Hyperfine (HYPR) Risk Analysis

In addition, our owned and in-licensed patents may be subject to a reservation of rights by one or more third parties. When new technologies are developed with government funding, in order to secure ownership of such patent rights, the recipient of such funding is required to comply with certain government regulations, including timely disclosing the inventions claimed in such patent rights to the U.S. government and timely electing title to such inventions. Any failure to timely elect title to such inventions may permit the U.S. government to, at any time, take title to such inventions. Additionally, the U.S. government generally obtains certain rights in any resulting patents, including a non-exclusive royalty-free license authorizing the government to use the invention or to have others use the invention on its behalf. If the government decides to exercise these rights, it is not required to engage us as its contractor in connection with doing so. In addition, these rights may permit the U.S. government to disclose our confidential information to third parties and to exercise march-in rights to use or allow third parties to use our licensed technology free of charge. The U.S. government can exercise its march-in rights if it determines that action is necessary because we fail to achieve practical application of the government-funded technology, because action is necessary to alleviate health or safety needs, to meet requirements of federal regulations, or to give preference to U.S. industry. In addition, our rights in such inventions may be subject to certain requirements to manufacture products embodying such inventions in the United States. Any exercise by the government of any of the foregoing rights could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We may identify third-party technology that we may need to license or acquire in order to develop or commercialize our products or technologies. However, we may be unable to secure such licenses or acquisitions. 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. In addition, companies that perceive us to be a competitor may be unwilling to assign or license 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. In return for the use of a third party's technology, we may agree to pay the licensor royalties based on sales of our products or services. Royalties are a component of cost of products or technologies and affect the margins on our products. We may also need to negotiate licenses to patents or patent applications before or after introducing a commercial product. We may not be able to obtain necessary licenses to patents or patent applications, and our business may suffer if we are unable to enter into the necessary licenses on acceptable terms or at all, if any necessary licenses are subsequently terminated, if the licensor fails to abide by the terms of the license or fails to prevent infringement by third parties, or if the licensed intellectual property rights are found to be invalid or unenforceable.

We are, and may in the future become, a party to license agreements that grant us rights to use certain intellectual property, including patents and patent applications, typically in certain specified fields of use. We may need to obtain additional licenses from others to advance our research, development and commercialization activities. Our success may depend in part on the ability of our licensors and any future licensors to obtain, maintain and enforce patent protection for our licensed intellectual property. Without protection for the intellectual property we license, other companies might be able to offer substantially identical products and technologies for sale, which could materially adversely affect our competitive business position and harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Our current license agreements impose, and future agreements may impose, various diligence, commercialization, milestone payment, royalty, insurance and other obligations on us and require us to meet development timelines, or to exercise commercially reasonable efforts to develop and commercialize licensed products, in order to maintain the licenses. If we fail to comply with these obligations, our licensor(s) may have the right to terminate our license, in which event we would not be able to develop or market products or technology covered by the licensed intellectual property. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial conditions, results of operations and prospects. Moreover, disputes may also arise between us and our licensors regarding intellectual property subject to a license agreement, including: - the scope of rights granted under the license agreement and other interpretation-related issues;- our financial or other obligations under the license agreement;- whether, and the extent to which, our products, technology and processes infringe on intellectual property of the licensor that is not subject to the licensing agreement;- our diligence obligations under the license agreement and what activities satisfy those diligence obligations;- the inventorship and ownership of inventions and know-how resulting from the joint creation or use of intellectual property by our licensor(s); and - the priority of invention of patented technology. If we do not prevail in such disputes, we may lose any or all of our rights under such license agreements, experience significant delays in the development and commercialization of our products and technologies, or incur liability for damages, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects. In addition, we may seek to obtain additional licenses from our licensor(s) and, in connection with obtaining such licenses, we may agree to amend our existing licenses in a manner that may be more favorable to the licensor(s), including by agreeing to terms that could enable third parties, including our competitors, to receive licenses to a portion of the intellectual property that is subject to our existing licenses and to compete with our products. In addition, the agreements under which we currently and in the future license intellectual property or technology 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 prevent or impair our ability to maintain our current licensing arrangements on commercially acceptable terms, we may be unable to successfully develop and commercialize any affected products or services, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Absent the license agreements, we may infringe patents subject to those agreements, and if the license agreements are terminated, we may be subject to litigation by the licensor. Litigation could result in substantial costs and distract our management. If we do not prevail, we may be required to pay damages, including treble damages, attorneys' fees or costs and expenses and royalties, which could adversely affect our ability to offer products or services, our ability to continue operations and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Periodic maintenance fees, renewal fees, annuity fees and various other governmental fees on patents and/or applications will be due to be paid to the USPTO and various governmental patent agencies outside of the United States at several stages over the lifetime of the patents and/or applications. The USPTO and various non-U.S. governmental patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions during the patent application process. In certain circumstances, we rely on our licensors to pay these fees due to the U.S. and non-U.S. patent agencies and to take the necessary action to comply with these requirements with respect to our licensed intellectual property. In many cases, an inadvertent lapse can be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules. However, there are situations in which non-compliance can result in an irrevocable abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. In such an event, our competitors may be able to enter the market without infringing our patents and this circumstance could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Our commercial success depends in part on our ability and the ability of future collaborators to develop, manufacture, market and sell our product and use our products and technologies without infringing, misappropriating or otherwise violating the intellectual property rights of third parties. There is a substantial amount of litigation involving patents and other intellectual property rights in the life sciences and medical technology sector, as well as administrative proceedings for challenging patents, including interference, derivation, inter partes review, post grant review, and reexamination proceedings before the USPTO, or oppositions and other comparable proceedings in foreign jurisdictions. We may be exposed to, or threatened with, future litigation by third parties having patent or other intellectual property rights alleging that our products, manufacturing methods, software and/or technologies infringe, misappropriate or otherwise violate their intellectual property rights. Numerous issued patents and pending patent applications that are owned by third parties exist in the fields in which we are developing our products and technologies. It is not always clear to industry participants, including us, the claim scope that may issue from pending patent applications owned by third parties or which patents cover various types of products, technologies or their methods of use or manufacture. Thus, because of the large number of patents issued and patent applications filed in our fields, there may be a risk that third parties, including our competitors, may allege they have patent rights encompassing our products, technologies or methods and that we are employing technology protected by such patent rights without authorization. If third parties, including our competitors, believe that our products or technologies infringe, misappropriate or otherwise violate their intellectual property rights, such third parties may seek to enforce against us their intellectual property rights, including patent rights, by filing against us an intellectual property-related lawsuit, including a patent infringement lawsuit. Even if we believe third-party intellectual property claims are without merit, there is no assurance that a court would find in our favor on questions of infringement, validity, enforceability, or priority. If any third parties were to assert these or any other patents against us and we are unable to successfully defend against any such assertions, we may be required, including by court order, to cease the development and commercialization of the infringing products or technology and we may be required to redesign such products and technologies so they do not infringe such patents, which may not be possible or may require substantial monetary expenditures and time. We could also be required to pay damages, which could be significant, including treble damages and attorneys' fees if we are found to have willfully infringed such patents. We could also be required to obtain a license to such patents in order to continue the development and commercialization of the infringing product or technology. However, such a license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all, including because certain of these patents may be held by or exclusively licensed to our competitors. Even if such a license were available, it may require substantial payments or cross-licenses under our intellectual property rights, and it may only be available on a nonexclusive basis, in which case third parties, including our competitors, could use the same licensed intellectual property to compete with us. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operation and prospects. We may choose to challenge, including in connection with any allegation of patent infringement by a third party, the patentability, validity, ownership or enforceability of any third-party patent that we believe may have applicability in our field, and any other third-party patent that may at some future time possibly be asserted against us. Such challenges may be brought either in court or by requesting that the USPTO, European Patent Office ("EPO"), or other foreign patent offices review the patent claims, such as in an ex-parte reexamination, inter partes review, post-grant review proceeding or opposition proceeding or other similar proceedings. However, there can be no assurance that any such challenge by us or any third party will be successful. Even if such proceedings are successful, these proceedings are expensive and may consume our time or other resources, distract our management and technical personnel, and the costs of these opposition proceedings could be substantial. There can be no assurance that our defenses of non-infringement, invalidity or unenforceability will succeed. Third parties, including our competitors, could be infringing, misappropriating or otherwise violating our solely owned and/or in-licensed intellectual property rights. Monitoring unauthorized use of intellectual property is difficult and costly. We may not be able to detect unauthorized use of, or take appropriate steps to enforce, our intellectual property rights. From time to time, we seek to analyze our competitors' products and services, and may in the future seek to enforce our rights based on potential infringement, misappropriation or violation of our intellectual property. However, the steps we take to protect our intellectual property rights may not be adequate to enforce our rights against such infringement, misappropriation or violation of our intellectual property. Any inability to meaningfully enforce our intellectual property rights could harm our ability to compete and reduce demand for our products and technologies. Litigation proceedings may be necessary for us to enforce our patent and other intellectual property rights. In any such proceeding, a court may refuse to stop the other party from using the technology at issue on the grounds that our owned and in-licensed patents do not cover the technology in question. Further, in such a proceeding, the defendant could counterclaim that our intellectual property is invalid or unenforceable and the court may agree, in which case we could lose valuable intellectual property rights, which could allow third parties to commercialize technology or products similar to ours and compete directly with us, without payment to us. Alternatively or additionally, such a proceeding could result in requiring us to license rights from the prevailing party in order to be able to manufacture or commercialize our products without infringing such party's intellectual property rights, and if we are unable to obtain such a license, we may be required to cease commercialization of our products and technologies, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. The outcome in any such proceeding is somewhat unpredictable. Regardless of whether we are defending against or asserting an intellectual property-related claim in an intellectual property-related proceeding that may be necessary in the future, and regardless of outcome, substantial costs and diversion of resources may result which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. 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. In addition, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions, or other interim proceedings or developments, and if securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a substantial adverse effect on the price of our Class A common stock. Some of our competitors and other third parties may be able to sustain the costs of such litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their greater financial resources and more mature and developed intellectual property portfolios. We may not have sufficient financial or other resources to adequately conduct these types of litigation or proceedings. Any of the foregoing, or any uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of any litigation, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Claims that we have misappropriated the confidential information or trade secrets of third parties could have a similar adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

As is common in the life sciences and medical industry, we engage the services of consultants and independent contractors to assist us in the development of our products. Many of these consultants and independent contractors were previously employed at or may have previously or may be currently providing consulting or other services to, universities or other technology, medical device, biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. We may become subject to claims that we, a consultant or an independent contractor inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed trade secrets or other information proprietary to their former employers or their former or current clients. We may similarly be subject to claims stemming from similar actions of an employee, such as one who was previously employed by another company, including a competitor or potential competitor. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. Even if we are successful in defending against these claims,litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to our management team. If we are not successful, we could lose access or exclusive access to valuable intellectual property.

Patents have a limited lifespan. In the United States, if all maintenance fees are timely paid, the natural expiration of a utility patent is generally 20 years from its earliest U.S. non-provisional filing date. While extensions may be available, the life of a patent, and the protection it affords, is limited. In the United States, a patent's term may, in certain cases, be lengthened by patent term adjustment, which compensates a patentee for administrative delays by the USPTO in examining and granting a patent, or may be shortened if a patent is terminally disclaimed over a commonly owned patent or a patent naming a common inventor and having an earlier expiration date. Even if patents covering our products are obtained, once the patent life has expired, we may be open to competition from competitive products. If one of our products requires extended development, testing and/or regulatory review, patents protecting such products might expire before or shortly after such products are commercialized. As a result, our owned and licensed patent portfolio may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing products similar or identical to our products, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The registered or unregistered trademarks or trade names that we own may be challenged, infringed, circumvented, declared generic or otherwise fail to function as a mark, lapsed or determined to be confusingly similar to or dilutive of other marks. We may not be able to protect our rights in these trademarks and trade names, which we need in order to build name recognition. In addition, third parties have filed, and may in the future file, for registration of trademarks similar or identical to our trademarks, thereby impeding our ability to build brand identity and possibly leading to consumer confusion. If such third parties were to succeed in registering or developing common law rights in any other trademarks that are similar or identical to our trademarks, and if we are not successful in challenging such rights and defending against challenges to Company's trademarks, we may not be able to use such trademarks to develop brand recognition of our technologies, products or services. In addition, there could be potential trade name or trademark infringement claims brought by owners of other registered trademarks or trademarks that incorporate variations of our registered or unregistered trademarks or trade names. Further, we have and may in the future enter into agreements with owners of such third-party trade names or trademarks to avoid potential trademark litigation which may limit our ability to use our trade names or trademarks in certain fields of business. Over the long term, if we are unable to establish name recognition based on our trademarks and trade names, then we may not be able to compete effectively, and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects may be adversely affected. Our efforts to enforce or protect our proprietary rights related to trademarks, trade secrets, domain names, copyrights or other intellectual property may be ineffective and could result in substantial costs and diversion of resources. Any of the foregoing events could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We or our licensors may be subject to claims that former employees, collaborators or other third parties have an interest in our owned or in-licensed patents, trade secrets or other intellectual property as an inventor or co-inventor. For example, we or our licensors may have inventorship disputes arise from alleged inventors such as employees, consultants, advisors or others who are involved in developing our products, some of whom may have conflicting intellectual property ownership obligations. In addition, counterparties to our consulting, sponsored research, software development and other agreements may assert that they have an ownership interest in intellectual property developed under such arrangements. In particular, certain software development agreements pursuant to which certain third parties have developed parts of our proprietary software may not include provisions that expressly assign to us ownership of all intellectual property developed for us by such third parties. Furthermore, certain of our sponsored research agreements pursuant to which we provide certain research services for third parties do not assign to us all intellectual property developed under such agreements. As such, we may not have the right to use all such developed intellectual property under such agreements, we may be required to obtain licenses from third parties and such licenses may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all, or may be non-exclusive. If we are unable to obtain such licenses and such licenses are necessary for the development, manufacture and commercialization of our products and technologies, we may need to cease the development, manufacture or commercialization of our products and technologies. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these and other claims challenging inventorship of our or our licensors' ownership of our owned or in-licensed patents, trade secrets or other intellectual property. If we or our licensors fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights. In such an event, we may be required to obtain licenses from third parties and such licenses may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all, or may be non-exclusive. If we are unable to obtain and maintain such licenses, we may need to cease the development, manufacture or commercialization of our products and technologies. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and loss of time and be a distraction to management and other employees, and certain customers or partners may defer engaging with us until the particular dispute is resolved. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We rely heavily on trade secrets and confidentiality agreements to protect our unpatented know-how, technology and other confidential proprietary information, and to maintain our competitive position. However, trade secrets and know-how can be difficult to protect. In particular, we anticipate that with respect to our technologies, these trade secrets and know-how will over time be disseminated within the industry through independent development, the publication of journal articles describing the methodology, and the movement of personnel from academic to industry scientific positions. In addition to pursuing patents on our technology, we take steps to protect our intellectual property and proprietary technology by entering into agreements, including confidentiality agreements, non-disclosure agreements and intellectual property assignment agreements, with our employees, consultants, academic institutions, corporate partners and, when needed, our advisers. However, we cannot be certain that such agreements have been entered into with all relevant parties, and we cannot be certain that our trade secrets and other confidential proprietary information will not be disclosed or that competitors or other third parties will not otherwise gain access to our trade secrets or independently develop substantially equivalent information and techniques. For example, any of these parties may breach the agreements and disclose our proprietary information, including our trade secrets, and we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for such breaches. Such agreements may not be enforceable or may not provide meaningful protection for our trade secrets or other proprietary information in the event of unauthorized use or disclosure or other breaches of the agreements, and we may not be able to prevent such unauthorized disclosure, which could materially and adversely impact our ability to establish or maintain a competitive advantage in the market, and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Monitoring unauthorized disclosure is difficult, and we do not know whether the steps we have taken to prevent such disclosure are, or will be, adequate. If we were to enforce a claim that a third party had wrongfully obtained and was using our trade secrets, it would be expensive and time-consuming, it could distract our personnel, and the outcome would be unpredictable. In addition, courts outside the United States may be less willing to protect trade secrets or may not recognize certain claims of intellectual property infringement. We also seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our confidential proprietary information by maintaining physical security of our premises and physical and electronic security of our information technology systems, but it is possible that these security measures could be breached. If any of our confidential proprietary information were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor or other third party, absent patent and copyright protection, we would have no right to prevent such competitor from using that technology or information to compete with us, which could harm our competitive position. Competitors or third parties could purchase our products and attempt to replicate some or all of the competitive advantages we derive from our development efforts, design around our protected technology, develop their own competitive technologies that fall outside the scope of our intellectual property rights or independently develop our technologies without reference to our trade secrets. If any of our trade secrets were to be disclosed to or independently discovered by a competitor or other third party, it could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Our owned and licensed patents and patent applications may be subject to validity, enforceability and priority disputes. The issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity or enforceability. Some of our patents or patent applications (including licensed patents and patent applications) may be challenged at a future point in time in opposition, derivation, reexamination, inter partes review, post-grant review or interference or other similar proceedings, as applicable. Any successful third-party challenge to our patents in this or any other proceeding could result in the unenforceability or invalidity of such patents, which may lead to increased competition to our business, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. In addition, if we or our licensors initiate legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent covering our products, the defendant could counterclaim that such patent covering our products, as applicable, is invalid and/or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity or unenforceability are commonplace. There are numerous grounds upon which a third party can assert invalidity or unenforceability of a patent. Grounds for a validity challenge could be an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, including lack of novelty, obviousness or non-enablement. Grounds for an unenforceability assertion could be an allegation that someone connected with prosecution of the patent intentionally withheld relevant information from the relevant patent office, or knowingly made a misleading statement, during prosecution. 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 ex parte re-examination, inter partes review, post-grant review, derivation and equivalent proceedings in non-U.S. jurisdictions, such as opposition proceedings. Such proceedings could result in revocation of or amendment to our patents in such a way that they no longer cover and protect our products. With respect to the validity of our patents, for example, we cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior art of which we, our licensors, our patent counsel and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability during patent litigation is unpredictable. If a defendant or other third party were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity or unenforceability, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on certain aspects of our products and technologies, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. In addition, if the breadth or strength of protection provided by our patents and patent applications is threatened, regardless of the outcome, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to license intellectual property, or develop or commercialize current or future products. We may not be aware of all third-party intellectual property rights potentially relating to our products. Publications of discoveries in the scientific literature often lag behind the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the United States and other jurisdictions are typically not published until approximately 18 months after filing or, in some cases, not until such patent applications issue as patents. We might not have been the first to make the inventions covered by each of our pending patent applications and we might not have been the first to file patent applications for these inventions. To determine the priority of these inventions, we may have to participate, as applicable, in interference proceedings, derivation proceedings or other post-grant proceedings declared by the USPTO, or other similar proceedings in non-U.S. jurisdictions that could result in substantial cost to us and the loss of valuable patent protection. The outcome of such proceedings is uncertain. No assurance can be given that other patent applications will not have priority over our patent applications. In addition, changes to the patent laws of the United States allow for various post-grant opposition proceedings that have not been extensively tested, and their outcome is therefore uncertain. Furthermore, if third parties bring these proceedings against our patents, regardless of the merit of such proceedings and regardless of whether we are successful, we could experience significant costs and our management may be distracted. Any of the foregoing events could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

The laws of some foreign countries do not offer intellectual property rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States, and we and our licensors may encounter difficulties in obtaining, enforcing and defending such rights in foreign jurisdictions. Consequently, we and our licensors may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our or our licensors' inventions in some or all countries outside the United States, or from selling or importing products made using our or our licensors' inventions in other jurisdictions. Competitors and other third parties may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to develop their own products and technologies and may also export infringing products to territories where we have patent protection, but enforcement practices or laws are not as strong as those in the United States. These products may compete with our products. Our and our licensors' patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing. In addition, certain countries have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner may be compelled to grant licenses to other parties. Furthermore, many countries limit the enforceability of patents against other parties, including government agencies or government contractors. In these countries, the patent owner may have limited remedies, which could materially diminish the value of any patents. Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of certain other countries are not as developed or as favorable as the United States in the enforcement of patents and other intellectual property rights, which could make it difficult for us to stop the misappropriation or other violations of our intellectual property rights including infringement of our patents in such countries. The legal systems in certain countries may also favor state-sponsored companies or companies headquartered in particular jurisdictions over our first-in-time patents and other intellectual property rights. The absence of harmonized intellectual property protection laws and effective enforcement makes it difficult to ensure consistent respect for patent, trade secret, and other intellectual property rights on a worldwide basis. As a result, it is possible that we will not be able to enforce our rights against third parties that misappropriate our proprietary technology in those countries. Proceedings to enforce our or our licensors' patent rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial cost and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put us and our licensors' patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and our and our licensors' patent applications at risk of not issuing, and could provoke third parties to assert claims against us. We and our licensors may not prevail in any lawsuits that we or our licensors initiate, or that are initiated against us or our licensors, and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. In addition, changes in the law and legal decisions by courts in the United States and foreign countries may affect our ability to obtain adequate protection for our products, services and other technologies and the enforcement of intellectual property. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop or license. Any of the foregoing events could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of the patent laws in the United States or in other jurisdictions could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of patent applications and the enforcement or defense of issued patents. For instance, under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (the "America Invents Act"), enacted in September 2011, the United States transitioned to a first inventor to file system in which, assuming that other requirements for patentability are met, the first inventor to file a patent application is entitled to the patent on an invention regardless of whether a third party was the first to invent the claimed invention. These changes include allowing third-party submission of prior art to the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") during patent prosecution and additional procedures to challenge the validity of a patent through USPTO administered post-grant proceedings, including post-grant review, inter partes review, and derivation proceedings. The America Invents Act and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Various courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have rendered decisions that impact the scope of patentability of certain inventions or discoveries relating to life sciences and medical technology. Specifically, these decisions stand for the proposition that patent claims that recite laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not themselves patentable unless those patent claims have sufficient additional features that provide practical assurance that the processes are genuine inventive applications of those laws, phenomena, and abstract ideas rather than patent drafting efforts designed to monopolize the law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea itself. What constitutes a "sufficient" additional feature is somewhat uncertain. Furthermore, in view of these decisions, since December 2014, the USPTO has published and continues to publish revised guidelines for patent examiners to apply when examining process claims for patent eligibility. In addition, U.S. Supreme Court rulings have narrowed the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances and weakened the rights of patent owners in certain situations. In addition to some degree of uncertainty with regard to the Company's ability to obtain patents in the future, this combination of events has created a degree of uncertainty with respect to the value of patents, once obtained. Depending on relevant laws enacted by the U.S. Congress, and decisions by the federal courts and the USPTO, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that may have a material adverse effect on our ability to obtain new patents and to defend and enforce our existing patents and patents that we might obtain in the future. Our patent portfolio may be negatively impacted by current uncertainties in the state of the law, new court rulings or changes in guidance or procedures issued by the USPTO or other similar patent offices around the world. From time to time, the U.S. Supreme Court, other federal courts, the U.S. Congress or the USPTO may change the standards of patentability, scope and validity of patents within the life sciences and medical technology and any such changes, or any similar adverse changes in the patent laws of other jurisdictions, could have a negative impact on our business, financial condition, prospects and results of operations.

Federal regulations allow us to sell our medical device products to or on the order of practitioners licensed by law to use or order the use of a prescription device. The definition of "licensed practitioners" varies from state to state. As a result, our current products may be purchased or operated by physicians with varying levels of training and, in many states, by non-physicians, including nurse practitioners, chiropractors and technicians. The FDA clearances of the products require interpretation of images by trained physicians and use of that information in determining a diagnosis. Outside the United States, many jurisdictions do not require specific qualifications or training for purchasers, or operators or interpreters, of medical device products. We do not supervise the procedures performed with our products, nor can we require that direct medical supervision occur. Although product training is offered, we do not require purchasers or operators of our non-invasive products to attend training sessions. The lack of required training and the purchase and use of our non-invasive products by non-physicians may result in product misuse and adverse treatment outcomes, which could harm our reputation and expose us to costly product liability litigation.

In addition to the laws and regulations enforced by the FDA, advertising for various services and for non-restricted medical devices is subject to federal truth-in-advertising laws enforced by the FTC, as well as comparable state consumer protection laws. Our efforts to promote prescription medical device products via social media initiatives may subject us to additional scrutiny of our practices. For example, the FTC and other consumer protection agencies scrutinize all forms of advertising (whether in digital or traditional formats) for business services, consumer-directed products, and non-restricted medical devices to ensure that advertisers are not making false, misleading or unsubstantiated claims or failing to disclose material relationships between the advertiser and its products' endorsers, among other potential issues. The FDA oversees the advertising and promotional labeling for restricted medical devices and ensures, among other things, that there is effective communication of, and a fair and balanced presentation of, the risks and benefits of such high-risk medical devices. Under the Federal Trade Commission Act ("FTC Act"), the FTC is empowered, among other things, to (a) prevent unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce; (b) seek monetary redress and other relief for conduct injurious to consumers; and (c) gather and compile information and conduct investigations relating to the organization, business, practices, and management of entities engaged in commerce. The FTC has very broad enforcement authority, and failure to abide by the substantive requirements of the FTC Act and other consumer protection laws can result in administrative or judicial penalties, including injunctions affecting the manner in which we would be able to market services or products in the future, or criminal prosecution. We plan to increase our advertising activities that may be subject to these federal and state truth-in-advertising laws. Any actual or perceived non-compliance with those laws could lead to an investigation by the FTC or a comparable state agency or could lead to allegations of misleading advertising by private plaintiffs. Any such action against us could disrupt our business operations, cause damage to our reputation, and have a material adverse effect on our business.

Our medical devices and associated services are subject to extensive pre-market and post-market regulation by the FDA and various other federal, state, local and foreign government authorities. Government regulation of medical devices is meant to assure their safety and effectiveness, and includes requirements for, among other things: - design, development and manufacturing processes;- labeling, content and language of instructions for use and storage;- product testing, nonclinical studies and clinical trials;- regulatory clearances and approvals, including pre-market clearance or pre-market approval;- establishment registration, device listing and ongoing compliance with the QSR requirements;- advertising and promotion;- marketing, sales and distribution;- conformity assessment procedures;- product traceability and record-keeping procedures;- review of product complaints, complaint reporting, 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 studies (if applicable); and - product import and export. The laws and regulations to which we and our products are subject are complex and subject to periodic changes. Regulatory changes could result in restrictions on our ability to carry on or expand our operations, higher than anticipated costs or lower than anticipated sales. Before a new medical device, or a significant modification of a medical device, including a new use of or claim for an existing product, can be marketed in the United States, we must first receive either 510(k) clearance or premarket approval ("PMA") from the FDA, unless an exemption applies. 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 is sometimes required to support substantial equivalence. Hyperfine received 510(k) clearance from the FDA for its portable MRI system in 2020. In February and October 2023, the Company received 510(k) clearances from the FDA for its Swoop system AI-powered software. The combination of these two software updates, incorporated deep-learning based denoising in the post-processing of images for crisper images, and improved image quality for all Swoop system sequences. In July 2024, we received 510(k) clearance from the FDA of the ninth-generation AI-powered Swoop system software. This latest software update released to date significantly reduces scan times across multiple MR sequences without sacrificing image quality. Outside of the United States, the Swoop system has received marketing authorization for brain imaging in several countries, including the European Union (CE Mark), the United Kingdom (UKCA Mark), Canada, Australia and New Zealand. In October 2024 and February 2025, the Company received CE Mark and UKCA Mark approval for the latest generation of software. All of our revenue to date has been generated from sales of the Swoop system and related services. We may be required to obtain a new 510(k) clearance or PMA approval for significant post-market modifications to our products, including any modifications made to our commercially marketed devices. Obtaining 510(k) clearance or PMA approval for medical devices can be expensive and time-consuming, and entails significant user fees, unless an exemption is available. The FDA's process for obtaining 510(k) clearance usually takes three to 12 months, but it can last longer. In the PMA approval 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, nonclinical, clinical trial, manufacturing and labeling data. The process for obtaining a PMA is more costly and uncertain and approval can take anywhere from at least one year to, in some cases, multiple years from the time the application is initially filed with the FDA. Modifications to products that are approved through a PMA application generally require further FDA approval. Some of our future products may require PMA approval. In addition, the FDA may demand that we obtain a PMA prior to marketing future changes of our existing products. Further, we may not be able to obtain additional 510(k) clearances or PMAs for new products or for modifications to, or additional indications for, our products in a timely fashion or at all. Delays in obtaining future clearances or approvals could adversely affect our ability to introduce new or enhanced products in a timely manner, which in turn could harm our revenue and future profitability. In order to conduct a clinical investigation involving human subjects for the purpose of demonstrating the safety and effectiveness of a medical device, if necessary, for a PMA application or 510(k) notification, a company must, among other things, apply for and obtain institutional review board ("IRB") approval of the proposed investigation. In addition, if the clinical study involves a "significant risk" (as defined by the FDA) to human health, the sponsor of the investigation must also submit and obtain FDA approval of an investigational device exemption ("IDE") application and follow applicable IDE regulations. Unless IDE-exempt, nonsignificant risk devices are still subject to certain abbreviated IDE requirements, but an IDE application is not required if such abbreviated requirements are met. We may not be able to obtain any necessary FDA and/or IRB approval to undertake clinical trials in the United States for future devices we develop and intend to market in the United States. If we do obtain such approvals, the FDA may find that our studies do not comply with the IDE or other regulations governing clinical investigations or the data from any such trials may not support clearance or approval of the investigational device. Moreover, certainty that clinical trials will meet desired endpoints, produce meaningful or useful data and be free of unexpected adverse effects, or that the FDA will accept the validity of foreign clinical study data (if applicable) cannot be assured, and such uncertainty could preclude or delay market clearance or authorizations resulting in significant financial costs and reduced revenue. We are also subject to numerous post-marketing regulatory requirements, which include quality system regulations related to the manufacture of our devices, labeling regulations and medical device reporting ("MDR") regulations. The last of these regulations requires us to report to the FDA if our devices cause or contribute to a death or serious injury, or malfunction in a way that would likely cause or contribute to a death or serious injury if the malfunction recurred. If we fail to comply with present or future regulatory requirements that are applicable to us, we may be subject to enforcement action by the FDA, which may include any of the following sanctions: - untitled letters, warning letters, fines, injunctions, consent decrees and civil penalties;- 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;- refusal of our requests for 510(k) clearance or PMA of new products, new intended uses or modifications to existing products;- rescission of 510(k) clearance or suspension or withdrawal of PMAs that have already been granted; and - criminal prosecution. The occurrence of any of these events may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

In order for us to market our products in countries outside of the United States, we must comply with extensive safety and quality regulations in other countries regarding the quality, safety and efficacy of our products. These regulations, including the requirements for marketing authorizations, and the time required for regulatory review, vary from country to country. Failure to obtain regulatory authorization in any foreign country in which we plan to market our products may harm our ability to generate revenue and harm our business. Marketing authorization requirements vary between countries and can involve additional product testing and additional administrative review periods. The time required to obtain marketing authorization in other countries might differ from that required to obtain FDA clearance or other marketing authorization. The regulatory process in other countries may include all of the risks detailed above regarding FDA clearance in the United States. Regulatory authorization of a product in one country does not ensure regulatory approval in another, but a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory authorization in one country may negatively impact the regulatory process in others. Failure to obtain regulatory authorization in other countries or any delay or setback in obtaining such authorization could have the same adverse effects described above regarding FDA clearance or approval in the United States. The primary regulatory environment in Europe is that of the European Economic Area ("EEA"), which is comprised of the Member States of the European Union, plus Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. In 2023, our Swoop system received approval in the European Union (CE Mark). In October 2024, our latest generation of AI-powered Swoop system software received CE approval under the European Medical Device Regulation (MDR, EU No. 2017/745). The Medical Device Regulation became fully effective on May 26, 2021. The Medical Device Regulation includes elements intended to strengthen the conformity assessment procedures, assert greater control over notified bodies and their standards, increase overall system transparency, and impose more robust device vigilance requirements on manufacturers and distributors. These new requirements may have an effect on the way we design and manufacture product and products candidates and conduct our business in the EEA. For example, as a result of the continuing transition towards the Medical Device Regulation, Notified Body review times have lengthened, and product introductions or modifications could be delayed or canceled, which could adversely affect our ability to grow our business. The new rules and procedures that have been created under the overhauled EU regulations will likely result in increased regulatory oversight of all medical devices marketed in the EU, and this may, in turn, increase the costs, time and requirements that need to be met in order to place an innovative or high-risk medical device on the EEA market.

Regulatory requirements may change in the future in a way that adversely affects us. Any change in the laws or regulations that govern the clearance and approval processes or the post-market compliance requirements relating to our current and future products could make it more difficult and costly to obtain clearance or approval for new products, or to produce, market and distribute existing products. For example, the FDA and other government agencies have been focusing on the cybersecurity risks associated with certain medical devices and encouraging device manufacturers to take a more proactive approach to assessing the cybersecurity risks of their devices both during development and on a periodic basis after the devices are in commercial distribution. These regulatory efforts could lead to new FDA requirements in the future or additional product liability or other litigation risks if any of our products is considered to be susceptible to third-party tampering. In December 2016, Congress passed the 21st Century Cures Act, which made multiple changes to the FDA's rules for medical devices as well as for clinical trials, and in September 2022, Congress passed the Medical Device User Fee reauthorization package, which affects medical device regulation both pre- and post-approval and could have certain impacts on our business. In recent years, the FDA has also considered a series of efforts to modernize and streamline the 510(k) notification and regulatory review process and monitoring post-market safety. For example, in October 2022, FDA announced that 510(k) applications may be submitted electronically using the electronic submission template and resource, or eSTAR. Further, changes in the FDA 510(k) process could make clearance more difficult to obtain, increase delay, add uncertainty and have other significant adverse effects on our ability to obtain and maintain clearance for our products. More broadly, future legislation or regulation may materially impact the ability of the FDA, and other regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over medical products or services, to operate as they have historically operated. It is unclear at this time whether and how various activities initiated or announced by the FDA to modernize the U.S. medical device regulatory system could affect our business, as some of the FDA's new medical device safety and innovation initiatives have not been formalized and remain subject to change. Disruptions at the FDA, the SEC and other government agencies caused by funding shortages, mass layoffs, or global health concerns could hinder their ability to hire and retain key leadership and other personnel, prevent our products from being developed or commercialized in a timely manner or otherwise prevent those agencies from performing normal business functions on which the operation of our business relies, which could negatively impact our business. The ability of the FDA to review and approve new products can be affected by a variety of factors, including government budget and funding levels, ability to hire and retain key personnel and accept the payment of user fees, and statutory, regulatory and policy changes. Average review times at the agency have fluctuated in recent years as a result. In addition, government funding of the SEC and other government agencies on which our operations may rely, including those that fund research and development activities is subject to the political process, which is inherently fluid and unpredictable. Disruptions at the FDA and other agencies may also slow the time necessary for products to be reviewed and/or approved by necessary government agencies, which would adversely affect our business. For example, over the last several years, the United States government has shut down several times and certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA and the SEC, have had to furlough critical FDA, SEC and other government employees and stop critical activities during that period. In early 2025, following the inauguration of President Trump, the Trump Administration began terminating federal government employees, including at the FDA. The impact of mass layoffs at the agency and other governmental offices with which we interact is unclear at this time. However, it is expected that with a proposed reduction in staff of up to 50%, the FDA in the future may be unlikely to meet its application review goals or to continue to be available for timely interactions with medical product developers. It is currently unclear how the U.S. medical device industry will be affected by the Trump Administration's major changes to the FDA and the federal government as a whole. Separately, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the FDA postponed most inspections of domestic and foreign manufacturing facilities at various points. Even though the FDA has since resumed standard inspection operations of domestic facilities where feasible, the agency has continued to monitor and implement changes to its inspectional activities to ensure the safety of its employees and those of the firms it regulates, and any resurgence of the virus or emergence of new infectious disease outbreaks may lead to future inspectional delays. Regulatory authorities outside the United States may adopt similar policy measures in response to emerging infectious disease outbreaks, epidemics, or pandemics. If a prolonged government shutdown or slowdown occurs, or if global health concerns similar to COVID-19 prevent the FDA or other regulatory agencies from conducting their regular inspections, review, or other regulatory activities, it could significantly affect the ability of the FDA to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. Further, in our operations as a public company, future government shutdowns could impact our ability to access the public markets and obtain necessary capital in order to properly capitalize and continue our operations.

Some of our new or modified products will require FDA clearance of a 510(k) notification or FDA approval of a PMA application. The FDA may refuse our requests for 510(k) clearance or PMA of new products or may not clear or approve these products for the indications that are necessary or desirable for successful commercialization. Early-stage review may also result in delays or other issues. For example, the FDA has issued guidance intended to explain the procedures and criteria used in assessing whether 510(k) and PMA submissions should be accepted for substantive review. Under the "Refuse to Accept" guidance, the FDA conducts an early review against specific acceptance criteria to inform 510(k) and PMA submitters if the submission is administratively complete, or if not, to identify the missing element(s). Submitters are given the opportunity to provide the FDA with any information identified as missing. If the information is not provided within a specified time, the submission will not be accepted for FDA review. The FDA may also change its clearance and approval policies, adopt additional regulations or revise existing regulations, or take other actions that may prevent or delay approval or clearance of our products under development or impact our ability to gain clearance or approval for modifications to our currently approved or cleared products in a timely manner. Significant delays in receiving clearance or approval, or the failure to receive clearance or approval for our new products would have an adverse effect on our ability to expand our business.

We are subject to laws, regulations and rules enacted by national, regional and local governments and the Nasdaq Stock Market on which our securities are listed. In particular, we are required to comply with certain SEC, Nasdaq, Delaware and other legal and regulatory requirements. Compliance with, and monitoring of, applicable laws, regulations and rules may be difficult, time-consuming and costly. Those laws, regulations and rules and their interpretation and application may also change from time to time and those changes could have a material adverse effect on our business, investments and results of operations. For example, it is difficult to predict what impact, if any, changes in federal laws and policies, including those relating to tax, environmental, labor and employment, will have on our business and industry, the economy as a whole, consumer confidence and discretionary spending. Further, a prior ruling by the Court of Chancery in Delaware introduced uncertainty as to whether Section 242(b)(2) of the DGCL required a separate vote in favor of at least a majority of the outstanding shares of Class A common stock, in addition to a vote in favor of at least a majority of the outstanding shares of Class A and Class B common stock, voting together as a single class, to properly authorize shares of Class A common stock. In connection with the Business Combination, our stockholders authorized an increase in the number of shares of Class A common stock under Cayman Islands law, our jurisdiction at the time of the stockholder vote. Accordingly, we do not believe that the Delaware ruling applies to us. However, any failure to comply with applicable laws, regulations or rules, as interpreted and applied, could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations. Claims alleging that a portion of our Class A common stock was not authorized could lead to shares of our Class A common stock being voidable and have a material adverse effect on us and our prospects. In addition, uncertainty with respect to our capitalization resulting from the Court of Chancery's ruling referenced above could have a material adverse impact on us, including on our ability to complete equity financing transactions or issue stock-based compensation to our employees, directors and officers until the underlying issues are definitively resolved. This uncertainty could impair our ability to execute our business plan, attract and retain employees, management and directors and adversely affect our commercial relationships.

Healthcare reforms, changes in healthcare policies and changes to third-party coverage and reimbursements, including legislation enacted reforming the U.S. healthcare system and both domestic and foreign healthcare cost containment legislation, and any future changes to such legislation, may affect demand for our products and services and may have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. In the United States, there have been and continue to be a number of legislative initiatives to contain healthcare costs. Federal and state lawmakers regularly propose and, at times, enact legislation that would result in significant changes to the healthcare system, some of which are intended to contain or reduce the costs of medical products and services. Future legislative and regulatory proposals to further reform healthcare or reduce healthcare costs may prevent, limit or delay regulatory authorization of our product candidates or even lower reimbursement for the procedures associated with the use of our approved device products. More broadly, such future legislation or regulation may materially impact the ability of the FDA and other regulatory agencies to operate as they have historically operated. The cost containment measures that payors and providers are instituting and the effect of any healthcare reform initiative implemented in the future could impact our revenue from the sale of our products and services. Coverage and reimbursement by third-party payors, including managed care organizations, other private health insurers and government healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, for our products can be limited and uncertain. If third-party payors do not provide coverage and adequate reimbursement for our products and services, our potential for growth and our ability to collect revenue for these products and services could be limited and our results of operations may be materially and adversely affected. Additionally, there can be no assurance that current levels of reimbursement will not be decreased in the future, or that future legislation, regulation, or reimbursement policies of third parties will not adversely affect the demand for our products and services or our ability to sell products and provide services on a profitable basis. We cannot be sure whether additional legislative changes will be enacted, or whether any of the FDA's regulations, guidance or interpretations will be changed, or what the impact of such changes on the agency and its scientific review staff, if any, may be. Furthermore, the adoption of significant changes to the healthcare system in the United States, the EEA or other jurisdictions in which we may market our products and services, could limit the prices we are able to charge for our products and services or the amounts of reimbursement available for our products and services, could limit the acceptance and availability of our products and services, reduce medical procedure volumes and increase operational and other costs. In addition, the pricing or profitability of healthcare products in certain foreign jurisdictions is subject to government controls and other measures that have been prepared by legislators and government officials. While we cannot predict whether any such legislative or regulatory proposals or reforms will be adopted, the adoption of any such proposals or reforms could adversely affect the commercial viability of our existing and potential products. In December 2022, the U.S. Congress enacted the Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2023, an omnibus appropriations bill, which included amendments to the FDCA under the Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act of 2022 ("FDORA"). In addition to the requirement that sponsors of pivotal trials submit diversity action plans for pivotal trials (as described in "Item 1. Business -?Government Regulation"), FDORA included new requirements for cyber devices, defined as any medical device that is or includes software that is validated, installed, or authorized by the manufacturer; can connect to the internet; and may be vulnerable to cybersecurity threats. Under the FDORA amendments to the FDCA, any application for marketing authorization of the cyber device must include a software bill of materials and a cybersecurity plan describing the methods by which the manufacturer will monitor, identify and address cybersecurity vulnerabilities. Any failure by a cyber device manufacturer to comply with applicable cybersecurity requirements is considered a violation of the FDCA and will subject the manufacturer to enforcement actions and possibly legal sanctions. Furthermore, many of our customers are healthcare facilities that are subject to state Determination of Need, or DoN, laws. The purpose of DoN laws is generally to promote competition and cost containment in healthcare. Under state DoN laws, healthcare facilities are required to complete an extensive review and approval process before making substantial capital expenditures. While our Swoop system is generally more affordable than traditional MRI systems, in some states healthcare facilities are required to complete such processes in connection with their potential acquisition of a Swoop system, which can result in delays in or decisions not to complete the sale process, resulting in an adverse impact on our business. We cannot predict what other healthcare programs and regulations will ultimately be implemented in the United States, at the federal or state level, or in foreign jurisdictions where we market our devices, nor can we predict the effects of any such future legislation or regulation on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Limitations on the ability of taxpayers to claim and utilize foreign tax credits and the deferral of certain tax deductions until earnings outside of the United States are repatriated to the United States, as well as changes to U.S. tax laws that may be enacted in the future, could impact the tax treatment of future foreign earnings. Should the scale of our international business activities expand, any changes in the U.S. taxation of such activities could increase our worldwide effective tax rate and harm our future financial position and results of operations.

We rely on a limited number of suppliers to manufacture components for our products, including in some cases only a single supplier for some of our components. In addition, we rely on Benchmark to purchase the magnet used in our Swoop system, which is a key custom-made component manufactured by a single source supplier in Europe. Our reliance on a limited number of suppliers increases our risks, since we do not currently have alternative or replacement suppliers beyond these key parties. In the event of interruption from any of our suppliers, we may not be able to increase capacity from other sources or develop alternate or secondary sources without incurring material additional costs and substantial delays. If we experience a significant increase in demand for our products, or if we need to replace an existing supplier or manufacturer, we may be unable to supplement or replace them on terms that are acceptable to us, which may undermine our ability to deliver our products to customers in a timely manner. Identifying suitable suppliers and manufacturers is an extensive process that requires us to become satisfied with their quality control, technical capabilities, responsiveness and service, financial stability, regulatory compliance, and labor and other ethical practices. Accordingly, a loss of any of our suppliers or our device manufacturer could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and operating results.

Third-party suppliers utilized by our manufacturer, Benchmark have and may continue to impose pricing pressures. Because we currently also rely on Benchmark to manufacture, test and ship all of the Swoop systems and on a limited number of suppliers to supply our components, including Benchmark to purchase the magnet used in the scanner from a single source supplier, such pricing pressures from a third party such as Benchmark have and could increase our costs and could force us to increase the prices of our products if we are unable to enter into alternative arrangements with other suppliers or manufacturers, potentially leading to decreased customer demand.

Our business is dependent upon the success of our sales and customer acquisition and retention strategies, and our marketing efforts are focused on developing a strong reputation with healthcare providers and increasing awareness of our products and services. If we fail to maintain a high quality of service or a high quality of device technology, we may fail to retain existing customers or add new customers. If we do not successfully continue our sales efforts and promotional activities, particularly to health systems and large institutions, or if existing customers decrease their level of engagement, our revenue, financial results and business may be significantly harmed. Our future success depends upon continued expansion of our commercial operations in the United States and internationally, as well as entering additional markets to commercialize our products and services. We believe that our growth will depend on the further development and commercialization of our current products and services, regulatory authorization of our current products and services in additional markets, and development, regulatory authorization and commercialization of our future products and services. If we fail to expand the use of our products and services in a timely manner, we may not be able to expand our market share or to grow our revenue. Our financial performance will be substantially dictated by our success in increasing and maintaining the volume of use of our products by our customers. If customers do not perceive our products or services to be useful, reliable and trustworthy, we may not be able to attract or retain customers or otherwise maintain or increase the frequency and duration of their engagement. As our business model is predicated on device hardware sales, and service and support agreements for use of device hardware and services, there is risk that any decline in sales, service and support renewal rates will adversely impact our business. A decrease in customer retention, growth or engagement with our products and services may have a material and adverse impact on our revenue, business, financial condition and results of operations. Any number of factors could negatively affect customer retention, growth and engagement, including: - customers choosing competing products or choosing to use conventional MRI systems over our products;- failure to introduce new and improved products and services;- inability to continue to develop products that customers find effective and that achieve a high level of market acceptance;- changes in customer sentiment about the quality or usefulness of our products and services or concerns related to safety, security, privacy and data sharing or other factors;- adverse changes in our products that are mandated by legislation or regulatory agencies, both in the United States and internationally; or - technical or other problems preventing us from delivering products or services in a rapid and reliable manner or otherwise affecting the user experience. In addition, we expect that changing policies of and actions by the U.S. government will adversely affect the ability of certain of our current, or potential, customers or collaborators to purchase, maintain or retain our products and services. In particular, upon taking office in January 2025, the Trump administration effectively prevented the NIH from reviewing and awarding grants, or paying out funds under already awarded grants, including for research or other projects that involve our products and services. If this hold on government grants continues, or if the U.S. government takes any other actions to limit funds available for life science or healthcare research or other projects, we expect that it will affect certain of our current, or potential, customers and may have a material and adverse impact on our revenue, business, financial condition and results of operations.