financial institutions, changes in monetary and fiscal policy and U.S. political developments and other sources of instability. If the equity and credit markets further deteriorate, or do not improve, it may make any necessary debt or equity financing more difficult, more costly and more dilutive. Market volatility may further adversely impact our ability to access capital as and when needed. If we are unable to raise capital when needed or on acceptable terms, we would be forced to delay, reduce or eliminate certain of our research and development programs or manufacturing or commercialization efforts. If this were to occur, our ability to grow and support our business and to respond to market challenges could be significantly limited, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Raising additional capital may cause dilution to our stockholders, restrict our operations or require us to relinquish rights to our technologies or iLet. We expect our expenses to increase in connection with our planned operations. Unless and until we can generate a substantial amount of revenue from our iLet, we expect to finance our future cash needs through public or private equity offerings, debt financings, strategic collaborations and other strategic arrangements with third parties, or other sources, or any combination of the foregoing. In addition, we may seek additional capital due to favorable market conditions or strategic considerations, even if we believe that we have sufficient funds for our current or future operating plans. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of our common stock, convertible securities or other equity securities, your ownership interest may be diluted, and the terms of these securities could include liquidation or other preferences and anti-dilution protections that could adversely affect your rights as a common stockholder. In addition, debt financing, if available, may result in fixed payment obligations and may involve agreements that include restrictive covenants that limit our ability to take specific actions, such as incurring additional debt, making capital expenditures, creating liens, redeeming stock or declaring dividends, that could adversely impact our ability to conduct our business. In addition, securing financing could require a substantial amount of time and attention from our management and may divert a disproportionate amount of their attention away from day-to-day activities and harm our development, manufacturing and commercialization efforts. If we raise additional funds through collaborations or marketing, distribution or licensing arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our technologies, future revenue streams or investigational devices or grant licenses on terms that may not be favorable to us. 40 Risks Related to Our Business, Strategy and Industry The failure of our iLet and related products to achieve and maintain market acceptance could result in us achieving sales below our expectations, which would cause our business, financial condition and operating results to be materially and adversely affected. Our current business and growth strategy is highly dependent on our insulin delivery device and related products achieving and maintaining market acceptance. For us to sell our products to people with insulin-dependent diabetes, we must demonstrate to them, their caregivers and HCPs that our products are an attractive alternative to competitive products for the treatment of diabetes, including traditional insulin pump products and MDI therapies, as well as alternative diabetes monitoring, treatment or prevention methodologies. Market acceptance and adoption of our products depends on educating PWD as well as their caregivers and HCPs, about the distinct features, ease-of-use, beneficial treatment outcomes and other perceived benefits of our products as compared to competing products. If we are not successful in convincing existing and potential customers of the benefits of our products, or if we are not able to achieve the support of caregivers and HCPs for our products, our sales may decline or we may achieve sales below our expectations. Market acceptance of our products could be negatively impacted by many factors, including: • the failure of our products to achieve and maintain wide acceptance among people with insulin-dependent diabetes, their caregivers, HCPs, third-party payors and key opinion leaders in the diabetes treatment community; • PWD experience and satisfaction of our products; • PWD preference for management of T1D; • lack of evidence supporting the safety, effectiveness, ease-of-use or other perceived benefits of our products over competing products or other currently available insulin treatment methodologies; • perceived risks or uncertainties associated with the use of our products, or components thereof, or of similar products or technologies of our competitors; • adverse regulatory or legal actions or developments relating to our insulin delivery device product or to similar products or technologies; and • results of clinical trials relating to our existing product or product candidates or to similar competitive products. In addition, the rapid evolution of technology and treatment options within our industry may cause consumers to delay the purchase of our products in anticipation of advancements or breakthroughs, or the perception that advancements or breakthroughs could occur, in our products or the products offered by our competitors. It is also possible that consumer interest in our product candidates may lead consumers to delay the purchase of our current products. If our insulin delivery device products do not achieve and maintain widespread market acceptance, we may fail to achieve sales or other business metrics consistent with our projections, in which case our business, financial condition and operating results could be materially and adversely affected. 41 The market opportunities for our iLet for the treatment of diabetes may be smaller than we anticipated, limiting our ability to successfully sell our current and future products. Our current and future target patient populations and total addressable markets for our current and future products are based on our beliefs and estimates regarding pump adoption rates and the incidence or prevalence of T1D and T2D, including the patient population using intensive insulin therapy for treatment, which are derived from a variety of sources including scientific literature and third-party estimates. Total addressable market is the total overall revenue opportunity that we believe is available for insulin pumps if 100% market share is achieved, and it is not a representation that we will achieve such market share. While we believe our assumptions and the data underlying our estimates are reasonable, our projections may prove to be incorrect and the conditions supporting our assumptions or estimates may change at any time, thereby reducing the predictive accuracy of these estimates. For example, the number of potential patients may turn out to be lower than expected. Because the potential target populations could be smaller than we expect, we may never achieve profitability without obtaining regulatory clearance for the iLet in additional indications, specifically in T2D, which we have not obtained. If the actual number of patients who would benefit from our products, the price at which we can sell products, or the total addressable market for our products is smaller than we anticipated, it may impair our growth and have an adverse impact on our business. We face competition from numerous competitors, most of whom have far greater resources than we have, which may make it more difficult for us to achieve significant market penetration and which may allow them to develop additional products for the treatment of diabetes that compete with our iLet. The medical device industry is intensely competitive, subject to rapid change and highly sensitive to the introduction of new products, treatment techniques or technologies, or other market activities of industry participants. We primarily compete with a number of companies that manufacture and sell insulin pumps, such as Medtronic, Tandem, and Insulet. The iLet has certain characteristics that other insulin pumps manufactured by such competitors, to our knowledge, do not currently have, such as the ability to be initialized with only the user’s body weight, being enabled by algorithms that determine 100% of the user’s insulin doses, no carb counting, an option for pay-as-you-go pharmacy reimbursement and prefilled cartridges. For more information regarding the current commercial landscape for the iLet, see the section under Part I. Item 1. “Business—Market Opportunity: Management of Diabetes.” Outside of the insulin pump market, we face competition from a number of companies, medical researchers and pharmaceutical companies that offer or are pursuing competing delivery devices, technologies and procedures, such as prefilled insulin syringes, insulin pens and inhalable insulin products, as well as companies with approved therapeutics or in-development therapeutic candidates impacting diabetes. Our current primary competitors are publicly traded companies that have several competitive advantages over us, including significantly greater name recognition, greater financial resources for sales and marketing and product development, established relationships with HCPs and third-party payors, and larger and more established distribution networks. Most of these competitors are large, well-capitalized companies with significantly more market share and resources than we have. As a consequence, they are able to spend more aggressively on product development, marketing, sales and other product initiatives than we may be able to. In some instances, our competitors also offer products that include features that our iLet does not include. For instance, Insulet offers a tubeless insulin delivery system which integrates the pump and infusion set in a single, disposable unit. The introduction of new products by competitors may create market saturation that may make it difficult to differentiate the potential benefits of the iLet over other products in development or approved products. In addition, we may face competition from a number of medical device and pharmaceutical companies and academic and government-sponsored medical researchers that are pursuing new delivery devices, delivery technologies, sensing technologies, procedures, drugs and other therapeutics for the monitoring, treatment and prevention of diabetes. The availability of our competitors’ products could limit the demand, and the price we are able to charge, for the iLet. The inability to compete with existing or subsequently introduced devices would have an adverse impact on our business, financial condition and prospects. In addition, the reimbursement structure of approved devices by other companies could impact the anticipated reimbursement structure of the iLet and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. 42 Our results of operations will be harmed if we are unable to accurately forecast customer demand for our products and manage our inventory. To ensure adequate supply of our products, we must forecast the inventory needs of our current and prospective customers, and manufacture our products based on our estimates of future demand. Our ability to accurately forecast demand for our products could be negatively affected by many factors, many of which are beyond our control, including our failure to accurately manage our expansion strategy, product introductions by competitors, an increase or decrease in customer demand for our products or for products of our competitors, our failure to accurately forecast market acceptance of new products and changes in general market conditions or regulatory matters. We seek to maintain sufficient levels of inventory of our products to protect ourselves from supply interruptions. We rely in part on our distributors and pharmacy customers to supply forecasts of anticipated product orders in their respective territories. If we fail to accurately estimate customer demand for our products, our inventory forecasts may be inaccurate, resulting in shortages or excesses of inventory. Inventory levels in excess of customer demand may result in inventory write-downs or write-offs, which would cause our gross margin to be adversely affected and negatively impact our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations. Conversely, if we underestimate customer demand for our products, we may not be able to deliver products in a timely manner or at all, and this could result in reduced revenue and damage to our reputation and customer relationships. For example, in the first 12 months after the release of the iLet, we encountered significantly higher demand than initially expected by our forecast model. Such demand, driven by faster than expected adoption of the iLet in endocrinology centers in which we operate, as well as by the earlier than expected launch of our Dexcom G7 integration in December 2023, exceeded our existing supply of the iLet, which resulted in backorders. However, no resulting backorders materially impacted our results of operations. In addition, if we experience a significant increase in demand, we may not have adequate manufacturing capacity to meet such demand, and additional supplies may not be available when required on terms that are acceptable to us, or at all, or suppliers may not be able to allocate sufficient capacity to meet our increased requirements, all of which would negatively affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. In order to mitigate any demand issues, we have increased our inventory levels of the iLet to address any unpredictability. However, if we are unable to meet customer demand, we could lose our existing customers or lose our ability to acquire new customers, which would also negatively impact our business, financial condition and results of operations. Competing products, therapeutic techniques or other technological developments and breakthroughs for the monitoring, treatment or prevention of diabetes may render our products obsolete or less desirable. Our ability to grow our business and achieve our strategic objectives will depend on, among other things, our ability to develop and commercialize products for the treatment of diabetes that offer distinct features and functionality, are easy-to-use, provide superior treatment outcomes, receive adequate coverage and reimbursement from third-party payors, and are otherwise more appealing than available alternatives. Our primary competitors, as well as a number of other companies and medical researchers are pursuing new delivery devices, delivery technologies, therapeutic techniques, sensing technologies, treatment techniques, procedures, drugs and other therapies for the monitoring, treatment and prevention of diabetes. Any breakthroughs in diabetes monitoring, treatment or prevention could reduce the potential market for our products or render our products obsolete altogether, which would significantly reduce our sales or cause our sales to grow at a slower rate than we currently expect. In addition, even the perception that new products may be introduced, or that technological or treatment advancements could occur, could cause consumers to delay the purchase of our products. 43 Because the insulin-dependent diabetes market is large and growing, we anticipate companies will continue to dedicate significant resources to developing competing products and technologies, including potentially competitive learning algorithms. The introduction of products by competitors that are or claim to be superior to our products may create market confusion that may make it difficult to differentiate the benefits of our products over competing products. In addition, some of our competitors employ aggressive pricing strategies, including the use of discounts, rebates, low-cost product upgrades or other financial incentives that could adversely affect sales of our products. If a competitor develops a product that competes with or is perceived to be superior to our products, or if competitors continue to utilize strategies that place downward pressure on pricing within our industry, our sales may decline, our operating margins could be reduced and we may fail to meet our financial projections, which would materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition and operating results. Our newer mobile software applications are being designed to incorporate features and functions that are common to other consumer-oriented applications. These consumer industries are themselves highly competitive, and characterized by continuous new product introductions, rapid developments in technology and subjective and changing consumer preferences. If, in the future, consumers cease to view our products as contemporary or convenient as compared to then-existing consumer technology, our products may become less desirable. The diabetes treatment market is subject to rapid technological change and product innovation. Our products are based on our proprietary technology, but a number of companies, medical researchers, and pharmaceutical companies are pursuing new delivery devices, delivery technologies, sensing technologies, procedures, drugs, and other therapeutics for the monitoring, treatment, and/or prevention of insulin-dependent diabetes. In addition, we face competition from a number of companies, medical researchers and pharmaceutical companies that either offer or are pursuing competing delivery devices, technologies and procedures, such as smart insulin pens and inhalable insulin products, as well as companies with approved therapeutics or in-development therapeutic candidates impacting diabetes. Any breakthroughs in diabetes monitoring, treatment or prevention could reduce the potential market for our products or render our products obsolete altogether, which would significantly reduce our sales or cause our sales to grow at a slower rate than we currently expect. In addition, even the perception that new products may be introduced, or that technological or treatment advancements could occur, could cause consumers to delay the purchase of our products or impact our stock price. We currently have a limited marketing and sales organization and have limited experience as a commercial-stage company marketing devices. If we are unable to successfully expand our marketing and sales capabilities or enter into additional agreements with third parties to market and sell devices, we may not be able to generate product revenue, and our business may be adversely affected. We currently have limited sales marketing and distribution capabilities, and we have limited experience as an organization in marketing medical devices. Our continued sales will depend, in large part, on our ability to expand our sales infrastructure, particularly if we receive regulatory clearance in other jurisdictions. We will have to compete with other pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies and expend additional capital in order to recruit, hire, train and retain additional marketing and sales personnel. Identifying and recruiting qualified personnel with sufficient industry experience and training them requires significant time, expense and attention. We have limited experience in training our personnel to successfully market and sell our iLet. If we provide inadequate training, fail to increase our sales and marketing capabilities or fail to develop broad brand awareness in a cost effective manner, our business may be harmed. In addition, if our efforts to expand do not generate a corresponding increase in revenue or result in a decrease in our operating margin, our financial results will be adversely impacted. If we are unable to hire, develop and retain talented sales personnel or if new sales personnel are unable to achieve desired productivity levels in a reasonable period of time, we may not be able to realize the expected benefits of this investment or increase our revenue. 44 We may also decide to pursue collaborative arrangements regarding the sales and marketing of our products, if licensed. However, there can be no assurance that we will be able to establish or maintain such collaborative arrangements, or if we are able to do so, that they will have effective sales forces. Any revenue we receive will depend upon the efforts of such third parties, which may not be successful. We may have little or no control over the marketing and sales efforts of such third parties and our revenue from product sales may be lower than if we had commercialized our investigational devices ourselves. We also face competition in our search for third parties to assist us with the sales and marketing efforts of our investigational devices. There can be no assurance that we will be able to successfully expand our distribution capabilities or establish or maintain relationships with third-party collaborators to commercialize any product in the United States or in other jurisdictions for which we are able to obtain regulatory clearance. If our information technology systems or those third parties with whom we work or our data, are or were compromised, we could experience adverse consequences resulting from such compromise, including, but not limited to, regulatory investigations or actions; litigation; fines and penalties; disruptions of our business operations; reputational harm; loss of revenue or profits; loss of customers or sales; and other adverse consequences. In the ordinary course of our business, we and the third parties with whom we work, process sensitive information. Cyber-attacks, malicious internet-based activity, online and offline fraud, and other similar activities threaten the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of our sensitive information and information technology systems, and those of the third parties with whom we work. Such threats are prevalent and continue to rise, are increasingly difficult to detect, and come from a variety of sources, including traditional computer “hackers,” threat actors, “hacktivists,” organized criminal threat actors, personnel (such as through theft or misuse), sophisticated nation states and nation-state-supported actors. Some actors now engage and are expected to continue to engage in cyber-attacks, including without limitation nation-state actors for geopolitical reasons and in conjunction with military conflicts and defense activities. During times of war and other major conflicts, we, the third parties with whom we work, and our customers may be vulnerable to a heightened risk of these attacks, including retaliatory cyber-attacks, that could materially disrupt our systems and operations, supply chain, and ability to produce, sell and distribute our goods and services. We and the third parties with whom we work are subject to a variety of evolving threats, including, but not limited to, social-engineering attacks (including through deep fakes, are increasingly more difficult to identify as fake, and phishing attacks), malicious code (such as viruses and worms), malware (including as a result of advanced persistent threat intrusions), denial-of-service attacks, credential stuffing attacks, credential harvesting, personnel misconduct or error, ransomware attacks, supply-chain attacks, software bugs, server malfunctions, software or hardware failures, loss of data or other information technology assets, adware, telecommunications failures, earthquakes, fires, floods, attacks enhanced or facilitated by AI and other similar threats. In particular, severe ransomware attacks are becoming increasingly prevalent and can lead to significant interruptions in our operations, ability to provide our products or services, loss of sensitive data and income, reputational harm and diversion of funds. Extortion payments may alleviate the negative impact of a ransomware attack, but we may be unwilling or unable to make such payments due to, for example, applicable laws or regulations prohibiting such payments. It may be difficult and/or costly to detect, investigate, mitigate, contain and remediate a security incident. Our efforts to do so may not be successful. Actions taken by us or the third parties with whom we work to detect, investigate, mitigate, contain and remediate a security incident could result in outages, data losses and disruptions of our business. Threat actors may also gain access to other networks and systems after a compromise of our networks and systems. For example, threat actors may use an initial compromise of one part of our environment to gain access to other parts of our environment, or leverage a compromise of our networks or systems to gain access to the networks or systems of third parties with whom we work, such as through phishing or supply chain attacks. 45 Remote work has become more common and has increased risks to our information technology systems and data, as more of our employees utilize network connections, computers and devices outside our premises or network, including working at home, while in transit and in public locations. Future or past business transactions (such as acquisitions or integrations) could expose us to additional cybersecurity risks and vulnerabilities, as our systems could be negatively affected by vulnerabilities present in acquired or integrated entities’ systems and technologies. Furthermore, we may discover security issues that were not found during due diligence of such acquired or integrated entities, and it may be difficult to integrate companies into our information technology environment and security program. We rely on third parties to operate critical business systems to process sensitive information in a variety of contexts, including, without limitation, cloud-based infrastructure, encryption and authentication technology, manufacturing, employee email, content delivery to customers and other functions. Our ability to monitor these third parties’ information security practices is limited, and these third parties may not have adequate information security measures in place. If the third parties with whom we work experience a security incident or other interruption, we could experience adverse consequences. While we may be entitled to damages if the third parties with whom we work fail to satisfy their privacy or security-related obligations to us, any award may be insufficient to cover our damages, or we may be unable to recover such award. In addition, supply-chain attacks have increased in frequency and severity, and we cannot guarantee that third parties’ infrastructure in our supply chain or that of the third parties with whom we work have not been compromised. While we have implemented security measures designed to protect against security incidents, there can be no assurance that these measures will be effective. In addition to the risks regarding our information systems and processing of sensitive information, our iLet insulin pumps rely on software, some of which is developed by third-party service providers, that could contain unanticipated vulnerabilities, which could make our products subject to computer viruses, cyber-attacks, or failures. These risks are further increased because we enable users to control insulin boluses through the mobile app using our iLet product. The FDA has warned that insulin pumps may have cybersecurity vulnerabilities and could be manipulated by hackers, causing danger to PWD. Successful exploitation of any security vulnerabilities in our iLet products may allow attackers to gain access to the iLet to intercept, modify or interfere with the wireless radio frequency communications to or from our iLet products which could allow attackers to read sensitive data, change pump settings or control insulin delivery. While we take steps designed to detect, mitigate, and remediate vulnerabilities in our iLet product and information systems (such as our hardware and/or software, including that of third parties with whom we work), we have not, and may not in the future, detect and remediate all such vulnerabilities including on a timely basis. Further, we have and may in the future experience delays in deploying remedial measures and patches designed to address identified vulnerabilities. Vulnerabilities could be exploited and result in a security incident. Certain of the previously identified or similar threats have in the past and may in the future cause a security incident or other interruption that could result in unauthorized, unlawful, or accidental acquisition, modification, destruction, loss, alteration, encryption, disclosure of, or access to our sensitive information or our information technology systems, or those of the third parties with whom we work. A security incident or other interruption could disrupt our ability (and that of third parties with whom we work) to provide our products. For example, we have been the target of unsuccessful phishing attempts in the past, and expect such attempts will continue in the future. Applicable data privacy and security obligations may require us, or we may voluntarily choose, to notify relevant stakeholders, including affected individuals, customers, regulators and investors, of security incidents, or to take other actions, such as providing credit monitoring and identity theft protection services. Such disclosures and related actions can be costly, and the disclosure or the failure to comply with such applicable requirements could lead to adverse consequences. 46 If we (or a third party with whom we work) experience a security incident or are perceived to have experienced a security incident, we may experience material adverse consequences, such as government enforcement actions (for example, investigations, fines, penalties, audits, and inspections); additional reporting requirements and/or oversight; restrictions on processing sensitive information (including personal data); litigation (including class claims); indemnification obligations; negative publicity; reputational harm; monetary fund diversions; diversion of management attention; interruptions in our operations (including availability of data); financial loss; and other similar harms. Security incidents and material attendant consequences may prevent or cause customers to stop using our products, deter new customers from using our products and negatively impact our ability to grow and operate our business. Our contracts may not contain limitations of liability, and, even where they do, there can be no assurance that limitations of liability in our contracts are sufficient to protect us from liabilities, damages or claims related to our data privacy and security obligations. We cannot be sure that our insurance coverage will be adequate or sufficient to protect us from or to mitigate liabilities arising out of our privacy and security practices, that such coverage will continue to be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all, or that such coverage will pay future claims. In addition to experiencing a security incident, third parties may gather, collect or infer sensitive information about us from public sources, data brokers, or other means that reveals competitively sensitive details about our organization and could be used to undermine our competitive advantage or market position. We may expend our resources to pursue the development of new potential indications or other modifications to commercialized products, and forgo the opportunity to capitalize on other potential indications or modifications that may ultimately be more profitable or for which there is a greater potential likelihood of success. We have limited financial and personnel resources and are placing significant focus on the commercialization of our iLet as an automated insulin dosing system cleared for the treatment of T1D in adults and children six years of age and older, and the development of a bihormonal system for the treatment of T1D. We also intend to pursue expanded use of our iLet to treat people with insulin-dependent T2D. These changes will require the successful completion of additional trials, submission of and the FDA’s clearance, approval or granting of marketing authorization applications and significant resources, which may not result in authorization for these uses and configurations. Over time, we may also seek future marketing authorizations or clearances for the use of our iLet in the treatment of a number of related conditions including gestational diabetes, monogenic diabetes, cystic fibrosis-related diabetes, congenital hyperinsulinism, insulinoma syndrome, post-bariatric surgery and metabolic syndrome. Our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial products or profitable market opportunities. Our spending on current and future research and development programs for specific indications may not yield any commercially viable future investigational devices. We will need to expand our organization, and we may experience challenges in managing this growth as we build our capabilities, which could disrupt our operations. As of December 31, 2025, we had 420 full-time employees and 3 part-time employees. We expect to experience significant growth over time in the number of our employees and the scope of our operations, particularly in the areas of regulatory and clinical affairs and sales, marketing and distribution. To manage our growth activities, we must continue to implement and improve our managerial, operational and financial systems, expand our facilities and continue to recruit and train additional qualified personnel. Due to our limited financial resources and the limited experience of our management team in managing a company with such anticipated growth, we may not be able to effectively manage the expansion of our operations or recruit and train additional qualified personnel, which may result in weaknesses in our infrastructure, give rise to operational mistakes, loss of business opportunities, loss of employees and reduced productivity among remaining employees. As we expand our organization, we may have difficulty identifying, hiring and integrating new personnel. Future growth would impose significant additional responsibilities on our management, including the need to identify, recruit, maintain, motivate and integrate additional employees, consultants and contractors. Also, our management may need to divert a disproportionate amount of its attention away from our day-to-day activities and devote a substantial amount of time to managing these growth activities. Our expected growth could require significant capital expenditures and may divert financial resources from other projects, such as the development of investigational devices. If our management is unable to effectively manage our growth, our expenses may increase more than expected, our ability to generate and/or grow product revenues could be reduced and we may not be able to implement our business strategy. Our future financial performance and our ability to commercialize our investigational devices and compete effectively will depend, in part, on our ability to effectively manage any future growth. 47 We expect to continue to increase our manufacturing capacity and our personnel, and we will need to develop additional capabilities to support our U.S. and international sales and marketing efforts. This growth, as well as any other growth that we may experience in the future, will pose challenges to our organization and may strain our management and operations resources. In order to manage future growth, we will be required to improve existing, and implement new, sales and marketing efforts and distribution channels. The form and function of our enterprise information technology systems will need to change and be improved upon as our business needs change. We will need to manage our supply chain effectively, including the development of our U.S. manufacturing, our relationship with single source suppliers as well as other suppliers going forward. We may also need to partner with additional third-party suppliers to manufacture certain components of the iLet and complete additional manufacturing lines in the future. A transition to new suppliers may result in additional costs or delays. We may misjudge the amount of time or resources that will be required to effectively manage any anticipated or unanticipated growth in our business, or we may not be able to manufacture sufficient inventory, or attract, hire and retain sufficient personnel to meet our needs. If we cannot scale our business appropriately, maintain control over expenses or otherwise adapt to anticipated and unanticipated growth, our business resources may become strained, we may not be able to deliver the iLet in a timely manner and our results of operations may be adversely affected. Our future success depends on our ability to retain our key personnel and to attract, retain and motivate qualified personnel. We are dependent on our executive officers, as well as the other members of our management, scientific and clinical teams. Although we have formal employment agreements with our executive officers, these agreements do not prevent them from terminating their employment with us at any time and, for certain of our executive officers, entitle them to receive severance payments in connection with their voluntary resignation of employment for good reason, as defined in the employment agreements. We do not currently maintain key person life insurance policies for any of our employees. If we lose one or more key employees, we may experience difficulties in competing effectively, developing our technologies and implementing our business strategy. Our success will depend on our ability to retain our current management and key employees, and to attract and retain qualified personnel in the future. Competition for senior management and key employees in our industry is intense, and we cannot guarantee that we will be able to retain our personnel or attract new, qualified personnel. The loss of the services of certain members of our senior management or key employees could prevent or delay the implementation and completion of our strategic objectives, or divert management’s attention to seeking qualified replacements. Each member of senior management, as well as our key employees, may terminate employment without notice and without cause or good reason. The members of our senior management are not subject to non-competition agreements. Accordingly, the adverse effect resulting from the loss of certain members of senior management could be compounded by our inability to prevent them from competing with us. In addition, job candidates and existing employees often consider the value of the stock awards they receive in connection with their employment. If the perceived benefits of our stock awards decline, either because we are a public company or for other reasons, it may harm our ability to recruit and retain highly skilled employees. Many of our employees have become or will soon become vested in a substantial amount of our common stock or a number of common stock options. Our employees may be more likely to leave us if the shares they own have significantly appreciated in value relative to the original purchase prices of the shares, or if the exercise prices of the options that they hold are significantly below the market price of our common stock. Our future success depends on our ability to continue to attract and retain additional executive officers and other key employees. If we fail to attract new personnel or fail to retain and motivate our current personnel, it will negatively affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. 48 We may acquire other companies or technologies, which could fail to result in a commercial product or revenue, divert our management’s attention, result in additional dilution to our stockholders and otherwise disrupt our business. Although we currently have no agreements or commitments to complete any such transactions and are not involved in negotiations to do so, we may in the future seek to acquire or invest in businesses, applications or technologies that we believe could complement or expand our offering of products, enhance our technical capabilities or otherwise offer growth opportunities. However, we cannot assure you that we would be able to successfully complete any acquisition we choose to pursue, or that we would be able to successfully integrate any acquired business, product or technology in a cost-effective and non-disruptive manner. The pursuit of potential acquisitions may divert the attention of management and cause us to incur various costs and expenses in identifying, investigating and pursuing suitable acquisitions, whether or not they are consummated. We may not be able to identify desirable acquisition targets or be successful in entering into an agreement with any particular target or obtain the expected benefits of any acquisition or investment. To date, the growth of our operations has been organic, and we have limited experience in acquiring other businesses or technologies. We may not be able to successfully integrate any acquired personnel, operations and technologies, or effectively manage the combined business following an acquisition. Acquisitions could also result in dilutive issuances of equity securities, the use of our available cash, or the incurrence of debt, which could harm our operating results. In addition, if an acquired business fails to meet our expectations, our business, financial condition and results of operations may be negatively affected. If we were to be sued for product liability, we could face substantial liabilities that exceed our resources, limit sales of our iLet and limit commercialization of any products that we may develop. The marketing, sale and use of our iLet could lead to the filing of product liability claims where someone may allege that our products identified inaccurate or incomplete information or otherwise failed to perform as designed. We may also be subject to liability for errors in, a misunderstanding of or inappropriate reliance upon, the information we provide in the ordinary course of our business activities. A product liability claim could result in substantial damages and be costly and time-consuming for us to defend. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against product liability claims, we will incur substantial liabilities and reputational harm. In addition, regardless of merit or eventual outcome, product liability claims may result in: • substantial litigation costs; • distraction of management’s attention from our primary business; • the inability to commercialize our products or new products; • decreased demand for our products; • damage to our business reputation; • product recalls or withdrawals from the market; • loss of sales; or • termination of existing agreements by our partners and potential partners failing to partner with us. We maintain product liability insurance, but this insurance may not fully protect us from the financial impact of defending against product liability claims. Any product liability claim brought against us, with or without merit, could increase our insurance rates or prevent us from securing insurance coverage in the future. While we may attempt to manage our product liability exposure by proactively recalling or withdrawing from the market any defective products, any recall or market withdrawal of our products may delay the supply of those products to our customers and may impact our reputation. We may not be successful in initiating appropriate market recall or market withdrawal efforts that may be required in the future and these efforts may not have the intended effect of preventing product malfunctions and the accompanying product liability that may result. Such recalls and withdrawals may also harm our reputation with customers, which could negatively affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. 49 International trade policies, including tariffs, sanctions and trade barriers may adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. We operate in a global economy, and our business depends on a global supply chain for the development, manufacturing, and distribution of our medical device products, and for the advancement of our preclinical and clinical development programs. There is inherent risk, based on the complex relationships among the United States and the countries in which we conduct our business, that political, diplomatic, and national security factors can lead to global trade restrictions and changes in trade policies and export regulations that may adversely affect our business and operations. The current international trade and regulatory environment is subject to significant ongoing uncertainty. We source significant quantities of the iLet’s components from international suppliers, with substantial reliance on foreign manufacturers, including China. While we currently benefit from tariff exemptions under the Nairobi Protocol for custom components used in the iLet and related supplies, any changes to these exemptions or broader tariff policies, particularly those affecting medical device imports from China, could materially increase our manufacturing costs and reduce our profitability, as a result of our inability to adjust pricing in formulary-based markets. Recent and potential future changes in international trade policies, particularly regarding U.S.-China trade relations and medical device-specific tariffs, present material risks to our operations and financial performance. The ongoing trade tensions between the United States and China have resulted in multiple rounds of tariffs affecting medical device components, manufacturing equipment, and related supplies. Although tariffs on medical device components remain a risk, our current exemption for custom components under the Nairobi Protocol mitigates this exposure. However, if this exemption were to be rescinded or if new targeted tariffs were enacted that apply to our products or inputs, our manufacturing costs could increase significantly, and it would be difficult and costly to qualify alternative sources within another country with a lower tariff rate or within the United States, as developing and qualifying alternative sources takes significant time, substantial investment and regulatory approvals. Moreover, the dynamic and unpredictable tariff and trade landscape creates substantial uncertainty and significant planning challenges for our operations. Changes in tariff classifications, country-of-origin requirements, or customs procedures can occur with limited notice. This uncertainty complicates our long-term investment decisions regarding manufacturing facilities, supply chain optimization, and research and development locations. Recent policy discussions have included potential targeted tariffs or other trade measures specifically aimed at medical device products and ingredients as part of broader healthcare cost control or national security initiatives. Unlike many industries, our ability to pass increased costs to customers is limited by the structure of medical device pricing and reimbursement systems. Our product pricing is established through annual or multi-year contracts with commercial, third-party payors, customers and group purchase organizations, and reimbursement methodologies established by government programs, such as Medicare. These arrangements typically include fixed pricing terms that were negotiated prior to the implementation of the recently announced tariffs. As a result, and depending on the timing and scope of the implementation of these tariffs, cost increases due to tariffs may be difficult or impossible to pass through to customers until the next negotiation cycle, which could be up to 36 months away. Future tariffs may also result in increased research and development expenses, including but not limited to increased costs associated with laboratory equipment and research materials. Trade restrictions affecting the import of materials, including components of the bihormonal system of the iLet and patch pump, necessary for clinical trials and manufacturing could result in delays to our timelines. Increased costs and extended timelines could place us at a competitive disadvantage compared to companies operating in regions with more favorable trade relationships and could reduce investor confidence and negatively impact our business, results of operations, financial condition and growth prospects. The complexity of announced or future tariffs may also increase the risk that we or our customers or suppliers may be subject to civil or criminal enforcement actions in the United States or foreign jurisdictions related to compliance with trade regulations. Foreign governments may also adopt non-tariff measures, such as procurement preferences or informal disincentives to engage with, purchase from or invest in U.S. entities, which may limit our ability to compete internationally and attract non-U.S. investment, employees, customers and suppliers. Foreign 50 governments may also take other retaliatory actions against U.S. entities, such as decreased intellectual property protection, increased enforcement actions, or delays in regulatory approvals, which may result in heightened international legal and operational risks. In addition, the United States and other governments have imposed and may continue to impose additional sanctions, such as trade restrictions or trade barriers, which could restrict us from doing business directly or indirectly in or with certain countries or parties and may impose additional costs and complexity to our business. Trade disputes, tariffs, restrictions and other political tensions between the United States and other countries may also exacerbate unfavorable macroeconomic conditions including inflationary pressures, foreign exchange volatility, financial market instability, and economic recessions or downturns. The ultimate impact of current or future tariffs and trade restrictions remains uncertain and could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, and prospects. While we actively monitor these risks, any prolonged economic downturn, escalation in trade tensions, or deterioration in international perception of U.S.-based companies could materially and adversely affect our business, ability to access the capital markets or other financing sources, results of operations, financial condition and prospects. In addition, tariffs and other trade developments have and may continue to heighten the risks related to the other risk factors described elsewhere in this Annual Report. Risks Related to the Development, Regulatory Approval and Commercialization of our iLet Bionic Pancreas and Product Candidates We are highly dependent on the success of our iLet for the treatment of T1D, which is cleared by the FDA for commercial sale in the United States for the treatment of T1D, and we do not have any other commercial products. If we are unable to obtain and maintain regulatory clearance or approval for planned modifications to the iLet or for new indications, or for any future development-stage products, or if we are unsuccessful in our efforts to continue to commercialize our cleared version of the iLet, our business will be materially harmed. We only have one commercialized device, the iLet, which is an automated insulin dosing system cleared for the treatment of T1D in adults and children six years of age and older. Our business primarily depends on the successful commercialization of the iLet. We currently have no other products cleared for sale and may never be able to develop other marketable products. Our iLet will require additional clinical development, testing and marketing authorization or regulatory clearance before we are permitted to commercialize it in a bihormonal system for the treatment of T1D or for any future indications we may pursue. Further, as we develop a bihormonal system of the iLet, which is designed to use both insulin and glucagon for the treatment of T1D, we will separately need to develop and obtain approval for our glucagon product candidate as a drug via an NDA submission in order to successfully commercialize our iLet in a bihormonal system. We expect that the bihormonal system will require completion of clinical trials and submission of a 510(k) for both the infusion pump and algorithm. In addition, we expect that the single hormone and bihormonal algorithms will require separate studies to be performed in T1D and T2D populations in order to seek clearance in these patient populations. In addition, we are in the early states of developing an insulin pump, also commonly referred to as a “patch pump,” for which we have engaged with the FDA in pre-submission interactions and intend to seek FDA clearance via a 510(k) submission. The future regulatory and commercial success of our iLet, patch pump and any other product candidate is subject to a number of risks, including the following: • completion of preclinical studies with favorable results; • successful enrollment in, and completion of, planned and future clinical trials with favorable results; • sufficiency of our financial and other resources to complete the necessary clinical trials and regulatory activities; • successful patient enrollment in clinical trials; • successful data from our clinical program that supports an acceptable risk-benefit profile in the intended populations; • whether we are required by the FDA to conduct additional clinical trials or to modify the design of current or planned trials to support any future application seeking marketing authorization or clearance of the iLet in a bihormonal system for the treatment of T1D or for other indications we may pursue, or seeking initial marketing authorization or clearance for any of our other product candidates; 51 • receipt and maintenance of marketing authorizations or clearances from applicable regulatory authorities; • obtaining and maintaining patent and trade secret protection and regulatory exclusivity for our iLet; • making arrangements with third-party manufacturers and ensuring such third-party manufacturers supply sufficient quantities of components of our products and product candidates; • scaling up our manufacturing capabilities, for both commercial and clinical supplies of our products and product candidates; • entry into collaborations to further the development of our iLet’s capabilities; • expanding sales, marketing and distribution capabilities as we continue our commercialization efforts of the iLet, whether alone or in collaboration with others; • successfully launching commercial sales of the iLet, patch pump and any other product candidate, if authorized for marketing or cleared; • acceptance of our products by PWD, the medical community and third-party payors; • maintaining a continued acceptable safety profile following marketing authorization or clearance; • maintaining regulatory compliance; • effectively competing with other treatment options and the availability, perceived advantages, relative cost, relative safety and relative effectiveness of alternative and competing treatments; • the emergence of competing technologies and other adverse market developments, and our need to enhance existing products and/or develop new products to maintain market share in response to such competing technologies or market developments; • maintaining healthcare coverage and adequate reimbursement from third-party payors; • continuing to build and maintain an organization of people who can successfully develop our products; and • enforcing and defending intellectual property rights and claims. Many of these risks are beyond our control, including the risks related to clinical development, the regulatory submission process, potential threats to our intellectual property rights and the manufacturing, marketing and sales efforts of any future collaborator. If we are not successful in commercializing our iLet or obtaining marketing authorization or clearance for the iLet in its bihormonal system for the treatment of T1D or in other indications, such as T2D, the investigational glucagon product, the patch pump, or any other product candidate, or if we experience delays as a result of any of these risks or otherwise, our business could be materially harmed. Furthermore, even though we have received clearance for our iLet for insulin-only delivery for the treatment of T1D, any other configuration for the treatment of T1D such as a bihormonal system using both insulin and glucagon or other indications we may pursue for which we receive marketing authorization or clearance may be subject to limitations on the patient populations for which we may market the product. Even if we are able to obtain the requisite financing to continue to fund our development programs, we cannot assure you that we will successfully develop, obtain marketing authorization or clearance for, and commercialize our iLet in its bihormonal system for the treatment of T1D or for any future indication we may pursue, the patch pump, the investigational glucagon product, or any other development-stage products. If we are unable to continue commercializing the iLet for T1D, or if we are unable to develop, or obtain marketing authorization or clearance for, or, if authorized for marketing or cleared, successfully commercialize the iLet for the treatment of any future indications, we may not be able to generate sufficient revenue to continue our business. We are subject to a post-market surveillance order issued by the FDA for our iLet. If the FDA determines that our iLet does not perform as anticipated, or if the FDA identifies new concerns related to the safety and 52 effectiveness of the device, we may need to make changes to or recall or withdraw the iLet from the field, which could harm our business. The FDA has notified us that the iLet is subject to a mandatory post-market surveillance order under Section 522 of the FDCA, which authorizes the FDA to require a manufacturer to conduct post-market surveillance for devices that meet certain criteria. Specifically, the FDA has asked that we conduct a one-year, prospective single-arm cohort study and has accepted our plan for this study, which will assess the safety and effectiveness of the iLet in commercial users and is expected to enroll 1,875 users. The FDA typically issues a 522 Order for any Class II device like the iLet that (1) would be reasonably likely to have serious adverse health consequences if it were to fail and (2) is expected to have significant use in pediatric populations. Other Class II software algorithms used with AID systems meet these two criteria and have therefore been issued similar 522 Orders. As part of the FDA’s request to conduct a post-market surveillance study, the FDA set forth several criteria to evaluate the iLet in a large and diverse patient population, as well as different real-world use settings including the use of features that are unique to the iLet (i.e., lack of conventional open-loop mode, BG-run feature, body weight only initialization, handling unannounced meals, and use of the lower and higher glucose targets). The FDA accepted our post-market surveillance plan, enrollment began in April 2025, and we continued to enroll patients through December 31, 2025. Specifically, the FDA has asked that we conduct a 1-year, prospective single-arm cohort study with a sample size that is statistically justified (based on study hypotheses, where applicable, and with appropriate distribution through different user groups) for T1D patients ages six years and older. The FDA has asked that we complete the study and submit a final report to the FDA by June 2027. We have initiated a single-arm prospective observational study and expect to enroll a total of 1,875 users who will be followed for one year. We expect that the study will compare outcomes data during iLet use to safety and efficacy outcomes data derived from independent epidemiological studies, such as studies published by the T1D Exchange registry, and to the results of the iLet Bionic Pancreas Pivotal Trial, with an emphasis on serious adverse effects such as severe hypoglycemia and DKA. Further, we expect that an analysis will be conducted comparing glycemic outcomes during iLet use to baseline pre-iLet CGM and HbA1c data in participants who have provided this data. In addition, the study will evaluate the frequency and types of anticipated and unanticipated device issues experienced by users during real-world use. Following completion of the study, we will be required to submit a final report to the FDA. Should the FDA decide that use of the iLet identifies new concerns related to the safety and effectiveness of the product, or if the FDA determines that the requirements of the 522 Order are otherwise unmet, we may be required to make additional changes to our iLet, for which we may need to submit new marketing authorization applications; we may be required to conduct additional studies or collect additional information; we may need to withdraw or recall the iLet from the market; and we may be subject to other enforcement action, which in each case could harm our business. Failure to comply with these requirements in a timely manner could result in the revocation of the 510(k) clearance for our iLet that is the subject of the 522 Order, as well as the recall or withdrawal of the iLet, which in each case, could prevent us from generating sales from the iLet in the United States. The regulatory authorization process of the FDA, or any comparable foreign regulatory authorities, is lengthy, time-consuming and inherently unpredictable. Even if we complete the necessary clinical trials, we cannot predict when, or if, we will obtain marketing authorization or clearance for any of our product candidates. Modifications to our currently commercialized version of the iLet may require new marketing authorizations or clearance. We have developed a medical device that is subject to extensive regulation by the FDA. These regulations relate to testing, manufacturing, labeling, sale, promotion, distribution and shipping. Before we can market or sell a new product regulated as a medical device in the United States, we must obtain marketing authorization or clearance under one of the three following regulatory pathways: (i) Section 510(k) of the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, (ii) a premarket approval application (PMA), or (iii) de novo classification of our product. In the 510(k) clearance process, the FDA must determine that a proposed device is “substantially equivalent” to a device legally on the market, known as a “predicate” device, with respect to intended use, technology and safety and effectiveness, in order to clear the proposed device for marketing. Clinical data are sometimes required to support substantial equivalence. In the second pathway, the PMA process, the FDA must determine that a proposed device is safe and effective for its intended use based, in part, on extensive data, including, but not limited to, technical, preclinical study, clinical trial, manufacturing and labeling data. The PMA process is typically required for products that are deemed to pose the greatest risk, such as life-sustaining, life-supporting or implantable devices, and is significantly more involved than the 510(k) process. The third pathway is called de novo classification, which is generally used 53 for low- to moderate-risk products that have not previously been classified by the FDA and therefore no predicate device is available. Devices not previously classified by the FDA are automatically placed into Class III; through the de novo process a manufacturer may request reclassification as a Class I or II device. If the FDA agrees to reclassify the device, it will then clear the device through the de novo process, and future devices of a similar nature may use the device cleared through the de novo process as a predicate device for a 510(k) submission. The PMA approval, 510(k) clearance and de novo classification processes can be expensive, lengthy and uncertain. The FDA’s 510(k) clearance process usually takes from three to 12 months, but can take longer. The process of obtaining a PMA is much more costly and uncertain than the 510(k) clearance process and generally takes from one to three years, or even longer, from the time the application is submitted to the FDA. In addition, a PMA generally requires the performance of one or more clinical trials. Clinical data may also be required in connection with an application for 510(k) clearance or a de novo classification request. Despite the time, effort and cost, a device may not obtain marketing authorization or clearance by the FDA. Any delay or failure to obtain necessary marketing authorizations or clearances could harm our business. Furthermore, even if we are granted such marketing authorizations or clearances, they may include significant limitations on the indicated uses for the device, which may limit the potential commercial market for the device. We pursued the 510(k) pathway for the iLet and ultimately received clearance from the FDA for insulin-only delivery for the treatment of T1D in adults and children six years of age and older. Any modification to a 510(k)-cleared device that could significantly affect its safety or effectiveness, or that would constitute a major change in its intended use, design or manufacture, requires a new 510(k) clearance or, possibly, approval of a PMA. The FDA requires every manufacturer to make this determination in the first instance, but the FDA may review any manufacturer’s decision. The FDA may not agree with our decisions regarding whether new clearances or approvals are necessary. We have modified the iLet subsequent to obtaining 510(k) clearance, and have determined based on our review of the applicable FDA guidance that in these instances new 510(k) clearances or pre-market approvals were not required. If the FDA disagrees with our determination and requires us to submit new 510(k) notifications or PMAs for modifications to our iLet or any other product for which we may obtain 510(k) clearance in the future, and for which we have concluded that new clearances or approvals are unnecessary, we may be required to cease marketing or to recall the modified product until we obtain clearance or approval, and we may be subject to significant regulatory fines or penalties. Moreover, we have planned modifications to our iLet for which we plan to seek new marketing authorization, such as the proposed bihormonal system. The FDA may ultimately determine that the 510(k) pathway is not appropriate for the bihormonal system of the iLet for the treatment of T1D, or for any other indications we may pursue, and may require us to obtain a PMA or seek de novo classification in order to commercialize the iLet for such uses in the United States. In particular, there are currently no authorized pump therapies that utilize both insulin and glucagon to treat T1D. As such it is difficult to accurately predict the developmental and regulatory challenges we may experience for our iLet in its bihormonal system if it proceeds into a pivotal trial. Obtaining a PMA is generally more costly and uncertain than the 510(k) clearance process or the de novo classification process and generally takes from one to three years, or even longer, from the time the application is submitted to the FDA until an approval is obtained, if ever. Additionally, even though the FDA determined that the 510(k) pathway was appropriate for the iLet for insulin-only delivery, different components of the system will require individual marketing authorizations and review of individual components can vary. For example, our iLet Dosing Decision Software utilized in the iLet required a separate 510(k) clearance. If the FDA requires us to go through a lengthier, more rigorous examination for our product candidates or for modifications to existing products than we had expected, product introductions or modifications could be delayed or canceled, which could adversely affect our business. The FDA can delay, limit or deny marketing authorization or clearance of a device for many reasons, including: • our inability to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the FDA that our product candidates are substantially equivalent to a predicate device or are safe and effective for their intended uses; • the disagreement of the FDA with the design or implementation of our clinical trials or the interpretation of data from preclinical studies or clinical trials; • serious and unexpected adverse effects experienced by participants in our clinical trials; 54 • the data from our preclinical studies and clinical trials may be insufficient to support clearance, de novo classification or approval, where required; • our inability to demonstrate that the clinical and other benefits of the device outweigh the risks; • the manufacturing process or facilities we use may not meet applicable requirements; and • the potential for approval policies or regulations of the FDA or applicable foreign regulatory bodies to change significantly in a manner rendering our clinical data or regulatory filings insufficient for clearance or approval. Further, if the FDA determines that our financial relationships with our principal investigators resulted in a perceived or actual conflict of interest that may have affected the interpretation of a study, the integrity of the data generated at a particular clinical trial site or the utility of the clinical trial itself, we could encounter delays or difficulties in obtaining any future marketing authorizations or clearances. Principal investigators for our clinical trials may serve as scientific advisors or consultants to us from time to time and receive cash compensation and/or stock options in connection with such services. If these relationships and any related compensation to or ownership interest by the clinical investigator carrying out the study result in perceived or actual conflicts of interest, or if the FDA concludes that the financial relationship may have affected interpretation of the study, the integrity of the data generated at the applicable clinical trial site may be questioned and the utility of the clinical trial itself may be jeopardized, which could result in the delay or rejection of any submitted marketing applications, or the data contained therein. Any such delay or rejection could prevent us from obtaining marketing authorization or clearance and commercializing any of our product candidates. Clinical trials are expensive, time-consuming, difficult to design and implement, and have an uncertain outcome. Further, we may encounter substantial delays in our clinical trials. Clinical testing is difficult to design and implement, can take many years, can be expensive and carries uncertain outcomes. The results of preclinical studies and clinical trials of our products conducted to date and ongoing or future studies and trials of our current, planned or future products or product candidates may not be predictive of the results of later clinical trials, and interim results of a clinical trial do not necessarily predict final results. The data and results from our clinical trials does not ensure that we will achieve similar results in future clinical trials. In addition, preclinical and clinical data are often susceptible to various interpretations and analyses, and many companies that have believed their products performed satisfactorily in preclinical studies and earlier clinical trials have nonetheless failed to replicate results in later clinical trials, or have viewed such data in different ways than regulators do. Product candidates in later stages of clinical trials may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy despite having progressed through nonclinical studies and earlier clinical trials. Failure can occur at any stage of clinical testing. Our clinical studies may produce negative or inconclusive results, and we may decide, or regulators may require us, to conduct additional clinical and nonclinical testing in addition to those we have planned. Moreover, any delays in conducting clinical trials could materially affect our development costs and delay marketing authorization or clearance of our product modifications and product candidates, including our efforts to develop the iLet for the treatment of T1D using both insulin and glucagon, or for any other indication we may pursue, the patch pump, or any other product candidate. We do not know whether clinical trials will begin on time, will need to be redesigned, will be subject to delay, will be halted due to safety or other concerns, or will be completed on schedule, if at all. A clinical trial can be delayed for a variety of reasons, including: • we may be required to submit an IDE application or IND to the FDA, which must become effective prior to commencing certain human clinical trials of medical devices and drugs, respectively, and the FDA may reject our IDE or IND and notify us that we may not begin clinical trials, or place restrictions on the conduct of such trials; • regulators may disagree as to the design or implementation of our clinical trials; • delays or failures in obtaining the required allowance, clearance, approval or authorization to commence a trial because of safety concerns; 55 • delays or failures in obtaining components of our products and manufacturing sufficient quantities for use in clinical trials; • delays or failures in reaching agreement on acceptable terms with prospective study sites or other CROs; • delays or failures in obtaining approval of the clinical trial protocol from an institutional review board (IRB), to conduct a clinical trial at a prospective study site; • delays in recruiting or enrolling participants for clinical trials; • failure of a clinical trial or clinical investigators to be in compliance with GCPs; • unforeseen safety issues; • malfunctioning of devices; • inability to monitor subjects adequately during or after treatment; • difficulty monitoring multiple trial sites; • the FDA requiring alterations to any of the study designs, our nonclinical strategy or our manufacturing plans; • failure of third-party clinical trial sponsors conducting studies of our products or clinical trial vendors to satisfy their contractual duties, comply with regulations, or meet expected deadlines; and • determination by regulators that the design of a clinical trial is not adequate. Any of these occurrences may significantly harm our business, financial condition and prospects. In addition, many 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 marketing authorization or clearance. Patient enrollment in clinical trials and completion of patient follow up depend on many factors, including the size of the patient population, the nature of the trial protocol, the proximity of patients to clinical sites, the eligibility criteria for the clinical trial, patient compliance, 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 treatments that may be authorized for the indications we are investigating. For example, patients may be discouraged from enrolling in our clinical trials if the trial protocol requires them to undergo extensive post treatment procedures or follow up to assess the safety and efficacy of a product candidate, or they may be persuaded to participate in contemporaneous clinical trials of a competitor’s product candidate. In addition, patients participating in our clinical trials may drop out before completion of the trial or experience adverse medical events unrelated to our product candidate. Delays in patient enrollment or failure of patients to continue to participate in a clinical trial may delay commencement or completion of the clinical trial, cause an increase in the costs of the clinical trial and delays, or result in the failure of the clinical trial. Clinical trials may also be delayed or terminated as a result of ambiguous or negative interim results. In addition, a clinical trial may be suspended or terminated by the trial sponsor, the FDA, the IRBs that are overseeing a trial, or a data safety monitoring board overseeing the clinical trial at issue, or other regulatory authorities due to a number of factors, including: • failure to conduct the clinical trial in accordance with regulatory requirements or the clinical protocols; • inspection of the clinical trial operations or trial sites by the FDA or other regulatory authorities; • unforeseen safety issues, including adverse events, or lack of effectiveness; and • lack of adequate funding to continue the clinical trial. Clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with the laws and regulations of the FDA and other applicable regulatory authorities’ legal requirements, regulations or guidelines, and are subject to oversight by these governmental agencies and IRBs at the medical institutions where the clinical trials are conducted. In addition, clinical trials must be conducted with supplies of our devices and drugs produced under current good manufacturing 56 practices (cGMPs). Furthermore, we rely on CROs, and clinical trial sites to ensure the proper 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 medical institutions and CROs to conduct our clinical trials in compliance with GCP requirements. To the extent our collaborators or the CROs fail to enroll participants for our clinical trials, fail to conduct the study to GCP standards or are delayed for a significant time in the execution of trials, including achieving full enrollment, we may be affected by increased costs, program delays or both. In addition, conducting clinical trials in various countries may subject us to further delays and expenses as a result of increased shipment costs, additional regulatory requirements and the engagement of non U.S. CROs and other third party contractors, as well as expose us to risks associated with clinical investigators who are unknown to the FDA, and different standards of diagnosis, screening and medical care. If we are required to conduct additional clinical trials or other testing beyond those that we currently contemplate, if we are unable to successfully complete clinical trials or other testing, if the results of these trials or tests are not positive or are not as positive as we expect or if there are safety concerns, our business and results of operations may be adversely affected and we may incur significant additional costs. Interim, “top-line” and preliminary data from our clinical trials that we announce or publish from time to time may change as more patient data become available and are subject to audit and verification procedures that could result in material changes in the final data. From time to time, we may publicly disclose interim, top-line or preliminary data from our clinical trials, which is based on a preliminary analysis of then-available data, and the results and related findings and conclusions are subject to change following a more comprehensive review of the data related to the particular trial. We also make assumptions, estimations, calculations and conclusions as part of our analyses of data, and we may not have received or had the opportunity to fully and carefully evaluate all data. As a result, the interim, top-line or preliminary results that we report may differ from future results of the same trial, or different conclusions or considerations may qualify such results, once additional data have been received and fully evaluated. Interim, top-line or preliminary data also remain subject to audit and verification procedures that may result in the final data being materially different from the interim, top-line or preliminary data we previously announced. As a result, interim, top-line and preliminary data should be viewed with caution until the final data are available. In particular, we may disclose interim data from our preclinical studies and clinical trials. Interim data from clinical trials that we may complete 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. Adverse differences between interim data and final data could significantly harm our business prospects. Further, disclosure of interim data by us or by our competitors could result in volatility in the price of our common stock. Further, others, including regulatory authorities, may not accept or agree with our assumptions, estimates, calculations, conclusions or analyses or may interpret or weigh the importance of data differently, which could impact the value of the particular program, or the approvability or potential for commercialization of the particular product candidate. In addition, the information we choose to publicly disclose regarding a particular study or clinical trial is based on what is typically extensive information, and you or others may not agree with what we determine is material or otherwise appropriate information to include in our disclosure. If the interim, top-line or preliminary data that we report differ from actual results, or if others, including regulatory authorities, disagree with the conclusions reached, our ability to obtain approval for, and commercialize, our product candidates may be harmed, which could harm our business, operating results, prospects or financial condition. Use of our commercial or development-stage products may cause adverse events or undesirable side effects or present other safety concerns which may cause us to suspend or discontinue clinical trials, delay or prevent marketing authorization, limit the commercial profile of labeling for any product that has received marketing authorization, or result in significant negative consequences following marketing authorization. The use of the iLet and any of our product candidates could be associated with adverse events or serious adverse events, which can vary in severity from minor reactions to death and in frequency from infrequent to prevalent. Results of our clinical trials could reveal a high and unacceptable severity and prevalence of side effects or unexpected characteristics associated with our products and product candidates. Undesirable side effects, whether observed in clinical trials or in connection with the commercial use of our products, could also affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled patients to complete the trial or result in potential product liability claims. Any 57 of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly. The risks are associated with hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia. We report all severe hypoglycemia and all DKA events that we are aware of. Our rates of severe hypoglycemia and DKA are similar to those reported for other AID systems currently on the market and to the rates that were observed in the investigator-initiated iLet Bionic Pancreas Pivotal Trial. Unacceptable safety concerns caused by our commercial or development-stage products could cause us or regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay, or halt clinical trials and could result in a more restrictive label, or the delay or denial of required marketing authorizations or clearances. In addition, if we, or others, discover safety concerns with our cleared iLet, or for any other product we may develop and for which we may obtain marketing authorization, that were not previously identified, a number of potentially significant negative consequences could result, including: • regulatory authorities may seek to reclassify a 510(k)-cleared device, potentially triggering the need for a PMA submission or de novo request, withdraw marketing authorizations or clearances, seize the product, or seek an injunction against its manufacture or distribution; • we, or any future collaborators, may be required to recall the product, change the way such product is administered to or used by patients or conduct additional clinical trials; • additional restrictions may be imposed on the marketing of, or the manufacturing processes for, the particular product; • regulatory authorities may require additional warnings on the label, such as a “black box” warning or impose distribution or use restrictions; • we, or any future collaborators, may be required to issue safety alerts or other mandatory communications to physicians and patients; • we, or any future collaborators, may be subject to fines, injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties; • we, or any future collaborators, could be sued and held liable for harm caused to patients; • the product may become less competitive; • our reputation may suffer; and • we could face decreased demand for our products as a result of PWD, caregivers and HCPs losing confidence in our products. Any of the foregoing could prevent us from achieving and/or maintaining market acceptance of our products, which would significantly harm our business, results of operations and prospects, and could adversely impact our financial condition, results of operations or the market price of our common shares. We are developing our iLet in combination with other therapies and devices, which requires additional development time and exposes us to additional risks. The ability to obtain marketing authorization and to commercialize our iLet in its bihormonal system requires FDA approval of a glucagon product for chronic use and to obtain marketing authorization of the bihormonal system setting of our iLet. In May 2024, we entered into an exclusive collaboration and license agreement with Xeris to facilitate development of a dual-hormone pump for individuals with T1D, whereby we will develop a glucagon product utilizing Xeris’ XeriSol technology for use in our iLet in its bihormonal system. In September 2025, we completed the PK-PD Trial in Canada. We believe that the results from the PK-PD Trial are supportive of the continued development of our glucagon product candidate for use in our bihormonal system of the iLet. We are highly dependent on the approval of such glucagon product to be able to successfully commercialize our iLet in its bihormonal system for the treatment of T1D, if authorized for marketing by the FDA. 58 We have also designed and received clearance of our iLet for use with prefilled insulin cartridges with multiple, commonly dosed analog insulins. Even with these clearances, we continue to be subject to the risks that the FDA or similar foreign regulatory authorities could revoke approval of the drug therapy used in combination with our iLet or that safety, effectiveness, manufacturing or supply issues could arise with these existing therapies. This could result in our own products being removed from the market or being less successful commercially. Similarly, we will seek clearance of our iLet for use with select FDA-cleared iCGM models that are compatible with our iLet. Use of the iLet requires the independent purchase of a compatible third-party iCGM to provide real-time data to the iLet user. Currently, the only iCGM models that are compatible with our iLet are DexCom’s G6 and G7 iCGM devices and Abbott’s FreeStyle Libre 3 Plus CGM sensor. Although we are actively working to expand the compatibility of our iLet with other iCGM models, there is no assurance we will be successful in our efforts. This exposes us to similar risk in the event the DexCom G7, Abbott’s FreeStyle Libre 3 Plus, or any other marketed iCGM device that may be compatible with our iLet in the future, has its marketing authorization revoked or encounters other difficulties which could negatively affect the public’s perception and use of such product and have a corresponding adverse effect on the use and public perception of the iLet. Furthermore, our agreements with certain iCGM manufacturers do not require such iCGM manufacturers to indefinitely support compatibility of their older generation iCGM devices with our iLet as they introduce new generations. As such, PWD may be unwilling to buy or continue to use our iLet if they are unwilling or unable to purchase newer generations of iCGM devices as they are developed and commercialized. If such difficulties occur with the iCGM devices with which the iLet is integrated or future generations of iCGM devices at a time when our iLet is not compatible with any other iCGM devices, or if any such compatible devices are or are perceived to be inferior to such iCGM devices, sales of the iLet would be adversely affected. We have conducted, and may conduct additional, clinical trials for our glucagon product candidate outside the United States and the FDA may not accept data from such trials. We have conducted a clinical trial of our glucagon product candidate in Canada and we may conduct additional clinical trials outside the United States. Although the FDA may accept data from clinical trials conducted outside the United States, acceptance of such trial data by the FDA is subject to certain conditions. For example, the clinical trial must be conducted in accordance with GCPs requirements and the FDA must be able to validate the data from the clinical trial through an onsite inspection if it deems such inspection necessary. Where data from foreign clinical trials are intended to serve as the sole basis for marketing approval in the United States, the FDA will not approve the application on the basis of foreign data alone unless those data are applicable to the U.S. population and U.S. medical practice, the clinical trials were performed by clinical investigators of recognized competence, and the data are considered valid without the need for an on-site inspection by the FDA or, if the FDA considers such an inspection to be necessary, the FDA is able to validate the data through an on-site inspection or other appropriate means. In addition, such clinical trials would be subject to the applicable local laws of the foreign jurisdictions where the clinical trials are conducted. There can be no assurance the FDA will accept data from clinical trials conducted outside of the United States. If the FDA does not accept any such data, it would likely result in the need for additional clinical trials, which would be costly and time-consuming and delay aspects of our development plan. In addition, the conduct of clinical trials outside the United States could have a significant impact on us. Risks inherent in conducting international clinical trials include: • foreign regulatory requirements that could burden or limit our ability to conduct our clinical trials; • difficulties staffing and managing foreign operations; • compliance with legal requirements applicable to privacy, data protection, information security and other matters; • compliance with tax, employment, immigration and labor laws for employees living or traveling abroad; • foreign taxes, including value-added tax, withholding and payroll taxes; • administrative burdens of conducting clinical trials under multiple foreign regulatory schema; 59 • foreign exchange fluctuations; • manufacturing, customs, shipment and storage requirements; • impact of geopolitical events or a public health crisis on our ability to produce our product candidates and conduct clinical trials in foreign countries; • potential liability under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, as amended, or comparable foreign regulations; and • diminished protection of intellectual property in some countries. If the FDA does not conclude that our glucagon product candidate satisfies the requirements for the 505(b)(2) regulatory approval pathway, or if the requirements for approval of our glucagon product candidate under Section 505(b)(2) are not as we expect, the approval pathway for our glucagon product candidate will likely take significantly longer, cost significantly more and encounter significantly greater complications and risks than anticipated, and in any case may not be successful. We intend to seek FDA approval through the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway for our glucagon product candidate that we plan to develop for use with our development of a bihormonal system of the iLet for the treatment of T1D, as described in this Annual Report. The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, also known as the Hatch-Waxman Act, added Section 505(b)(2) to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). Section 505(b)(2) permits the filing of an NDA where at least some of the information required for approval comes from studies that were not conducted by or for the applicant. If the FDA does not allow us to pursue the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway for our glucagon product candidate as anticipated, we may need to conduct additional clinical trials, provide additional data and information and meet additional standards for regulatory approval. If this were to occur, the time and financial resources required to obtain FDA approval would likely substantially increase. Moreover, the inability to pursue the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway could result in new competitive products reaching the market faster than our glucagon product candidate, which could materially adversely impact our competitive position and prospects. Even if we are allowed to pursue the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway, we cannot assure you that we will receive the requisite or timely approvals for commercialization of such product candidate. In addition, it is possible that third parties may file citizens’ petitions with the FDA in an attempt to persuade the FDA that our glucagon product candidate, or the clinical studies that we submit in our applications seeking approval, contain deficiencies. Such actions by our competitors could delay or even prevent the FDA from approving any NDA that we submit under Section 505(b)(2), which would substantially harm our business and could have a material adverse effect on our ability to pursue marketing authorization for the bihormonal system of our iLet. 60 Changes in funding for the FDA and other government agencies could hinder their ability to hire and retain key leadership and other personnel, or otherwise prevent new products from being developed, authorized or commercialized in a timely manner, which could negatively impact our business. The ability of the FDA to review and authorize the sale of new products can be affected by a variety of factors, including government budget and funding levels; its ability to hire and retain key personnel and accept the payment of user fees; statutory, regulatory, and policy changes; and other events that may otherwise affect the FDA’s ability to perform routine functions. Average review times at the FDA have fluctuated in recent years as a result. In addition, government funding of other government agencies that fund research and development activities is subject to the political process, including executive and congressional priorities, the impacts of which are inherently fluid and unpredictable. Disruptions at the FDA and other agencies may also slow the time necessary for new products to be reviewed and/or authorized for marketing by necessary government agencies, which would adversely affect our business. For example, over the last several years, the U.S. government has shut down several times and certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA, have had to furlough critical FDA employees and stop critical activities. More recently, such agencies, including the FDA, have conducted layoffs and may, from time to time, conduct additional layoffs. If a prolonged government shutdown or significant layoffs occur, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. In addition, the current administration has proposed substantial reductions in force at various government agencies that, if applied to the FDA in a material way, could significantly reduce the FDA’s capacity to perform its functions in a manner consistent with its past practices and could negatively impact our business. Our future growth depends on the continued success, enhancement, and expanded use of the iLet. If we fail to advance the iLet platform or expand its indications, our business may be adversely affected. It is important to our business and our long-term growth that we continue to develop and enhance the iLet, including in a bihormonal system. For example, we have completed over 20 pre-pivotal trials testing the iLet algorithms in order to enhance its learning capabilities. We intend to continue to invest in research and development activities focused on improvements and enhancements to the iLet. Additionally, we intend to pursue marketing authorization or clearance for other indications in the United States in the future. Developing enhancements to the iLet can be expensive and time-consuming and could divert management’s attention away from the commercialization of the iLet and divert financial resources from other operations. The success of any new product enhancements, including marketing authorization or clearance of the iLet for additional indications, will depend on several factors, including our ability to: • properly identify and anticipate physician and patient needs, and develop enhancements to meet those needs; • demonstrate, if required, the safety and effectiveness of new enhancements to the iLet, including additional indications, with data from preclinical studies and clinical trials; • obtain in a timely manner the necessary marketing authorization or clearance for new enhancements to the iLet, product modifications or expanded indications; • avoid infringing upon the intellectual property rights of third parties; • comply with all applicable laws and regulations, including those governing the marketing of new devices or modified products; • develop an effective and dedicated sales and marketing team to provide adequate education and training to potential users of the iLet; and • receive adequate coverage and reimbursement for procedures performed with the iLet. While we have commercialized the iLet as an automated insulin dosing system cleared for the treatment of T1D in adults and children six years of age and older, we may not be successful in expanding the configurations or indications and developing and commercializing new product enhancements. This could negatively impact our 61 ability to achieve and maintain market share and increase our revenue, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Maintaining regulatory clearance for our iLet as an automated insulin dosing system for the treatment of T1D and obtaining and maintaining marketing authorization or clearance for a bihormonal system for T1D or other indication in one jurisdiction does not mean that we will be successful in obtaining marketing authorization of the iLet in any configuration or indication in other jurisdictions. Maintaining regulatory clearance for our iLet as an automated insulin dosing system for the treatment of T1D and obtaining and maintaining marketing authorization or clearance for a bihormonal system for T1D or other indication in one jurisdiction does not mean that we will be successful in obtaining or maintaining marketing authorization of the iLet in any configuration or indication in any other jurisdiction. For example, even if the FDA grants marketing authorization or clearance, this does not mean that comparable regulatory authorities in foreign jurisdictions would similarly grant marketing authorization or clearance in those countries. Procedures for obtaining marketing authorization or clearance vary among jurisdictions and can involve requirements and administrative review periods different from, and greater than, those in the United States, including additional preclinical studies or clinical trials, as clinical trials conducted in one jurisdiction may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions. In many jurisdictions outside the United States, products must be approved for reimbursement before they can be approved for sale in that jurisdiction. In some cases, the price that we intend to charge for our products is also subject to approval. Obtaining foreign marketing authorization or clearance and compliance with foreign regulatory requirements could result in significant delays, difficulties and costs for us and could delay or prevent the introduction of our products in certain countries. If we fail to comply with the regulatory requirements in international markets and/or receive applicable marketing authorizations or clearances, our target market will be reduced and our ability to realize the full market potential of our products will be harmed. Risks Related to Reimbursement and Pricing Coverage and reimbursement may be limited or unavailable in certain market segments for our iLet, which could make it difficult for us to sell any investigational devices profitably. The success of our iLet for the treatment of T1D depends on the availability of adequate coverage and reimbursement from third-party payors. In the United States and markets in other countries, 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. Adequate coverage and reimbursement from governmental healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and commercial payors are critical to new device acceptance. Government authorities and third-party payors, such as private health insurers and health maintenance organizations, decide which drugs and devices they will cover and the amount of reimbursement. Coverage may be more limited than the purposes for which the drug or device is approved by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. In the United States, private health insurers and other third-party payors in the U.S. often follow the coverage and reimbursement policies of government payors, including the Medicare or Medicaid programs. The CMS, an agency within the HHS that administers the Medicare program, decides whether and to what extent a new medicine or device will be covered and reimbursed under Medicare. However, no uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for products exists among third-party payors. Coverage and reimbursement by a third-party payor may depend upon a number of factors, including the third-party payor’s determination that use of a product is: • a covered benefit under its health plan; • safe, effective and medically necessary; • appropriate for the specific patient; • cost-effective; and • neither experimental nor investigational. 62 Obtaining coverage and reimbursement approval of a product from a government or other third-party payor is a time-consuming and costly process that could require us to provide to each payor supporting scientific, clinical and cost-effectiveness data for the use of our products on a payor-by-payor basis, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be obtained. Even if we obtain coverage for our iLet, in either its cleared use as a treatment for T1D adults and children six years of age and older, or other indications for which we may obtain marketing authorization or clearance in the future, the resulting reimbursement payment rates might not be adequate for us to maintain pricing sufficient to achieve or sustain profitability or may require co-payments that patients find unacceptably high. Patients are unlikely to use our devices that have received marketing authorization or clearance unless coverage is provided and reimbursement is adequate to cover a significant portion of the cost of our devices. There is a risk that coverage and reimbursement rates may be inadequate for us to achieve profitability. There is significant uncertainty related to insurance coverage and reimbursement of products that are newly authorized for marketing. It is difficult to predict at this time what third-party payors will decide with respect to the coverage and reimbursement. We are pursuing a multi-channel coverage and reimbursement strategy. If covered, the iLet is currently reimbursed through traditional medical benefit channels. As a medical device company, reimbursement from government and/or commercial third-party healthcare payors, including Medicare and Medicaid, is an important element of our success. CMS provides coverage for our product as DME eligible for coverage under Medicare Part B. Coverage criteria for DME is determined by CMS under national coverage determinations as well as by local Medicare Administrative Contractors under local coverage determinations. Therefore, Medicare reimbursement for the iLet is subject to various coverage conditions. We are working with payors to establish coverage and reimbursement under both the DME and PBP channels as we believe that this strategy increases access and optimizes the potential for better medical outcomes for PWD through the adoption of the iLet. The commercial opportunity in the PBP channel may be limited unless a substantial portion of the sales price for the iLet is covered by third-party payors, including private insurance companies, health maintenance organizations, preferred provider organizations, federal and state government healthcare agencies, intermediaries, Medicare, Medicaid and other managed care providers. Medicare Part D plan sponsors may provide coverage for the iLet under the Medicare Part D prescription drug program, which requires negotiating with third-party payors in order to provide iLet through the PBP channel in the United States. These payor contracts can generally be terminated by the third-party payor without cause. If our efforts to enter into additional contracts with intermediaries and third-party payors are not successful, our ability to offer iLet through the PBP channel may be limited. Moreover, increasing efforts by governmental and third-party payors in the United States and abroad to cap or reduce healthcare costs may cause such organizations to limit both coverage and the level of reimbursement for newly authorized products and, as a result, they may not cover or provide adequate payment for our commercialized devices. There has been increasing legislative and enforcement interest in the United States with respect to specialty drug pricing practices. Specifically, there have been several recent Congressional inquiries and proposed federal and state legislation 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. We may experience pricing pressures in connection with the sale of any of our products due to the shift toward value-based healthcare, the increasing influence of health maintenance organizations, cost containment initiatives and legislative changes, particularly in light of the change of administration. If we are not able to successfully implement our multi-channel coverage and reimbursement strategy, secure or retain adequate coverage or reimbursement for the iLet and our product candidates, if authorized, by third-party payors, or face delays in processing approvals by those payors, our business, financial condition and operating results could be adversely affected. 63 If we experience pricing pressure for our products and we are unable to reduce our expenses, including the per unit cost of producing our products, there may be a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. We may experience pricing pressure or decreasing prices for our products as a result of actions or negotiations by managed care organizations and other third-party payors, increased market power of payors, increased competition within our industry, and increased competition among suppliers, including manufacturing services providers, as the medical device and biotechnology industries consolidate, and increased volatility due to international trade policies, including tariffs, sanctions and trade barriers. If the prices for our products decrease and we are unable to reduce our expenses, including the cost of sourcing materials, logistics and the cost to manufacture our products, our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows will be adversely affected. Healthcare reform measures could hinder or prevent the commercial success of our solutions. The United States and some foreign jurisdictions have enacted or are considering a number of health reform measures to change the healthcare system in ways that could affect our ability to sell our products profitably. Among policy makers and payors in the United States and elsewhere, there is significant interest in promoting changes in healthcare systems with the stated goals of containing healthcare costs, improving quality or expanding access. The implementation of the ACA in the United States, for example, has changed healthcare financing and delivery by both governmental and private insurers substantially, and affected medical device manufacturers significantly. There have been executive, judicial and congressional challenges, and a number of amendments that have impacted certain aspects of the ACA. For example, on August 16, 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (the IRA) was signed into law, which among other things, extends enhanced subsidies for individuals purchasing health insurance coverage in ACA marketplaces through plan year 2025. Congress is considering proposed legislation intended to further reduce healthcare costs with alternatives to replace the expiring ACA subsidies. It is possible that the ACA and the IRA will be subject to additional challenges and health reform measures by the second Trump administration in the future. In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted. For example, on July 4, 2025, the annual reconciliation bill, the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" (OBBBA) was signed into law, which is expected to reduce Medicaid spending and enrollment by implementing work requirements for some beneficiaries, capping state-directed payments, reducing federal funding, and limiting provider taxes used to fund the program. The OBBBA also narrows access to the ACA marketplace exchange enrollment and declines to extend the ACA enhanced advanced premium tax credits, set to expire at the end of 2025, which, among other provisions in the law, are anticipated to reduce the number of Americans with health insurance. We believe that there will continue to be proposals by legislators at both the federal and state levels, regulators and third-party payors to reduce costs while expanding individual healthcare benefits, particularly in light of the change of administration. For example, the current Trump administration is pursuing policies to reduce regulations and expenditures across government including at HHS, the FDA, CMS and related agencies. These actions include, for example, (1) directives to reduce agency workforce and cut programs; (2) eliminating the Biden administration’s executive order that directed HHS to establish an AI task force and develop a strategic plan; and (3) directing certain federal agencies to enforce existing law regarding hospital and price plan price transparency by standardizing prices across hospitals and health plans. It is possible that certain of these changes could impose additional limitations on the rates we will be able to charge for our current and future products or the amounts of reimbursement available for our current and future products from governmental agencies or third-party payors. Current and future healthcare reform legislation and policies could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition. Uncertainty related to CMS reimbursement policies could adversely affect our pricing and revenue. CMS regularly evaluates and updates reimbursement frameworks for medical devices, and these changes can directly affect both our revenue and the broader market. On December 2, 2025, CMS issued a final rule that updates Medicare payment policies and rates for home health agencies under the Home Health Prospective Payment System Proposed Rule for calendar year 2026, which includes provisions that materially alter reimbursement policies for insulin pumps supplied to Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries, including bundling payment for certain continuous 64 glucose monitors, insulin infusion pumps, and accessories on a monthly rental basis, among other changes. Because CMS reimbursement policies often serve as a benchmark for other government and commercial payors, adoption of this rule in its proposed or modified form could increase uncertainty around pricing, limit coverage or reimbursement levels for our products, and reduce utilization. Any such outcomes could negatively impact demand for our products, put downward pressure on pricing, and adversely affect our revenue and results of operations. Risks Related to Manufacturing and Our Reliance on Third Parties We are substantially dependent on various third parties for the continued development of our iLet and product candidates. Certain of our current and future collaborators may control aspects of our clinical trials, which could result in delays or other obstacles in the development of the investigational devices or other development-stage candidates, such as glucagon, we develop. If our collaborations are terminated or are not successful, our ability to further enhance our iLet and product candidates may be adversely affected. Our iLet is currently only compatible with DexCom’s G6 and G7 iCGM devices and Abbott’s FreeStyle Libre 3 Plus CGM sensor. Although we are actively working to expand the compatibility of our iLet with other iCGM models, there is no assurance we will be successful in our efforts. Our development agreement with DexCom provides us with non-exclusive licenses to integrate the currently available generation of DexCom’s iCGM technology with our iLet. Under our current commercialization agreement with DexCom, we and DexCom have agreed to commercialize an AID system comprised of our iLet and DexCom’s G6 or G7 iCGM. We also have a development and commercialization agreement with Abbott, under which we and Abbott have agreed to commercialize an AID system comprised of our iLet and Abbott’s iCGM. These agreements may be terminated by the other party upon certain conditions. If our existing agreements are terminated and/or DexCom or Abbott enter into an exclusive partnership with one of our competitors, our ability to commercialize the iLet would be disrupted, which would have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition and results of operations, negatively impact our ability to compete and cause the price of our common stock to decline. Additionally, we entered into an exclusive collaboration and license agreement with Xeris to facilitate the development of a dual-hormone pump for PWD, whereby Xeris will develop a glucagon drug product candidate utilizing Xeris’ XeriSol technology for use in our iLet in its bihormonal system (if such configuration is authorized for marketing). We will be responsible for obtaining regulatory approval of such glucagon product candidate. We also entered into collaboration agreements with certain third-party producers of insulin, pursuant to which we have agreed to work with such parties to support the development of the iLet by researching and incorporating certain proprietary insulins in our iLet. Although we have been successful in obtaining clearance of our iLet with the use of these insulins, we are dependent upon the continued cooperation and collaboration of these parties. If any of these agreements are terminated, we would be required to purchase the applicable party’s approved insulin and fill empty insulin cartridges fitted for the iLet to evaluate such party’s insulin in trials, which would increase our costs and could delay the timing of trials. Although there are other producers of insulin, there is no assurance we could enter into agreements with them on commercially reasonable terms, if at all, and receive marketing authorizations or clearances for the use of their insulin in the iLet. Our current collaboration agreements pose, and potential future collaborations involving our iLet may pose, the following risks to us: • we may be required to assume substantial actual or contingent liabilities; • we may not be able to control the amount and timing of resources that our strategic collaborators devote to the development and commercialization of our products; • collaborators could independently develop, or develop with third parties, products that compete directly or indirectly with our iLet; • collaborators may not properly enforce, maintain or defend our intellectual property rights or may use our proprietary information in a way that gives rise to actual or threatened litigation; • disputes may arise between a collaborator and us that cause the delay or termination of the research, development or commercialization of the investigational device, or that result in costly litigation or arbitration that diverts management attention and resources; • collaborators may experience financial difficulties; 65 • our collaborators may experience legal difficulties with respect to FDA regulations or regulations of other government agencies that jeopardize their ability to continue supporting the development and commercialization of our products; • collaborators could terminate our existing or future agreements or allow them to expire, which would delay the development and may increase the cost of developing our products; • if a present or future collaborator of ours were to be involved in a business combination, the continued pursuit and emphasis on our product development or commercialization program under such collaboration could be delayed, diminished or terminated; and • collaboration agreements may restrict our right to independently pursue new investigational devices. If we enter into collaboration agreements and strategic partnerships or license our intellectual property, products or businesses, we may not be able to realize the benefit of such transactions if we are unable to successfully integrate them with our existing operations, which could delay our timelines or otherwise adversely affect our business. We also cannot be certain that, following a strategic transaction or license, we will achieve the revenue or specific net income that justifies such transaction. Any delays in entering into new collaborations or strategic partnership agreements related to any investigational device or other development-stage product we develop could delay the development and commercialization of our investigational devices or other development-stage products, which would harm our business prospects, financial condition and results of operations. We have limited experience manufacturing our products and, if we are unable to manufacture our products in high-quality commercial quantities successfully and consistently to meet demand, our growth will be limited. We have limited experience manufacturing our products. We currently manufacture our iLet and its accompanying ready-to-fill insulin cartridges at our single manufacturing facility in Irvine, California. To manufacture our products in the quantities that we believe will be required to meet the currently anticipated market demand beyond the next several years, we will need to increase manufacturing capacity, which will subject us to numerous risks related to our manufacturing capabilities, including: • quality or reliability defects in product components that we source from third-party suppliers, including the suppliers of our infusion sets, pump motors and cartridge connectors used in the iLet; • our inability to secure product components in a timely manner, in sufficient quantities and on commercially reasonable terms; • difficulty identifying and qualifying alternative suppliers for components in a timely manner; • implementing and maintaining acceptable quality systems while experiencing rapid growth; • our failure to increase production of products to meet demand; • our inability to modify production lines and expand manufacturing facilities to enable us to efficiently develop and manufacture new products or implement any necessary or desired changes in response to regulatory requirements; and • potential damage to or destruction of our manufacturing equipment or manufacturing facilities. As we continue the commercial production of our products and increase our manufacturing capacity, we may encounter quality issues that could result in product defects, errors or recalls. Since launching the iLet in May 2023, we have experienced manufacturing issues related to screen breakage. To resolve these issues, we improved the screen bonding and durability of the glass. While we believe we have remediated these issues, there is no assurance we will not encounter similar or other unanticipated issues in the future. Manufacturing delays related to quality control could negatively impact our ability to bring our products to market, harm our reputation and decrease our revenue. Any defects, errors or recalls could be expensive and generate negative publicity, which could impair our ability to market or sell our products, and adversely affect our results of operations. Following FDA clearance of the iLet as an automated insulin dosing system for the treatment of T1D in adults and children six years of age and older, we have had to invest additional resources in purchasing components, hiring 66 and training employees and enhancing our manufacturing processes and quality systems. We have also needed to increase our utilization of third parties to perform contracted manufacturing services for us, and have acquired additional custom designed equipment to support the expansion of our manufacturing capacity. If we fail to adequately meet commercial requirements while also maintain product quality standards, we may fail to maintain our regulatory clearance and efficiently manage costs, and our sales and operating margins could be negatively impacted, which would have an adverse impact on our financial condition and operating results. Further, since we perform all of our manufacturing activities at our single manufacturing facility in Irvine, California, our facilities, equipment and inventory would be costly to replace and could require substantial lead time to repair or replace. Our facilities may be harmed or rendered inoperable by natural or man-made disasters, including, but not limited to, earthquakes, flooding, fire and power outages, which may render it difficult or impossible for us to perform our research, development and commercialization activities for some period of time. The inability to perform those activities, combined with the time it may take to rebuild our inventory of finished product, may result in delays in meeting commercial demand and in conducting our clinical trials, the loss of customers or harm to our reputation. Although we possess insurance for damage to our property and the disruption of our business, this insurance may not be sufficient to cover all of our potential losses and this insurance may not continue to be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all. There may also be unforeseen occurrences that increase our costs, such as increased prices of the components of our products, changes to labor costs or less favorable terms with third-party suppliers. There can be no assurance that we will not encounter such problems in the future. Furthermore, when our current lease expires, we may be unable to renew our lease or find a new facility on commercially reasonable terms, or at all. If we were unable or unwilling to renew at the proposed rates, relocating our manufacturing facility would involve significant expense in connection with the movement and installation of key manufacturing equipment and any necessary recertification with regulatory bodies, and we cannot assure investors that such a move would not delay or otherwise adversely affect our manufacturing activities or operating results. If our manufacturing capabilities were impaired by our move, we may not be able to manufacture and ship our products in a timely manner, which would adversely impact our business, financial condition and results of operations. We obtain some of the components and subassemblies included in our iLet from single source suppliers, and the partial or complete loss of one or more of these suppliers could cause significant production delays, an inability to meet customer demand and a substantial loss in revenue. We rely on a number of suppliers who manufacture the components of the iLet. We have a supply agreement with Unomedical, an affiliate of ConvaTec Group Plc, for the production of infusion sets for our iLet, a contract manufacturing agreement with PMC SMART Solutions LLC (PMC) for the manufacture of our cartridge connectors, a supplier quality agreement with Maxon Precision Motors, Inc. (Maxon) for the supply of pump motors for our iLet and a supplier quality agreement with Matrix Plastic Products, Inc. (Matrix) for the supply of boards for our iLet. Unomedical, PMC, Maxon and Matrix are our main suppliers of infusion sets, cartridge connections, pump motors and boards, respectively. If any of Unomedical, PMC, Maxon or Matrix were to terminate its contract with us, or be unable to provide infusion sets, manufacture cartridge connectors, supply pump motors, or supply boards to us in the quantities ordered, we would need to identify and qualify a new supplier. Although there are other manufacturers of infusion sets, cartridge connectors and pump motors, we may not be able to identify a new manufacturer or enter into a contract with terms substantially the same as our current agreement in a timely manner, if at all. Any disruption in the supply of our infusion sets, cartridge connectors or pump motors, or any other key component of the iLet, could have a materially adverse impact on our clinical trials and commercial sales. We do not currently have long-term supply agreements with the suppliers of most of our components, and, in most cases, we purchase these components on a purchase order basis. Although we are in active discussions to enter into long-term supply agreements for certain components, there is no assurance we will be able to enter into such agreements on commercially reasonable terms in a timely manner, if at all. In some other cases, where we do have agreements in place, our agreements with our suppliers can be terminated by either party upon short notice. Our suppliers may encounter problems during manufacturing due to a variety of reasons, including failure to follow specific protocols and procedures, failure to comply with applicable regulations and equipment malfunction and 67 environmental factors, any of which could delay or impede their ability to meet our demand. Our reliance on these third-party suppliers also subjects us to other risks that could harm our business, including: • we are not a major customer of many of our suppliers, and these suppliers may therefore give other customers’ needs higher priority than ours; • we may not be able to obtain adequate supply in a timely manner or on commercially reasonable terms; • our suppliers, especially new suppliers, may make errors in manufacturing components that could negatively affect the effectiveness or safety of the iLet or cause delays in shipment or in the conduct of our clinical trials; • we may have difficulty locating and qualifying alternative suppliers for our single source supplies; • switching components may require product redesign, and certain product redesigns or changes to the iLet or any other devices for which we receive marketing authorization or clearance may require additional regulatory applications or approvals; • our suppliers manufacture products for a range of customers, and fluctuations in demand for the products these suppliers manufacture for others may affect their ability to deliver components to us in a timely manner; and • we may not be able to quickly establish additional or replacement suppliers, particularly for our single source components. We generally use a small number of suppliers for our components and products, some of which are located outside the United States, including Switzerland, Mexico, China and Taiwan. Our dependence on a limited number of suppliers exposes us to risks, including limited control over costs, including tariffs, availability, quality and delivery schedules. Moreover, in some cases we do not have long-standing relationships with our manufacturers and may not be able to convince suppliers to continue to make components available to us unless there is demand for such components from their other customers. As a result, there is a risk that certain components could be discontinued and no longer available to us at acceptable prices, or at all. We have in the past been, and we may in the future be, required to make significant “last time” purchases of component inventories that are being discontinued by the manufacturer to ensure supply continuity. If any one or more of our suppliers cease to provide us with sufficient quantities of components in a timely manner or on terms acceptable to us, we would have to seek alternative sources of supply. We are actively pursuing alternative suppliers of several existing components and qualifying new alternatives to existing select components, but there is no assurance that we will be able to identify alternative sources that meet our requirements and at comparable prices, or at all. Because of factors such as the proprietary nature of our products, our quality control standards and applicable regulatory requirements, we cannot quickly engage additional or replacement suppliers for some of our critical components. Failure of any of our suppliers to deliver products at the level our business requires could harm our reputation and limit our ability to meet our sales projections, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and operating results. We place orders with our suppliers using our forecasts of customer demand, which are based on a number of assumptions and estimates, in advance of purchase commitments from our customers. As a result, we incur inventory and manufacturing costs in advance of anticipated sales, which sales ultimately may not materialize or may be lower than expected. If we overestimate customer demand, we may experience higher inventory carrying costs and increased excess or obsolete inventory, which would negatively impact our results of operations. By the same token, if we underestimate future demand, we may be unable to meet future production requirements, or our inventory of critical materials may be below our targeted stocking levels. We may also have difficulty obtaining components from other suppliers that are acceptable to the FDA or other regulatory authorities and the failure of our suppliers to comply with regulatory requirements could expose us to regulatory action including warning letters, product recalls, termination or interruption of distribution, operating restrictions, product seizures, delays in obtaining marketing authorization or clearance for our product candidates, suspension or withdrawal of clearances or certification, fines, civil penalties, or criminal prosecution. Such a failure by our suppliers could also require us to cease using the components, seek alternative components or technologies, and modify our products to incorporate alternative components or technologies, which could necessitate additional 68 marketing authorizations or clearances. Any disruption of this nature, or any increased expenses associated with any such disruption, could negatively impact our ability to manufacture our products on a timely basis, in sufficient quantities, or at all, which could harm our commercialization efforts and have a material adverse impact on our operating results. Our iLet is complex in design and may contain defects that are not detected until use, which could increase our costs, including warranty costs, and reduce our revenue. If our iLet does not perform as expected or the reliability of the technology on which our products is based is questioned, our operating results, reputation and business will suffer. Our iLet is complex in design and involves a complex and precise manufacturing process. As a result of the technological complexity of our systems, changes in our or our suppliers’ manufacturing processes or the inadvertent use of defective materials by us or our suppliers could result in an adverse effect on our ability to achieve acceptable manufacturing yields and product reliability. To the extent that we do not achieve and maintain our projected yields or product reliability, our business, operating results, financial condition and customer relationships would be adversely affected. We provide warranties on our product sales, and reserves for estimated warranty costs are recorded during the period of sale. The determination of such reserves requires us to make estimates of failure rates and expected costs to repair or replace the products under warranty. If actual repair and replacement costs differ significantly from our estimates, adjustments to cost of sales may be required in future periods which could have an adverse effect on our results of operations. Our customers may discover defects in our products only after initial use. In addition, some of our products include components from other vendors, which may contain defects. As a result, should problems occur, it may be difficult to identify the source of the problem. If we are unable to identify and fix defects or other problems, we could experience, among other things: • loss of customers or orders; • increased costs of warranty expenses; • damage to our brand reputation; • failure to attract new customers; • diversion of development, engineering and manufacturing resources; • regulatory actions by governmental authorities; and • legal actions by our customers. Our reputation and the public image of our iLet and any modifications to the iLet or any other products that may receive marketing authorization or clearance in the future may be impaired if our products fail to perform as expected. If our products do not perform, or are perceived to not have performed, as expected or favorably in comparison to competitive products, our operating results, reputation and business will suffer, and we may also be subject to legal claims arising from product limitations, errors or inaccuracies. Any of the foregoing could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Although our products are tested prior to shipment, defects or errors could nonetheless occur. Our operating results depend on our ability to execute and, when necessary, improve our quality management strategy and systems and our ability to effectively train and maintain our employee base with respect to quality management. A failure of our quality control systems could result in problems with facility operations or preparation or provision of products. In each case, such problems could arise for a variety of reasons, including equipment malfunction, failure to follow specific protocols and procedures, problems with raw materials or environmental factors and damage to, or loss of, manufacturing operations. Existing and future warranties place us at the risk of incurring future repair and/or replacement costs. At the time revenue is recognized, we establish an accrual for estimated warranty expenses based on historical data and trends of product reliability and costs of repairing and replacing defective products. We exercise judgment in estimating the expected product warranty costs, using data such as the actual and projected product failure rates, estimated repair costs, freight, material, labor and overhead costs. While we believe that historical experience provides a reliable basis for estimating such warranty cost, unforeseen quality issues or component failure rates 69 could result in future costs in excess of such estimates, or alternatively, improved quality and reliability in our products, including our single-use products, could result in actual expenses that are below those currently estimated. As of December 31, 2025, we accrued approximately $3.2 million so far in expenses relating to product warranty accruals. Substantial amounts of warranty claims could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Even after any underlying concerns or problems are resolved, any lingering concerns in our target markets regarding our technology or any manufacturing defects or performance errors in our iLet could continue to result in lost revenue, delayed market acceptance, damage to our reputation and claims against us. Performance issues, service interruptions or price increases by our shipping carriers could negatively affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and harm our reputation and our customer relationships. Expedited, reliable shipping is essential to our operations. We rely heavily on providers of transport services for reliable and secure point-to-point transport of our iLet and cartridges to our customers and for tracking of these shipments. Should a carrier encounter delivery performance issues such as loss, damage or destruction of any systems, it would be costly to replace such systems in a timely manner and such occurrences may damage our reputation and lead to decreased demand for our solution and increased cost and expense to our business. In addition, any significant increase in shipping rates could adversely affect our operating margins and results of operations. Similarly, strikes, severe weather, natural disasters or other service interruptions affecting delivery services we use would adversely affect our ability to process orders on a timely basis. We may enter into collaborations, licensing arrangements, joint ventures, strategic alliances or partnerships with third parties that may not result in the development of commercially viable products or the generation of significant future revenues. In the ordinary course of our business, we may enter into collaborations, licensing arrangements, joint ventures, strategic alliances or partnerships to develop proposed products or technologies, pursue new markets, or protect our intellectual property assets. We may also elect to amend or modify similar agreements that we already have in place. Proposing, negotiating and implementing collaborations, licensing arrangements, joint ventures, strategic alliances or partnerships may be a lengthy and complex process, and may subject us to business risks. For example, other companies, including those with substantially greater financial, marketing, sales, technology or other business resources, may compete with us for these opportunities, or may be the counterparty in any such arrangements. We may not be able to identify or complete any such collaboration in a timely manner, on a cost-effective basis, on acceptable terms or at all. In addition, we may not realize the anticipated benefits of any such collaborations that we do identify and complete. In particular, these collaborations may not result in the development of products or technologies that achieve commercial success or result in positive financial results, or may otherwise fail to have the intended impact on our business. Additionally, we may not be in a position to exercise sole decision-making authority regarding a collaboration, licensing or other similar arrangement, which could create the potential risk of creating impasses on decisions. Further, our collaborators and business partners may have economic or business interests or goals that are, or that may become, inconsistent with our business interests or goals. It is possible that conflicts may arise with our collaborators and other business partners, such as conflicts concerning the achievement of performance milestones, or the interpretation of significant terms under any agreement, such as those related to financial obligations, termination rights or the ownership or control or other licenses of intellectual property rights. If any conflicts arise with our current or future collaborators, they may act in their self-interest, which may be adverse to our best interest, and they may breach their obligations to us. In addition, we have limited control over the amount and timing of resources that our current collaborators, such as DexCom and Abbott, or any future collaborators devote to our arrangement with them or our product candidates. Disputes between us and our current, future or potential collaborators may result in litigation or arbitration which would increase our expenses and divert the attention of our management. Further, these transactions and arrangements are contractual in nature and may be terminated or dissolved under the terms of the applicable agreements and, in such event, we may not continue to have rights to the products relating to such transaction or arrangement or may need to purchase such rights at a premium. If conflicts arise between us and our collaborators or strategic partners, these parties may act in a manner adverse to us and could limit our ability to implement our strategies. 70 If conflicts arise between our corporate or academic collaborators or strategic partners and us, the other party may act in a manner adverse to us and could limit our ability to implement our strategies. Our current or future collaborators or strategic partners, may develop, either alone or with others, products in related fields that are competitive with the products or potential products that are the subject of these collaborations. Competing products, either developed by the collaborators or strategic partners or to which the collaborators or strategic partners have rights, may result in the withdrawal of partner support for our investigational devices. Our current or future collaborators or strategic partners may preclude us from entering into collaborations with their competitors, fail to obtain timely regulatory approvals, terminate their agreements with us prematurely or fail to devote sufficient resources to the development and commercialization of products. Any of these developments could harm our product development efforts. We rely and will continue to rely on third parties to conduct clinical trials of our iLet, which means we do not have full control over the conduct of such trials. We have relied and will continue to rely on third parties, such as medical institutions, clinical investigators and contract laboratories, to conduct clinical trials of our iLet and any modifications thereto or new uses thereof or other development-stage products, and some of the clinical trials of our iLet conducted to date have been sponsored by third parties. Our iLet has been studied in a number of trials sponsored by third parties, such as the pivotal trial for the iLet that supported our 510(k) clearance, sponsored by the Jaeb Center for Health Research Foundation, and earlier trials for our iLet, sponsored by the Massachusetts General Hospital. Third party-sponsored clinical trials pose similar risks as those set forth elsewhere in this section relating to clinical trials initiated by us. While third-party trials may provide us with clinical data that can inform our future development strategy, we do not have full control over the protocols, administration or our products, or conduct of the trials. As a result, we are subject to risks associated with the way such trials are conducted, and there is no assurance the clinical data from any future third-party clinical trials will be accepted by the FDA or other comparable regulatory authorities to support our submissions for marketing authorization. Third parties sponsoring such clinical trials may not perform their responsibilities for the clinical trials on our anticipated schedule or consistent with clinical trial protocols or applicable regulations. Further, any data integrity issues or patient safety issues arising out of any of these trials would be beyond our control yet could adversely affect our reputation and damage the clinical and commercial prospects for our iLet. Additional risks include difficulties or delays in communicating with investigators or administrators, procedural delays and other timing issues and difficulties or differences in interpreting data. Third parties may design clinical trials with clinical endpoints that are more difficult to achieve, or in other ways that increase the risk of negative clinical trial results compared to clinical trials that we may design on our own. As a result, our lack of control over the design, conduct and timing of, and communications with the FDA regarding such trials expose us to additional risks and uncertainties, many of which are outside our control, and the occurrence of which could adversely affect the prospects for our iLet. We and third-party collaborators are required to comply with all applicable regulations governing clinical research, including GCP standards and regulations. The FDA and similar foreign regulatory authorities enforce these regulations through periodic inspections of trial sponsors, principal investigators and trial sites. If we or our third-party collaborators fail to comply with GCP standards and regulations, the clinical trials may be delayed or the data generated in trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA may require us to perform additional studies before granting us marketing authorization or clearance, if at all. We cannot be certain that, upon inspection, the FDA and similar foreign regulatory authorities will determine that any clinical trials of our products or product candidates comply or complied with applicable regulations, including GCPs. In addition, the FDA may require a large number of test subjects. Our failure or the failure of our third-party contractors to comply with the applicable regulations may require us to repeat studies or trials, which could delay or prevent us from obtaining marketing authorization or clearance for the iLet in other configurations or indications, or for the glucagon drug product candidate for which we will need to obtain approval in order to obtain marketing authorization for a bihormonal system of the iLet. Furthermore, our third-party collaborators may be delayed in conducting trials of our iLet for reasons outside of their control. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or regulatory obligations or meet expected deadlines, if these third parties need to be replaced, or if the quality or accuracy of the data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to clinical protocols or regulatory requirements or for other reasons, the non-clinical development activities or clinical trials for our iLet for other configurations or indications may be 71 extended, delayed, suspended or terminated, and we may not be able to obtain marketing authorization or clearance for, or successfully commercialize, the iLet or any future investigational devices on a timely basis or other development-stage products, such as the glucagon product candidate, if at all, and our business, results of operations, financial condition and growth prospects may be adversely affected. Risks Related to Government Regulation We and our suppliers are subject to ongoing regulatory obligations and continued regulatory review, which may result in significant additional expense and subject us to penalties if we fail to comply with applicable regulatory requirements. Once we obtain marketing authorization or clearance for FDA-regulated products, such as our iLet and any future products, we and such products will be subject to continued and pervasive regulatory review, oversight, requirements, and periodic inspections by the FDA and other domestic and foreign regulatory bodies governing, among other things, the manufacture, marketing, advertising, reporting, sale, promotion, import, export, registration, and listing of our products. For example, medical device manufacturers must submit periodic reports to the FDA as a condition of obtaining marketing authorization or clearance. These reports include information about failures and certain adverse events associated with the device after its marketing authorization or clearance. Failure to submit such reports, or failure to submit the reports in a timely manner, could result in enforcement action by the FDA. Following its review of the periodic reports, the FDA might ask for additional information or initiate further investigation. In particular, unless exempt, we and our suppliers are required to comply with the FDA’s QMSR for medical device products and cGMPs for any approved drug products, such as glucagon if it is ultimately approved, and other regulations enforced outside the United States which cover the manufacture of our products and the methods and documentation of the design, testing, production, control, quality assurance, labeling, packaging, storage and shipping of medical devices. Regulatory bodies, such as the FDA, enforce the QMSR and cGMPs and other regulations through periodic inspections. The failure by us or one of our suppliers to comply with applicable statutes and regulations administered by the FDA and other regulatory bodies, or the failure to timely and adequately respond to any adverse inspectional observations or product safety issues, could result in, among other things, any of the following enforcement actions and/or other negative consequences: • untitled letters, warning letters, fines, injunctions, consent decrees and civil penalties; • unanticipated expenditures to address or defend such actions; • customer notification, or orders for repair, replacement or refunds; • voluntary or mandatory recall or seizure of our current or future products; • administrative detention by the FDA of medical devices believed to be adulterated or misbranded; • operating restrictions, suspension or shutdown of production; • refusing our requests for marketing authorization or clearance of new products, or new intended uses or modifications to the iLet; • suspending or withdrawing marketing authorizations or clearances that have already been granted; and • criminal prosecution. If any of these actions were to occur, our reputation would be harmed and our product sales and profitability would be adversely impacted. Furthermore, our key component suppliers may not currently be or may not continue to be in compliance with all applicable regulatory requirements which could result in our failure to manufacture our products on a timely basis and in the required quantities, if at all. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with our products, including manufacturing problems, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements such as the QMSR, may result in changes to labeling, restrictions on such products or manufacturing processes, withdrawal of the products from the market, voluntary or mandatory recalls, a requirement to repair, replace or refund the cost of any medical device we manufacture or distribute, fines, suspension of regulatory approvals, product seizures, injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties which would adversely affect our business, operating results and prospects. 72 In addition, the FDA may change its marketing authorization or clearance policies, adopt additional regulations or revise existing regulations, or take other actions, which may prevent or delay marketing authorization or clearance of any product candidate under development or impact our ability to modify any products authorized for market on a timely basis. Such policy or regulatory changes could impose additional requirements upon us that could delay our ability to obtain marketing authorizations or clearances, increase the costs of compliance or restrict our ability to maintain any marketing authorizations or clearances we have obtained. For example, in February 2024, the FDA issued a final rule to amend and replace the former Quality System Regulation, which set forth the FDA’s current good manufacturing practice requirements for medical devices, to align more closely with the International Organization for Standardization standards. Specifically, this final rule, which went into effect on February 2, 2026, established the QMSR, which among other things, incorporates by reference the quality management system requirements of ISO 13485:2016. Although the FDA has stated that the standards contained in ISO 13485:2016 are substantially similar to those set forth in the former Quality System Regulation, it is unclear the extent to which this final rule, once effective, could impose additional or different regulatory requirements on us that could increase the costs of compliance or otherwise negatively affect our business. If we are unable to comply with the QMSR or with any other changes in the laws or regulations enforced by the FDA or comparable regulatory authorities, we may be subject to enforcement action, which could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Additionally, the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 2024 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo overturned the longstanding Chevron doctrine, under which courts were required to give deference to regulatory agencies’ reasonable interpretations of ambiguous federal statutes. The Loper decision could result in additional legal challenges to regulations and decisions issued by federal agencies, including the FDA, on which we rely. Any such legal challenges, if successful, could have a material impact on our business. Additionally, the Loper decision may result in increased regulatory uncertainty, inconsistent judicial interpretations, and other impacts to the agency rulemaking process, any of which could adversely impact our business and operations. 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. If we 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 be subject to enforcement action and we may not achieve or sustain profitability, which would harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. In addition, even after we have obtained marketing authorization or clearance for a product, the FDA has the power to require us to conduct post marketing studies, such as under a 522 Order, which is an order by the FDA to conduct a post-market study of an authorized or cleared medical device. We are subject to a post-market surveillance order issued by the FDA for our iLet. If the FDA determines that our iLet does not perform as anticipated, or if the FDA identifies new concerns related to the safety and effectiveness of the device, we may need to make changes to or recall or withdraw the iLet from the field, which could harm our business. These studies can be very expensive and time-consuming to conduct. Any failure to comply with ongoing regulatory requirements may significantly and adversely affect our ability to commercialize and generate revenue from our products. If regulatory sanctions are applied or if marketing authorization or clearance is withdrawn, it would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. In June 2025, the FDA conducted an inspection of our Irvine, California facility. Following the inspection, the FDA issued a Form 483. We initiated remediation activities and followed our communicated plan to address the FDA’s observations. We submitted our response and provided multiple updates to the FDA regarding the status of our remediation efforts. On January 29, 2026, we received a Warning Letter from the FDA following such inspection. In the Warning Letter, the FDA cited deficiencies in the response letters we sent to the FDA following the FDA’s issuance of the Form 483. The Warning Letter highlights non-conformities related observed by the FDA in relation to our Quality Management System, Medical Device Reporting, and Correction and Removals, which were previously communicated by the FDA in the Form 483. The Warning Letter does not restrict our ability to produce, market, manufacture or distribute our products, nor does it restrict our ability to seek FDA 510(k) clearance of new products. We take the observations described in the Warning Letter seriously, and we are currently preparing a written response to the Warning Letter. Several corrective actions have already occurred including improvements to the processes identified in the Warning Letter. Additional corrective actions may be identified and executed based upon feedback from the FDA provided in the Warning Letter. We intend to provide regular updates to the FDA in response to the Form 483 and Warning Letter. However, we cannot provide any assurances that the FDA will be satisfied with its response or as to the expected date of the resolution of the matters included in the Warning Letter. Until the deficiencies cited in the Warning Letter are resolved to the FDA’s satisfaction, additional legal or regulatory action may be taken without further notice. We do not expect the Warning Letter to materially impact our previously disclosed guidance that we expect to launch the commercialization of Mint by the end of 2027. 73 The FDA can also publish Safety Communications or Letters to Health Care Providers when the agency becomes aware of new issues involving a specific product or, more broadly, a product family. These communications are posted on the FDA’s website and describe the FDA’s analysis of a current issue and provide specific regulatory approaches and clinical recommendations for patient management. If such communications occur it may harm our reputation and prevent us from generating revenue. Our iLet or any of its components may be subject to product recalls in the future. A recall of our products, either voluntarily or at the direction of the FDA or another governmental authority, or the discovery of serious safety issues with our iLet, could have a significant adverse impact on us. The FDA has the authority to require the recall of commercialized products that are subject to FDA regulation. Manufacturers may, on their own initiative, recall a product if any deficiency is found. A government-mandated or voluntary recall by us or one of our suppliers could occur as a result of an unacceptable health risk, component failures, failures in laboratory processes, malfunctions, manufacturing errors, design or labeling defects, or other deficiencies and issues. Under the FDA’s medical device reporting regulations, we are required to report to the FDA any incident in which our product may have caused or contributed to a death or serious injury or in which our product malfunctioned and, if the malfunction were to recur, would likely cause or contribute to death or serious injury. Repeated product malfunctions may result in a voluntary or involuntary product recall. Recalls of any of our products would divert managerial and financial resources and have an adverse effect on our reputation, results of operations and financial condition, which could impair our ability to produce our products in a cost-effective and timely manner in order to meet our customers’ demands. Depending on the corrective action we take to redress a product’s deficiencies or defects, the FDA may require, or we may decide, that we will need to obtain new marketing authorizations or clearances for the device before we may market or distribute the corrected device. Seeking such marketing authorizations or clearances may delay our ability to replace the recalled devices in a timely manner. Moreover, if we do not adequately address problems associated with our devices, we may face additional regulatory enforcement action, including FDA warning letters, product seizure, injunctions, administrative penalties, or civil or criminal fines. We may also be required to bear other costs or take other actions that may have a negative impact on our sales as well as face significant adverse publicity or regulatory consequences, which could harm our business, including our ability to market our products in the future. Recalls of any of our products would divert managerial and financial resources and adversely affect our business, results of operations, financial condition and reputation. We may also be subject to liability claims, be required to bear other costs or take other actions that may negatively impact our future sales and our ability to generate profits. Companies are also required to maintain certain records of corrections and removals, even if these do not require reporting to the FDA. A recall announcement by us could harm our reputation with customers and negatively affect our business, financial condition, and results of operations. In addition, the FDA or other agency could take enforcement action for failing to report the recalls when they were conducted. If we initiate a recall, including a correction or removal, for our iLet, issue a safety alert, or undertake a field action or recall to reduce a health risk, this could lead to increased scrutiny by the FDA, other governmental and regulatory enforcement bodies, and our customers regarding the quality and safety of our iLet, and to negative publicity, including FDA alerts, press releases, or administrative or judicial actions. Furthermore, the submission of these reports could be used against us by competitors and cause customers to delay purchase decisions or cancel orders, which would harm our reputation. Our iLet is currently cleared only for the treatment of T1D in adults and children six years of age and older. If our iLet is authorized for marketing or cleared in a bihormonal system for the treatment of T1D or for any other indications, such marketing authorization or clearance will be limited by the FDA to the specific indication for which granted. We are prohibited from marketing the iLet for other indications, such as T2D. We are currently commercializing our iLet for the treatment of T1D and our iLet is only cleared as an automated insulin dosing system for the treatment of T1D in adults and children six years of age and older. Although T2D is also a disease stemming from excess glucose in the blood, we are prohibited from promoting the iLet for T2D or any other indication unless we receive marketing authorization or clearance for such indication. The FDA strictly regulates the promotional claims that may be made about medical devices, and the iLet may not be promoted for uses that are not authorized or cleared by the FDA as reflected in the device’s FDA-authorized labeling. If we are not able to obtain FDA marketing authorization or clearance for the bihormonal system for the treatment of T1D or for any desired future indications, our ability to effectively market and sell our iLet may be reduced and our business may be adversely affected. 74 While physicians may choose to prescribe products for uses that are not described in the product’s labeling and for uses that differ from those tested in clinical trials and authorized or cleared by the regulatory authorities, we are prohibited from marketing and promoting the products for indications that are not specifically cleared or approved by the FDA. These “off-label” uses are common across medical specialties and may constitute an appropriate treatment for some patients in varied circumstances. Regulatory authorities in the United States generally do not restrict or regulate the behavior of physicians in their choice of treatment within the practice of medicine. Regulatory authorities do, however, restrict communications by biotechnology or medical device companies on off-label use. If the FDA determines that our promotional activities constitute promotion of an off-label use, it could request that we modify our promotional materials and subject us to FDA regulatory or enforcement actions as well as actions by other agencies, such as the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice, including issuance of warning letters or untitled letters, suspension or withdrawal of a product from the market, mandatory or voluntary recalls, civil fines, disgorgement of money, operating restrictions, additional reporting requirements and/or oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar agreement, injunctions or criminal prosecution, any of which could significantly harm our business. Our relationships with HCPs and third-party payors will be subject to applicable anti-kickback, fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations, which could expose us to significant penalties, including criminal sanctions, civil penalties, contractual damages, reputational harm and diminished profits and future earnings. HCPs and third-party payors in the United States and elsewhere play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of products. Arrangements with third-party payors and customers can expose device manufacturers to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations, including, without limitation, the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, the False Claims Act, laws and regulations related to the reporting of payments to physicians and teaching hospitals, and HIPAA (defined below), which may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which such companies research, sell, market and distribute products. In particular, the promotion, sales and marketing of healthcare items and services, as well as certain business arrangements in the healthcare industry, are subject to extensive laws designed to prevent fraud, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices. These laws and regulations may restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, structuring and commission(s), certain customer incentive programs and other business arrangements generally. Activities subject to these laws also involve the improper use of information obtained in the course of patient recruitment for clinical trials. The applicable federal, state and foreign healthcare laws and regulations laws that may affect our ability to operate include, but are not limited to, the below. • The federal Anti-Kickback Statute, which prohibits, among other things, knowingly and willfully soliciting, receiving, offering, paying or providing any remuneration (including any kickback, bribe, or rebate), directly or indirectly, in cash or in kind, to induce, or in return for, either the referral of an individual, or the purchase, lease, order or recommendation of any good, facility, item or service for which payment may be made, in whole or in part, under a federal healthcare program, such as the Medicare and Medicaid programs. A person or entity can be found guilty of violating the statute without actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it. There are a number of statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting some common activities from prosecution. In addition, a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the False Claims Act. • Federal civil and criminal false claims laws, including the False Claims Act, and civil monetary penalty laws, which prohibit, among other things, individuals or entities from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, false or fraudulent claims for payment to, or approval by Medicare, Medicaid, or other federal healthcare programs, knowingly making, using or causing to be made or used a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim or an obligation to pay or transmit money to the federal government, or knowingly concealing or knowingly and improperly avoiding or decreasing an obligation to pay money to the federal government. Manufacturers can be held liable under the False Claims Act even when they do not submit claims directly to government payors if they are deemed to “cause” the submission of false or fraudulent claims. The False Claims Act also permits a private individual acting as a “whistleblower” to bring actions on behalf of the federal government alleging violations of the False Claims Act and to share in any monetary recovery. Moreover, a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute is grounds for the government or a whistleblower to assert that a claim for 75 payment of items or services resulting from such violation constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the False Claims Act. • The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), which created new federal criminal statutes that prohibit knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program or obtain, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, any of the money or property owned by, or under the custody or control of, any healthcare benefit program, regardless of the payor (e.g., public or private) and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up by any trick or device a material fact or making any materially false statements in connection with the delivery of, or payment for, healthcare benefits, items or services relating to healthcare matters. Similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, a person or entity can be found guilty of violating the statute without actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it. • HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH) and their respective implementing regulations, which impose, among other things, requirements on certain covered HCPs, health plans, and healthcare clearinghouses and their respective business associates that perform services for them that involve the use, or disclosure of, individually identifiable health information as well as their covered subcontractors, relating to the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information without appropriate authorization. HITECH also created new tiers of civil monetary penalties, amended HIPAA to make civil and criminal penalties directly applicable to business associates, and gave state attorneys general new authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce the federal HIPAA laws and seek attorneys’ fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions. • The federal Physician Payment Sunshine Act created under the ACA, which requires manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologicals and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (with certain exceptions) to report annually to CMS information related to any payments and other transfers of value made to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors, certain non-physician practitioners (physician assistants, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, anesthesiologist assistants, certified registered nurse anesthetists and certified nurse midwives) and teaching hospitals, as well as ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members. • Additional federal consumer protection and unfair competition laws, which broadly regulate marketplace activities and activities that potentially harm consumers. Additionally, we are subject to state and foreign equivalents of each of the healthcare laws described above, among others, some of which may be broader in scope and may apply regardless of the payor. For instance, state anti-kickback and false claims laws may apply to items or services reimbursed by any third-party payor, including commercial insurers or patients. Laws related to insurance fraud may provide claims involving private insurers. State laws may require pharmaceutical or medical device companies to comply with the industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the applicable compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government or otherwise restrict payments that may be made to HCPs and other potential referral sources. State and local laws may also require the licensure of sales representatives, and require drug or device manufacturers to report information related to payments and other transfers of value to physicians and other HCPs or marketing expenditures and pricing information. Analogous state and foreign laws may additionally govern the privacy and security of health information in certain circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and may not have the same effect. Pricing and rebate programs must comply with the Medicaid rebate requirements of the U.S. Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 and more recent requirements in the ACA. If products are made available to authorized users of the Federal Supply Schedule of the General Services Administration, additional laws and requirements apply. Products must meet applicable child-resistant packaging requirements under the U.S. Poison Prevention Packaging Act. Manufacturing, sales, promotion and other activities also are potentially subject to federal and state consumer protection and unfair competition laws. 76 The distribution of products is subject to additional requirements and regulations, including extensive record-keeping, licensing, storage and security requirements intended to prevent the unauthorized sale of pharmaceutical products. The scope and enforcement of each of these laws is uncertain and subject to rapid change in the current environment of healthcare reform, especially in light of the lack of applicable precedent and regulations. Federal and state enforcement bodies often scrutinize interactions between healthcare companies and HCPs, which has led to a number of investigations, prosecutions, convictions and significant settlements in the healthcare industry. Ensuring business arrangements comply with applicable healthcare laws, as well as responding to possible investigations by government authorities, can be time- and resource-consuming and can divert a company’s attention from the business. Efforts to ensure that our business arrangements will comply with applicable healthcare laws may involve substantial costs. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices may not comply with current or future statutes, regulations, guidance or case law interpreting applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business, including the imposition of significant penalties, including civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, individual imprisonment, possible exclusion from participation in federal and state funded healthcare programs, contractual damages and the curtailment or restricting of our operations, as well as additional reporting obligations and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or other agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws. Any action for violation of these laws, even if successfully defended, could cause a device manufacturer to incur significant legal expenses and divert management’s attention from the operation of the business. Prohibitions or restrictions on sales or withdrawal of future marketed products could materially affect business in an adverse way. It is not always possible to identify and deter employee misconduct, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent inappropriate conduct may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to be in compliance with such laws or regulations. In addition, the approval and commercialization of any of our investigational devices outside the United States will also likely subject us to foreign equivalents of the healthcare laws mentioned above, among other foreign laws. We and the third parties with whom we work are subject to stringent and evolving U.S. and foreign laws, regulations, and rules, contractual obligations, industry standards, policies and other obligations related to data privacy and security. Our (or the third parties with whom we work) actual or perceived failure to comply with such obligations could lead to regulatory investigations or actions; litigation (including class claims) and mass arbitration demands; fines and penalties; disruptions of our business operations; reputational harm; loss of revenue or profits; loss of customers or sales; and other adverse business consequences. In the ordinary course of business, we collect, receive, store, process, generate, use, transfer, disclose, make accessible, protect, secure, dispose of, transmit, and share (collectively, process) personal data and other sensitive information, including proprietary and confidential business data, trade secrets, intellectual property, data we collect about trial participants in connection with clinical trials, protected health information, individually identifiable health information, sensitive third-party data, insurance data, and payment data (collectively, sensitive information). Our data processing activities subject us to numerous data privacy and security obligations, such as various laws, regulations, guidance, industry standards, external and internal privacy and security policies, contractual requirements, and other obligations relating to data privacy and security. In the United States, federal, state, and local governments have enacted numerous data privacy and security laws, including data breach notification laws, personal data privacy laws, consumer protection laws (e.g., Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act), and other similar laws (e.g., wiretapping laws). For example, we are considered a “covered entity” under HIPAA, as amended by HITECH, and regulations implemented thereunder, or collectively HIPAA. HIPAA imposes specific requirements relating to the privacy, security, breach notification obligation on certain healthcare providers, health plans, healthcare clearinghouses, known as covered entities, as well as their business associates that perform certain services that involve creating, receiving, maintaining or transmitting individually identifiable health information for or on behalf of such covered entities, and their covered subcontractors. HIPAA requires covered entities and business associates to develop and maintain policies with respect to the protection of, use and disclosure of PHI, including the adoption of administrative, physical and 77 technical safeguards to protect such information, and certain notification requirements in the event of a breach of unsecured PHI. Additionally, under HIPAA, covered entities must report breaches of unsecured PHI to affected individuals without unreasonable delay, not to exceed 60 days following discovery of the breach by a covered entity or its agents. Notification also must be made to the HSS Office for Civil Rights and, in certain circumstances involving large breaches, to the media. Business associates must report breaches of unsecured PHI to covered entities within 60 days of discovery of the breach by the business associate or its agents. A non-permitted use or disclosure of PHI is presumed to be a breach under HIPAA unless the covered entity or business associate establishes that there is a low probability the information has been compromised consistent with requirements enumerated in HIPAA. Entities that are found to be in violation of HIPAA as the result of a breach of unsecured PHI, a complaint about privacy practices or an audit by the HHS, may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative fines and penalties and/or additional reporting and oversight obligations if required to enter into a resolution agreement and corrective action plan with HHS to settle allegations of HIPAA non-compliance. HIPAA also authorizes state Attorneys General to file suit on behalf of their residents. Courts may award damages, costs and attorneys’ fees related to violations of HIPAA in such cases. While HIPAA does not create a private right of action allowing individuals to sue us in civil court for violations of HIPAA, its standards have been used as the basis for duty of care in state civil suits such as those for negligence or recklessness in the misuse or breach of PHI. Further, the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003 (CAN-SPAM) and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA) both of which apply to our operations impose specific requirements on communications with individuals. For example, the TCPA imposes various consumer consent requirements and other restrictions on certain telemarketing activity and other communications with consumers by phone, fax or text message. TCPA violations can result in significant financial penalties, including penalties or criminal fines imposed by the Federal Communications Commission or fines of up to $1,500 per violation imposed through private litigation or by state authorities. Numerous U.S. states have enacted comprehensive privacy laws that impose certain obligations on covered businesses, including providing specific disclosures in privacy notices and affording residents with certain rights concerning their personal data. As applicable, such rights may include the right to access, correct, or delete certain personal data, and to opt-out of certain data processing activities, such as targeted advertising, profiling, and automated decision-making. The exercise of these rights may impact our business and ability to provide our products and services. Certain states also impose stricter requirements for processing certain personal data, including sensitive information, such as conducting data privacy impact assessments. These state laws allow for statutory fines for noncompliance. Similar laws are being considered in several other states, as well as at the federal and local levels, and we expect more states to pass similar laws in the future. For example, the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA) applies to personal information of consumers, business representatives, and employees who are California residents, and requires businesses to provide specific disclosures in privacy notices and honor requests of such individuals to exercise certain privacy rights. The CCPA provides for fines and allows private litigants affected by certain data breaches to recover significant statutory damages. The CCPA and other comprehensive U.S. state privacy laws exempt some data processed in the context of clinical trials, but these developments may further complicate compliance efforts, and increase legal risk and compliance costs for us, the third parties with whom we work, and our customers. In addition, we may now or in the future be subject to new laws governing the privacy of consumer health data. For example, Washington’s My Health My Data Act (MHMD) broadly defines consumer health data, places restrictions on processing consumer health data (including imposing stringent requirements for consents), provides consumers certain rights with respect to their health data, and creates a private right of action to allow individuals to sue for violations of the law. Other states have adopted or are in the process of adopting similar consumer health data privacy laws, including Connecticut’s SB-3 which amended the Connecticut Data Privacy Act to cover consumer health data, Nevada’s Consumer Health Data Privacy Law, and Virginia’s amendments to the Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act addressing the processing of sensitive health data, and additional states are expected to pass similar laws governing consumer health data. The FTC also has authority under Section 5 of the FTC Act to initiate enforcement actions against entities that engage in unfair or deceptive practices such as misleading customers, about HIPAA compliance, making unfair or 78 deceptive statements about the use of personal data (including PHI) in privacy policies, failing to limit service providers use of PHI, or failing to implement policies to protect PHI or engaging in other unfair practices that harm customers. For information that is not subject to HIPAA and deemed to be a “personal health record,” the FTC may also impose penalties for violations of the Health Breach Notification Rule (HBNR) to the extent we are considered a “personal health record-related entity” or “third party service provider.” The FTC has taken several enforcement actions under the HBNR and indicated that the FTC will continue to protect consumer privacy through greater use of the agency’s enforcement authorities. As a result, we expect even greater scrutiny by federal and state regulators, partners, and consumers of our collection, use and disclosure of health information. We may in the future use artificial intelligence (AI), including generative AI, and machine learning (ML) technologies in our products and services (collectively, “AI/ML” technologies). In addition, our employees and personnel are permitted to use generative AI technologies to perform their work. The development and use of AI/ML present various privacy and security risks that may impact our business. AI/ML are subject to privacy and data security laws, as well as increasing regulation and scrutiny. Several jurisdictions around the globe, including Europe and certain U.S. states, have proposed, enacted, or are considering laws governing AI/ML, such as the EU AI Act, Colorado Artificial Intelligence Act, California Bot Disclosure Law, the Utah Artificial Intelligence Policy Act, and the CCPA regulations on automated decision-making technology. Under the EU AI Act, non-compliant companies may be subject to administrative fines of up to 35 million Euros or 7% of a company’s total worldwide annual turnover for the preceding financial year, whichever is the higher. We expect other jurisdictions will adopt similar laws. Additionally, certain privacy laws extend rights to consumers (such as the right to delete certain personal data) and regulate automated decision making, which may be incompatible with our use of AI/ML and restrict our rights to use certain personal data to train AI/ML models. These obligations may make it harder for us to conduct our business using AI/ML, lead to regulatory fines or penalties, require us to change our business practices, retrain our AI/ML, or prevent or limit our use of AI/ML. For example, the FTC has required other companies to turn over (or disgorge) valuable insights or trainings generated through the use of AI/ML where they allege the company has violated privacy and consumer protection laws. AI/ML have the potential to benefit our business and operations, possibly significantly, including by potentially creating efficiencies and enabling powerful research and development that may otherwise not be possible, and we may be at a competitive disadvantage if we do not or are unable to use AI or only use it for limited purposes. While we implement certain technical, physical and organizational processes (depending on the environment, systems, and data) designed to safeguard sensitive information, such as incident detection and response processes, penetrating testing, employee training and access controls, if we start using AI/ML in our products and services, use of such AI/ML in connection with our confidential, proprietary, or otherwise sensitive information, including personal data or software source code, may still result in leaks, disclosure, or otherwise unauthorized or unintended access to such information, including if such information is used to further refine and train the underlying AI/ML models. Any such access or any improper or inappropriate use of AI/ML could, for example, reveal trade secrets that may enable third parties to replicate or improve upon our technologies and programs, or otherwise negatively impact the value of, or our ability to obtain or maintain, intellectual property rights. Moreover, AI/ML models may create flawed, incomplete, or inaccurate outputs, some of which may appear correct. This may happen if the inputs that the model relied on were inaccurate, incomplete or flawed (including if a bad actor “poisons” the AI/ML with bad inputs or logic), or if the logic of the AI/ML is flawed (a so-called “hallucination”). We may in the future use AI/ML outputs to make certain decisions. Due to these potential inaccuracies or flaws, the model could be biased and could lead us to unknowingly make decisions that could bias certain individuals (or classes of individuals). We may also face novel and urgent cybersecurity risks and emerging ethical risks relating to the use of AI/ML, which could adversely affect our operations, assets, including intellectual property and other sensitive information, and reputation, as well as those of any third parties involved in our operations. Therefore, if, in the future, we use AI/ML technologies in our business, such use could result in additional compliance costs, regulatory investigations and actions, and lawsuits. If we are unable to use AI/ML, it could make our business less efficient and result in competitive disadvantages. Additionally, regulators are increasingly scrutinizing companies that process children’s data. Numerous laws, regulations, and legally binding codes, such as the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), California’s 79 Age Appropriate Design Code, the CCPA, and other U.S. state comprehensive privacy laws impose various obligations on companies that process children’s data, including requiring certain consents to process such data and extending certain rights to children and their parents with respect that data or verifying a user’s age. Some of these obligations have wide ranging applications, including for services that do not intentionally target child users (defined in some circumstances as a user under the age of 18 years old). These laws may be, or in some cases, have already been, subject to legal challenges and changing interpretations, which may further complicate our efforts to comply with these laws. Outside the United States, we may become subject to an increasing number of laws, regulations, and industry standards that govern data privacy and security. For example, the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (EU GDPR) and the United Kingdom’s GDPR (UK GDPR and together with the EU GDPR, the GDPR) impose strict requirements for processing personal data. For example, under the GDPR, companies may face temporary or definitive bans on data processing and other corrective actions; fines of up to 20 million Euros under the EU GDPR, 17.5 million pounds sterling under the UK GDPR or, in each case, 4% of annual global revenue, whichever is greater; or private litigation related to processing of personal data brought by classes of data subjects or consumer protection organizations authorized at law to represent their interests. In the ordinary course of business, we may transfer personal data from Europe and other jurisdictions to the United States or other countries. Europe and other jurisdictions have enacted laws requiring data to be localized or limiting the transfer of personal data to other countries. In particular, the European Economic Area (EEA) and the United Kingdom (UK) have significantly restricted the transfer of personal data to the United States and other countries whose privacy laws it generally believes are inadequate. Other jurisdictions may adopt or have already adopted similarly stringent data localization and cross-border data transfer laws. Although there are currently various mechanisms that may be used to transfer personal data from the EEA and UK to the United States in compliance with law, such as the EEA standard contractual clauses, the UK’s International Data Transfer Agreement / Addendum, and the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework and the UK extension thereto (which allows for transfers to relevant U.S.-based organizations who self-certify compliance and participate in the Framework), these mechanisms are subject to legal challenges, and there is no assurance that we will be able to satisfy or rely on these measures to lawfully transfer personal data to the United States. If there is no lawful manner for us to transfer personal data from the EEA, the UK or other jurisdictions to the United States, or if the requirements for a legally-compliant transfer are too onerous, we could face significant adverse consequences, including the interruption or degradation of our operations, the need to relocate part of or all of our business or data processing activities to other jurisdictions (such as Europe) at significant expense, increased exposure to regulatory actions, substantial fines and penalties, the inability to transfer data and work with partners, vendors and other third parties, and injunctions against our processing or transferring of personal data necessary to operate our business. Additionally, companies that transfer personal data out of the EEA and UK to other jurisdictions, particularly to the United States, are subject to increased scrutiny from regulators, individual litigants, and activist groups. Some European regulators have ordered certain companies to suspend or permanently cease certain transfers out of Europe for allegedly violating the GDPR’s cross-border data transfer limitations. Additionally, the U.S. Department of Justice issued a rule titled the Preventing Access to U.S. Sensitive Personal Data and Government-Related Data by Countries of Concern or Covered Persons, which imposes additional restrictions on certain data transactions involving countries of concern (e.g., China, Russia, Iran) and covered persons (i.e., individuals and entities who are designated by the U.S. Attorney General or considered “foreign persons” and are majority owned by, organized under the laws of, a primary resident in, or a contractor of, a covered person or country of concern, as applicable) that may impact certain business activities, such as vendor engagements, data sales or sharing, employment of certain individuals, and investor agreements. Violations of the rule could lead to significant civil and criminal fines and penalties. The rule applies regardless of whether data is anonymized, key-coded, pseudonymized, de-identified or encrypted, which presents particular challenges for companies like ours and may impact our ability to transfer data in connection with certain transactions or agreements. 80 We are also bound by contractual obligations related to data privacy and security, and our efforts to comply with such obligations may not be successful. We publish privacy policies, marketing materials, whitepapers and other statements concerning data privacy, security and artificial intelligence. Regulators in the United States are increasingly scrutinizing these statements, and if these policies, materials, or statements are found to be deficient, lacking in transparency, deceptive, unfair, misleading or misrepresentative of our practices, we may be subject to investigation, enforcement actions by regulators or other adverse consequences. Obligations related to data privacy and security (and consumers’ data privacy expectations) are quickly changing, becoming increasingly stringent, and creating uncertainty. Additionally, these obligations may be subject to differing applications and interpretations, which may be inconsistent or conflict among jurisdictions. Preparing for and complying with these obligations requires us to devote significant resources, which may necessitate changes to our services, information technologies, systems, and practices and to those of any third parties that process personal data on our behalf. We may at times fail (or be perceived to have failed) in our efforts to comply with our data privacy and security obligations. Moreover, despite our efforts, our personnel or third parties with whom we work may fail to comply with such obligations, which could negatively impact our business operations. If we or the third parties with whom we work fail, or are perceived to have failed, to address or comply with applicable data privacy and security obligations, we could face significant consequences, including, but not limited to: government enforcement actions (e.g., investigations, fines, penalties, audits, inspections, and similar); litigation (including class-action claims) and mass arbitration demands; additional reporting requirements and/or oversight; bans or restrictions on processing personal data, including restrictions on using personal data, including protected health information, to train AI algorithms; orders to destroy or not use personal data, including algorithmic disgorgement; and imprisonment of company officials. In particular, plaintiffs have become increasingly more active in bringing privacy-related claims against companies, including class claims and mass arbitration demands. Some of these claims allow for the recovery of statutory damages on a per violation basis, and, if viable, carry the potential for monumental statutory damages, depending on the volume of data and the number of violations. Any of these events could have a material adverse effect on our reputation, business, or financial condition, including, but not limited to: loss of customers; interruptions or stoppages in our business operations (including, as relevant, clinical trials); inability to process personal data or to operate in certain jurisdictions; limited ability to develop or commercialize our products; expenditure of time and resources to defend any claim or inquiry; adverse publicity; or substantial changes to our business model or operations. Our business activities may be subject to the FCPA and similar anti-bribery and anti-corruption laws of other countries in which we operate, as well as U.S. and certain foreign export controls, trade sanctions and import laws and regulations. Compliance with these legal requirements could limit our ability to compete in foreign markets and subject us to liability if we violate them. If we expand our operations outside of the United States, we must dedicate additional resources to comply with numerous laws and regulations in each jurisdiction in which we plan to operate. Our business activities may be subject to the FCPA and similar anti-bribery or anti-corruption laws, regulations or rules of other countries in which we operate. The FCPA generally prohibits companies and their employees and third-party intermediaries from offering, promising, giving or authorizing the provision of anything of value, either directly or indirectly, to a non-U.S. government official in order to influence official action or otherwise obtain or retain business. The FCPA also requires public companies to make and keep books and records that accurately and fairly reflect the transactions of the corporation and to devise and maintain an adequate system of internal accounting controls. Our business is heavily regulated and therefore involves significant interaction with public officials, including officials of non-U.S. governments. Additionally, in many other countries, hospitals owned and operated by the government, and doctors and other hospital employees would be considered foreign officials under the FCPA. Recently the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Department of Justice have increased their FCPA enforcement activities with respect to biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies. There is no certainty that all of our employees, agents or contractors, or those of our affiliates, will comply with all applicable laws and 81 regulations, particularly given the high level of complexity of these laws. Violations of these laws and regulations could result in fines, criminal sanctions against us, our officers or our employees, disgorgement and other sanctions and remedial measures, and prohibitions on the conduct of our business. Any such violations could include prohibitions on our ability to offer our product in one or more countries and could materially damage our reputation, our brand, our international activities, our ability to attract and retain employees and our business. In addition, our product and activities may be subject to U.S. and foreign export controls, trade sanctions and import laws and regulations. Governmental regulation of the import or export of our product, or our failure to obtain any required import or export authorization for our product, when applicable, could harm our international sales and adversely affect our revenue. Compliance with applicable regulatory requirements regarding the export of our product may create delays in the introduction of our product in international markets or, in some cases, prevent the export of our product to some countries altogether. Furthermore, U.S. export control laws and economic sanctions prohibit the shipment of certain products and services to countries, governments and persons targeted by U.S. sanctions. If we fail to comply with export and import regulations and such economic sanctions, penalties could be imposed, including fines and/or denial of certain export privileges. Moreover, any new export or import restrictions, new legislation or shifting approaches in the enforcement or scope of existing regulations, or in the countries, persons, or product targeted by such regulations, could result in decreased use of our product by, or in our decreased ability to export our product to existing or potential customers with international operations. Any decreased use of our product or limitation on our ability to export or sell access to our product would likely significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property If we are unable to obtain or protect intellectual property rights related to the iLet, we may not be able to compete effectively in our market. We rely upon a combination of patents, trade secrets, copyrights, know-how, trademarks, license agreements and contractual provisions to establish our intellectual property rights and protect the iLet. Our success depends in large part on our ability to obtain and maintain patent and other intellectual property protection in the United States and in other countries with respect to our proprietary technology. The patent prosecution process is expensive and time-consuming. We may not be able to prepare, file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications at a commercially reasonable cost or in a timely manner or in all jurisdictions. It is also possible that we may fail to identify patentable aspects of inventions made during the course of development and commercialization activities before it is too late to obtain patent protection on them. Moreover, we do not have the first right to control the preparation, filing and prosecution of patent applications covering technology that we have in-licensed from BU and Xeris. Therefore, these patents and patent applications may not be prosecuted and enforced in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business. In addition to the protection provided by our patent estate, we rely on trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect proprietary know-how that is not amenable to patent protection. Although we generally require all of our employees to assign their inventions to us, and all of our employees, consultants, advisors and any third parties who have access to our proprietary know-how, information or technology to enter into confidentiality agreements, we cannot provide any assurances that all such agreements have been duly executed, or that our trade secrets and other confidential proprietary information will not be disclosed. Moreover, our competitors may independently develop knowledge, methods and know-how equivalent to our trade secrets. Competitors could purchase the iLet and replicate some or all of the competitive advantages we derive from our development efforts for technologies on which we do not have patent protection. If any of our trade secrets were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor, we would have no right to prevent them, or those to whom they communicate it, from using that technology or information to compete with us. If any of our trade secrets were to be disclosed to or independently developed by a competitor, our competitive position would be harmed. We also seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our data and trade secrets by maintaining physical security of our premises and physical and electronic security of our information technology systems. While we have confidence in these individuals, organizations and systems, our agreements and/or security measures may be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies for any such breach. Also, if the steps taken to maintain our trade secrets are deemed inadequate, we may have insufficient recourse against third parties for misappropriating the trade 82 secret. In addition, others may independently discover our trade secrets and proprietary information. If we are unable to prevent material disclosure of the non-patented intellectual property related to our technologies to third parties, and there is no guarantee that we will have any such enforceable trade secret protection, we may not be able to establish or maintain a competitive advantage in our market, which could materially adversely affect our business and financial condition. If we fail to comply with our obligations in our current and future intellectual property licenses with third parties, we could lose rights, which may be important to our business. We rely upon licenses to certain patent rights and proprietary technology for the development of the iLet and our other product candidates, in particular our license agreements with BU and Xeris. These license agreements impose various diligence, milestone payment, royalty and other obligations on us. If we fail to comply with our obligations under these license agreements, our licensor may have the right to terminate our licenses, in which event we may not be able to develop, manufacture or market any product that is covered by the intellectual property licensed to us under such license agreement, in addition to damages and other penalties. Any termination of these licenses could result in the loss of significant rights and could harm our ability to develop, manufacture and/or commercialize our products. In addition, the agreements under which we license or acquire intellectual property or technology to or from third parties are complex, and certain provisions in such agreements may be susceptible to multiple interpretations. The resolution of any contract interpretation disagreement that may arise could narrow what we believe to be the scope of our rights to the relevant intellectual property or technology or increase what we believe to be our 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. Moreover, if disputes over intellectual property that we have licensed or acquired prevent or impair our ability to maintain our current licensing arrangements on commercially acceptable terms, we may be unable to successfully develop and commercialize the affected products. Our business also would suffer if any current or future licensors fail to abide by the terms of the license, if the licensors fail to enforce licensed patents against infringing third parties, if the licensed patents or other rights are found to be invalid or unenforceable, or if we are unable to enter into necessary licenses on acceptable terms. Moreover, our licensors may own or control intellectual property that has not been licensed to us and, as a result, we may be subject to claims, regardless of their merit, that we are infringing or otherwise violating the licensor’s rights. Licenses to additional third-party technology and materials that may be required for our development programs may not be available in the future or may not be available on commercially reasonable terms, or at all, which could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition. We do not have the first right to control the prosecution, maintenance and enforcement of our licensed intellectual property, and we thus require the cooperation of our licensor. Therefore, we cannot be certain that the prosecution, maintenance and enforcement of these patent rights will be in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business. If we or our licensor fail to maintain such patents, or if we or our licensor lose rights to those patents or patent applications, the rights we have licensed may be reduced or eliminated and our right to develop and commercialize any product that is the subject of such licensed rights could be adversely affected. In addition to the foregoing, the risks associated with patent rights that we license from third parties will also apply to patent rights we may license in the future. In addition, intellectual property rights that we may in-license in the future may be sublicensed under intellectual property owned by third parties, in some cases through multiple tiers. The actions of our licensors may therefore affect our rights to use our sublicensed intellectual property, even if we are in compliance with all of the obligations under our license agreements. Should our licensors or any of the upstream licensors fail to comply with their obligations under the agreements pursuant to which they obtain the rights that are sublicensed to us, or should such agreements be terminated or amended, our ability to develop and commercialize our product candidates may be materially harmed. Patent reform legislation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our future patents. Obtaining and enforcing patents in the medical device industry involves both technological and legal complexity and is therefore costly, time-consuming and inherently uncertain. Our ability to obtain patents is highly uncertain because, to date, some legal principles remain unresolved, and there has not been a consistent policy 83 regarding the breadth or interpretation of claims allowed in patents in the United States. Furthermore, the specific content of patents and patent applications that are necessary to support and interpret patent claims is highly uncertain due to the complex nature of the relevant legal, scientific and factual issues. Changes in either patent laws or interpretations of patent laws in the United States and other countries could increase those uncertainties and costs and may diminish the value of our intellectual property or narrow the scope of our patent protection. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on several patent cases in recent years, either narrowing the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances or weakening the rights of patent owners in certain situations. In addition to increasing uncertainty with regard to our ability to obtain patents in the future, this combination of events has created uncertainty with respect to the value of patents, once obtained. Depending on actions by the U.S. Congress, the federal courts and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that would weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce patents that we have owned or licensed or that we might obtain in the future. An inability to obtain, enforce and defend patents covering our proprietary technologies would materially and adversely affect our business prospects and financial condition. Further, patent coverage in medical devices and technologies is a subject of evolution and differences between countries. This is especially true of the definition of patentable subject matter which affects both computer-related inventions and biological inventions. This evolution may cause current granted patents to be considered non-patent eligible or prevent us from protecting future inventions. U.S. Supreme Court and Federal Circuit decisions interpreting and/or limiting the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101, in addition to examination guidelines from the USPTO, have made it more difficult for patentees to obtain and/or maintain patent claims in the United States that are directed to medical technologies involving computer-implemented applications. Several precedential decisions regarding patentable subject matter are of particular relevance to patents in the computer-implemented applications space. For example, the 2014 decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International concerns a computer-implemented, electronic escrow service for facilitating financial transactions. The U.S. Supreme Court held that an abstract idea could not be patented just because it is implemented on a computer, thus providing guidance on the patentability of computer-implemented applications such as those used with our products. Our efforts to seek patent protection for our technologies and products may be impacted by the evolving case law and guidance or procedures issued by the USPTO or authorities in other jurisdictions based on such evolving case law. Similarly, changes in patent laws and regulations in other countries or jurisdictions, changes in the governmental bodies that enforce them or changes in how the relevant governmental authority enforces patent laws or regulations may weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce patents that we may obtain in the future. For example, the complexity and uncertainty of European patent laws have also increased in recent years. In Europe, a new unitary patent system took effect June 1, 2023, which will significantly impact European patents, including those granted before the introduction of the new unitary patent system. Under the unitary patent system, European applications have the option, upon grant of a patent, of becoming a Unitary Patent, which will be subject to the jurisdiction of the Unitary Patent Court (UPC). As the UPC is a new court system, there is no precedent for the court, increasing the uncertainty of any litigation. Patents granted before the implementation of the UPC have the ability to opt out of the jurisdiction of the UPC and remain as national patents in the UPC countries. The UPC will provide our competitors with a new forum to centrally revoke European patents, and allow for the possibility of a competitor to obtain pan-European injunctions, since patents that remain under the jurisdiction of the UPC will be potentially vulnerable to a single UPC-based revocation challenge that, if successful, could invalidate the patent in all countries who are signatories to the UPC. We cannot predict with certainty the long-term effects of any potential changes. Further, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect proprietary rights to the same extent or in the same manner as the laws of the United States and Europe. As a result, we may encounter significant problems in protecting and defending our intellectual property both in the United States and abroad. For example, if the issuance in a given country of a patent covering an invention is not followed by the issuance in other countries of patents covering the same invention, or if any judicial interpretation of the validity, enforceability or scope of the claims or the written description or enablement in a patent issued in one country is not similar to the interpretation given to the corresponding patent issued in another country, our ability to protect our intellectual property in those countries may 84 be limited. Changes in either patent laws or in interpretations of patent laws in the United States and other countries may materially diminish the value of our intellectual property or narrow the scope of our patent protection. We may be involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our patents, which could be expensive, time consuming and unsuccessful. Competitors may infringe, misappropriate or otherwise violate our patents or other intellectual property rights. To counter infringement or unauthorized use, we may be required to file infringement claims, which can be expensive and time-consuming. In certain circumstances it may not be practicable or cost effective for us to enforce our intellectual property rights fully, particularly in certain developing countries or where the initiation of a claim might harm our business relationships. We may also be hindered or prevented from enforcing our rights with respect to a government entity or instrumentality because of the doctrine of sovereign immunity. If we initiate legal proceedings against a third-party to enforce a patent covering the iLet, its components or algorithms, the defendant could counterclaim that our patent(s) are invalid and/or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the United States, counterclaims alleging invalidity and/or unenforceability are common, and there are numerous grounds upon which a third party can assert invalidity or unenforceability of a patent. In an infringement proceeding, a court may decide that the patent claims we are asserting are invalid and/or unenforceable, or may refuse to stop the other party from using the technology at issue on the grounds that our patent claims do not cover their technology. Third parties may also raise similar claims before administrative bodies in the United States or abroad, even outside the context of litigation. Such mechanisms include re-examination, post grant review, inter partes review and equivalent proceedings in foreign jurisdictions (for example, opposition proceedings). Such proceedings could result in revocation of or amendment to our patents in such a way that they no longer cover our product candidates. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. With respect to the validity question, for example, we cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior art. If a defendant were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity and/or unenforceability, we may lose some, and perhaps all, of the patent protection covering the iLet. An adverse result in any litigation or defense proceeding could put one or more of our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly, could put our patent applications at risk of not issuing and could have a material adverse impact on our business. Moreover, even if we are successful in any litigation, we may incur significant expense in connection with such proceedings, and the amount of any monetary damages may be inadequate to compensate us for damage as a result of the infringement and the proceedings. We may not be able to detect or prevent, alone or with our future licensors, infringement, misappropriation or other violation of our intellectual property rights, particularly in countries where the laws may not protect those rights as fully as in the United States. Any litigation or other proceedings to enforce our intellectual property rights may fail, and, even if successful, may result in substantial costs and distract our management and other employees. Even if we establish infringement, the court may decide not to grant an injunction against further infringing activity and instead award only monetary damages, which may or may not be an adequate remedy. 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 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 stock. We may be unsuccessful in licensing or acquiring intellectual property from third parties that may be required to develop and commercialize our product candidates. A third party may hold intellectual property, including patent rights that are important or necessary to the development and commercialization of our product candidates. It may be necessary for us to use the patented or proprietary technology of third parties to commercialize our product candidates, in which case we would be required to acquire or obtain a license to such intellectual property from these third parties, and we may be unable to do so on commercially reasonable terms or at all. The licensing or acquisition of third-party intellectual property rights is a competitive area, and several more established companies may pursue strategies to license 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, capital resources and greater clinical development and commercialization capabilities. Companies that perceive us to be a competitor may be unwilling to assign or license 85 rights to us. We also may be unable to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights on terms that would allow us to make an appropriate return on our investment, or at all. If we are unable to successfully obtain rights to required third-party intellectual property rights, we may have to abandon development of the relevant program or products, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. Any collaboration arrangements that we may enter into in the future may not be successful, which could adversely affect our ability to develop and commercialize our products. Any future collaborations that we enter into may not be successful. The success of our collaboration arrangements will depend heavily on the efforts and activities of our collaborators. Collaborations are subject to numerous risks, which may include that: • collaborators could independently develop, or develop