SeaStar Medical Holding (ICU) Risk Analysis

Periodic maintenance fees on any issued patent are owed to the USPTO and foreign patent agencies in several stages over the lifetime of the patent. The USPTO and various foreign governmental patent agencies also require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions during the patent application process. While an inadvertent lapse can in many cases be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules, there are situations in which noncompliance can result in abandonment or the lapse of a patent or patent application, resulting in the partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. Noncompliance events that could result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application include, but are not limited to, failure to respond to official actions within prescribed time limits, non-payment of fees and failure to properly legalize and submit formal documents. If the Company or its licensors fail to maintain the patents and patent applications covering the Company's products, its competitive position would be adversely affected.

The degree of future protection afforded by the Company's intellectual property rights is uncertain because intellectual property rights have limitations, and may not adequately protect its business, or permit it to maintain its competitive advantage. The following examples are illustrative: - others may be able to make products that are the same as or similar to the Company's products but that are not covered by the claims of patents that it owns or has rights to;- the Company or its licensors or any current or future strategic partners might not have been the first to conceive or reduce to practice the inventions covered by its patents or pending patent applications;- the Company or its licensors or any future strategic partners might not have been the first to file patent applications covering the inventions in the Company's patents or applications;- others may independently develop similar or alternative technologies or duplicate any of the Company's technologies without infringing the Company's intellectual property rights;- the Company's pending patent rights may not lead to issued patents, or the patents, if granted, may not provide it with any competitive advantage, or may be held invalid or unenforceable, as a result of legal challenges by its competitors;- the Company's competitors might conduct research and development activities in countries where it does not have patent rights and then use the information learned from such activities to develop competitive products for sale in the Company's major commercial markets;- third parties manufacturing or testing the Company's products or technologies could use the intellectual property of others without obtaining a proper license;- the Company may not develop additional technologies that are patentable; and - third parties may allege that the Company's development and commercialization of its products infringe their intellectual property rights, the outcome of any related litigation may have an adverse effect on the Company's business, result of operations and financial condition.

As is the case with other medical device companies, the Company's success is heavily dependent on intellectual property, particularly 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. Patent reform legislation in the United States and other countries, including the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or the Leahy-Smith Act, signed into law in September 2011, could increase those uncertainties and costs. The Leahy-Smith Act included a number of significant changes to United States patent law. These include provisions that affect the way patent applications are prosecuted, redefine prior art and provide more efficient and cost-effective avenues for competitors to challenge the validity of patents, such as through post grant and inter parties review proceedings at the USPTO. In addition, the Leahy-Smith Act transformed the United States patent system into a "first to file" system effective March 2013. The Leahy-Smith Act and its implementation could make it more difficult for the Company to obtain patent protection for its inventions and increases the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of the Company's patent applications and the enforcement or defense of its issued patents, all of which could harm its business, results of operations and financial condition. The United States Supreme Court has ruled on several patent cases, either narrowing the scope of patent protection available or weakening the rights of patent owners in certain circumstances. Additionally, there have been proposals for additional changes to the patent laws of the United States and other countries that, if adopted, could impact the Company's ability to enforce its proprietary technology. Depending on future actions by Congress, the United States courts, the USPTO and the relevant law-making bodies in other countries, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in ways that would weaken the Company's ability to obtain new patents or to enforce its existing and future patents.

The United States federal government retains certain rights in inventions produced with its financial assistance under the Patent and Trademark Law Amendments Act (as amended, the "Bayh-Dole Act"). Certain of the Company's exclusively owned patents and patent applications and those patents and applications that it co-owns with and exclusively licenses from the University of Michigan were developed using federal funding from the National Institutes of Health, the U.S. Department of Defense, and/or the U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command. Consequently, pursuant to the Bayh-Dole Act, the U.S. government has certain rights in patents and applications that cover SeaStar Medical's SCD technology, in particular, to those patents and applications identified in the section of this Annual Report titled "Business – Intellectual Property" belonging to Patent Families 1-4. The U.S. federal government has certain rights, including so-called "march-in rights," to any patent rights that were funded in part by the U.S. government and any products or technology developed from such patent rights. When new technologies are developed with U.S. government funding, the U.S. government generally obtains certain rights in any resulting patents, including a non-exclusive license authorizing the U.S. government to use the invention for non-commercial purposes. These rights may permit the U.S. government to disclose the Company's confidential information to third parties and to exercise march-in rights to use or to allow third parties to use the Company's licensed patents, including certain patents relating to SCD product candidates. The U.S. government can exercise its march-in rights if it determines that action is necessary because the Company fails to achieve the practical application of 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, the Company's rights in such inventions may be subject to certain requirements to manufacture products embodying such inventions in the United States. Furthermore, the U.S. government may have the right to take title to government-funded inventions if the Company fails to disclose the inventions to the government in a timely manner or fails to file a patent application within specified time limits. If the U.S. government exercises such march-in rights, the Company may not be able to develop or commercialize its product candidates effectively or profitably, or at all, which could harm the Company's business, results of operations and financial condition. In addition, if any intellectual property owned or licensed by the Company becomes subject to any of the rights or remedies available to the U.S. government or third parties pursuant to the Bayh-Dole Act, this could impair the value of the Company's intellectual property and could adversely affect its business. The Company also sometimes collaborates with academic institutions to accelerate its research or development. While the Company tries to avoid engaging its academic partners in projects in which there is a risk that federal funds may be co-mingled, it cannot be sure that any co-developed intellectual property will be free from government rights pursuant to the Bayh-Dole Act. If, in the future, the Company co-owns or licenses technology which is critical to its business that is developed in whole or in part with federal funds subject to the Bayh-Dole Act, its ability to enforce or otherwise exploit patents covering such technology may be adversely and materially affected.

The Company has also entered into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with all of its employees, advisors, consultants, contract manufacturers, clinical investigators and other third parties involved in the development and commercialization of its technology in order to protect its intellectual property and other proprietary technologies some of which may not be amenable to patent protection. However, these agreements may not be enforceable or may not provide meaningful protection for the Company's trade secrets or other proprietary information in the event of unauthorized use or disclosure or other breaches of the agreements. For example, trade secrets and confidential know-how can be difficult to maintain as confidential. Although the Company uses reasonable efforts to protect its trade secrets, any party with whom it has executed a confidentiality agreement could breach that agreement and disclose the Company's confidential information. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret is difficult, expensive, and time consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. Accordingly, the Company may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for such breaches, despite any legal action it might take against persons making such unauthorized disclosure. In addition, courts outside the United States sometimes are less willing than in the United States to protect trade secrets. If any of the Company's trade secrets were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor, it would have no right to prevent such third party, or those to whom the third party communicates such technology or information, from using that technology or information to compete with the Company. If any of its trade secrets were to be disclosed to or independently developed by a competitor, its business, results of operations and financial condition. Those with whom the Company collaborates on research and development related to current and future technologies and products may have rights to publish data and other information to which the Company has rights. In addition, the Company sometimes engages individuals or entities to conduct research relevant to its business. The ability of these individuals or entities to publish or otherwise publicly disclose data and other information generated during the course of their research is subject to certain contractual limitations. But these contractual provisions may be insufficient or inadequate to protect the Company's confidential information. If the Company does not apply for patent protection prior to such publication, or if it cannot otherwise maintain the confidentiality of its proprietary technology and other confidential information, then its ability to obtain patent protection or to protect its trade secret information may be jeopardized.

Competitors may infringe the Company's patents, trademarks, or other intellectual property. To counter infringement or unauthorized use of its intellectual property, the Company may be required to initiate legal proceedings against a third party to enforce its intellectual property rights. If the Company were to file a claim against a third party to enforce a patent covering one of its products, the defendant could counterclaim that the Company's patent rights are invalid and/or unenforceable (a common practice in the United States). Grounds for a validity challenge could be an alleged failure to meet one or more statutory requirements for patentability, including, for example, lack of novelty, obviousness, lack of written description or non-enablement. In addition, patent validity challenges may, under certain circumstances, be based upon non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting, which, if successful, could result in a finding that the claims are invalid for obviousness-type double patenting or the loss of patent term, including a patent term adjustment granted by the USPTO, if a terminal disclaimer is filed to obviate a finding of obviousness-type double patenting. Grounds for an unenforceability assertion could be based on an allegation that someone connected with prosecution of the patent intentionally withheld relevant information from the USPTO or made a misleading statement, during prosecution. In any patent infringement proceeding, there is a risk that a court will decide that a Company patent is invalid or unenforceable, in whole or in part. There is also a risk that, even if the validity of such patents is upheld, the court will construe the patent's claims narrowly or decide that the Company does not have the right to stop the other party from using the invention at issue on the grounds that the Company's patent claims do not cover the invention at issue. An adverse outcome in a litigation or proceeding involving the Company's patents could limit its ability to assert its patents against those other parties and other competitors, which may curtail or preclude its ability to exclude third parties from selling similar products. Any of these occurrences could adversely and materially affect the Company's business, results of operations and financial condition. Even if the Company establishes 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 the Company's confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during litigation. Additionally, third parties are able to challenge the validity of issued patents through administrative proceedings in the patent offices of certain countries, including the USPTO and the European Patent Office. Although the Company believes that it has conducted its patent prosecution in accordance with the duty of candor and in good faith, the outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability during patent litigation is unpredictable. With respect to the validity question, for example, the Company cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior art, of which it and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution. If a defendant were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity and/or unenforceability, the Company would lose some or all of the patent protection for one or more of its products. Such a loss of patent protection could have a material adverse impact on its business, results of operations and financial condition. Further, intellectual property litigation could lead to unfavorable publicity that could harm the Company's reputation. Other parties may challenge certain of the Company's foreign patent applications. If any such parties are successful in opposing its foreign patent applications, the Company may not gain the protection afforded by those patent applications in particular jurisdictions and may face additional proceedings with respect to similar patents in other jurisdictions, as well as related patents. The loss of patent protection in one jurisdiction may influence the Company's ability to maintain patent protection for the same technology in other jurisdictions. In addition, the European Unified Patent Court, or the UPC, came into force during 2023. The UPC is a common patent court to hear patent infringement and revocation proceedings effective for member states of the European Union. Although we have decided, and may continue to decide, to opt out certain of our European patents and patent applications from the UPC, if certain formalities and requirements are not met, then our European patents and patent applications could be challenged for non-compliance and brought under the jurisdiction of the UPC. Thus, we cannot be certain that our European patents and patent applications will avoid falling under the jurisdiction of the UPC. This could enable third parties to seek revocation of our European patents in a single proceeding at the UPC rather than through multiple proceedings in each of the jurisdictions in which the European patent is validated. Any such revocation and loss of patent protection could have a material adverse impact on our business and our ability to commercialize or license our technology and products. Moreover, the controlling laws and regulations of the UPC will develop over time, and may adversely affect our ability to enforce or defend the validity of our European patents. Further, disputes may arise regarding the ownership or inventorship of the Company's patents. While the Company has entered into assignment of intellectual property agreements with its employees, consultants, and collaborators and believes that it owns its patents and applications, the assignment and other ownership agreements that it relies on could be challenged. If a court or administrative body determined that the Company's does not own certain of its patents or patent applications, or that inventorship of certain of its patents its incorrect, the Company's title to its patents could be invalidated and its ability to develop and commercialize its technology could be materially harmed.

The Company's commercial success depends, in part, on its ability to develop and market its SCD technology, as well as any future technologies that it develops, without infringing the intellectual property and other proprietary rights of third parties. The medical device industry is characterized by extensive litigation and administrative proceedings over patent and other intellectual property rights. Whether a product infringes a patent involves complex legal and factual issues, and the determination is often uncertain. There may be existing patents of which the Company is unaware that its products under development may inadvertently infringe. The likelihood that patent infringement claims may be brought against the Company increases as the number of competitors increases, as it introduces new products and achieves more visibility in the marketplace. Any infringement claim against the Company, even if without merit, may cause the Company to incur substantial costs, and would place a significant strain on its financial resources, divert the attention of management from its core business, and harm its reputation. In some cases, litigation may be threatened or brought by a patent holding company or other adverse patent owner who has no relevant product revenues and against whom the Company's patents may provide little or no deterrence. If the Company is found to infringe any patents, the Company could be required to pay substantial damages, including triple damages if an infringement is found to be willful. The Company also could be forced, including by court order, to cease developing, manufacturing, or commercializing infringing products. The Company also could be required to pay royalties and could be prevented from selling its products unless it obtains a license or is able to redesign its products to avoid infringement. The Company may not be able to obtain a license enabling it to sell its products on reasonable terms, or at all. If the Company fails to obtain any required licenses or makes any necessary changes to its technologies or the products, the Company may be unable to commercialize one or more of its products or may have to withdraw products from the market, either of which would have a material adverse effect on its business, results of operations and financial condition. In the event a competitor infringes upon any of the Company's patents or other intellectual property rights, enforcing its rights may be difficult, time consuming and expensive, and would divert management's attention from managing its business. The Company may not be successful on the merits in any enforcement effort. In addition, the Company may not have sufficient resources to litigate, enforce or defend its intellectual property rights.

Patents have a limited duration. In the United States, if all maintenance fees are timely paid, the natural expiration of a patent is generally 20 years from its earliest United States non-provisional filing date. Various extensions may be available, but the life of a patent, and the protection it affords, is limited. Even if patents related to the Company's products, or their uses are obtained, once the patent life has expired, the Company may be open to competition from competitive products. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting the Company's products might expire before or shortly after such products receive FDA approval and are commercialized. As a result, the Company's patent portfolio may not provide the company with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing similar or identical products. Depending upon the timing, duration and requirements of FDA marketing approval of the Company's product candidates, its United States patents, if issued, may be eligible for a limited patent term extension under the Hatch-Waxman Act, or under similar legislation in other countries. However, the Company's patent and patent applications are only eligible for a patent term extension under the Hatch Waxman Act if they relate to a medical device classified by the FDA as a Class III device. Therefore, if the Company's product candidates are not classified as Class III devices, it will not be able to apply for an extension of term for any patents covering such approved products. If eligible, the Hatch-Waxman Act permits a patent term extension of up to five years for a patent covering an approved product as compensation for effective patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review process. The patent term extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond 14 years from the date of product candidate approval, and only one patent related to an approved product candidate may be extended. However, the Company may not receive an extension if it fails to apply within applicable deadlines, fails to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents or otherwise fails to satisfy applicable requirements. Moreover, the length of the extension could be less than requested. Accordingly, if the Company is unable to obtain a patent term extension or the term of any such extension is less than requested, the period during which the Company can enforce its patent rights for that product will be shortened and competitors may obtain approval to market competing products sooner than expected. As a result, the Company's business, results of operations and financial condition could be adversely and materially affected.

The Company's success depends in large part on its ability to protect its proprietary rights to the technologies incorporated into its products, including its ability to obtain and maintain patent protection in the United States and other countries related to its SCD technology and other technologies that it deems important to its business. The Company relies on a combination of patent protection, trade secret laws and nondisclosure, confidentiality, and other contractual restrictions to protect its proprietary technology. If the Company does not adequately protect its intellectual property, competitors may be able to erode or negate any competitive advantage it may have, which could harm its business, result of operations and financial condition. To protect the Company's proprietary technologies, it has pursued patent protection in the United States and abroad related to its SCD technology and other technologies that are important to its business. The patent application and approval process are expensive and time-consuming. The Company may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner. Failure to protect, obtain, maintain, or extend adequate patent and other intellectual property rights could materially adversely affect the Company's ability to develop and market its products. The enforcement, defense and maintenance of such patents and other intellectual property rights may be challenging and costly. The Company cannot be certain that any patents that it has been issued or granted will not later be found to be invalid and/or unenforceable. The Company cannot be certain that pending patent applications will be issued in a form that provides it with adequate protection to prevent competitors from developing competing products. As a medical device technology company, the Company's patent position is uncertain because it involves complex legal and factual considerations. The standards applied by United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"), and foreign patent offices in granting patents are not always applied uniformly or predictably. For example, there is no uniform worldwide policy regarding patentable subject matter or the scope of claims allowable as methods of medical treatment. Consequently, patents may not be issued from any applications that are currently pending or that are filed in the future. As such, the Company does not know the degree of future protection that it will have for its technology. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability, and commercial value of the Company's patent rights are highly uncertain. Only issued patents can be enforced against third parties practicing the technology claimed in such patents. Pending patent applications cannot be enforced unless and until patents get issued from such applications. Assuming the other requirements for patentability are met, currently, patents are granted to the party who was the first to file a patent application. However, prior to March 16, 2013, in the United States, patents were granted to the party who was the first to invent the claimed subject matter. 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 18 months after filing, or in some cases not at all. Therefore, the Company cannot be certain that it was the first to make the inventions claimed in its patents or pending patent applications, or that it was the first to file for patent protection of such inventions. Moreover, because the issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity or enforceability, the Company patents or pending patent applications may be challenged in the courts or by the USPTO or by foreign patent offices. For example, the Company may be subject to a third-party pre-issuance submission of prior art to the USPTO, or become involved in post-grant review procedures such as oppositions, derivations, reexaminations, inter parties review or interference proceedings, in the United States or elsewhere, challenging its patent rights or the patent rights of third parties. An adverse determination in any such challenges may result in the loss of exclusivity or in patent claims being narrowed, invalidated, or held unenforceable, in whole or in part, which could limit the Company's ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar products, or limit the duration of the Company's patent protection. In addition, given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of medical devices, the Company's patents might expire before or shortly after such products receive FDA approval and are commercialized, or before it receives approval to market its products in a foreign country. Patent applications may not result in patents being issued which protect any current and future product candidates, in whole or in part, or which effectively prevent others from commercializing competitive products. Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of the patent laws in the United States and other countries may diminish the value of the Company's patents or narrow the scope of its patent protection. In addition, the laws of foreign countries may not protect the Company's rights to the same extent or in the same manner as the laws of the United States. For example, European patent law restricts the patentability of methods of treatment of the human body more than United States patent law. Although the Company believes that certain of its patents and applications, if they are granted, will help protect the proprietary nature of its SCD technology, this protection may not be sufficient to protect the Company during the development of that technology. Even if the Company's patent applications are issued as patents, they may not be issued in a form that will provide it with any meaningful protection, prevent competitors from competing with it or otherwise provide it with any competitive advantage. The Company's competitors may be able to circumvent its patents by developing similar or alternative technologies or products in a non-infringing manner. The Company's competitors may also seek approval to market their own products similar to or otherwise competitive with any of the Company's products. Thus, even if the Company has valid and enforceable patents, these patents still may not provide protection against competing products or technologies sufficient to achieve its business objectives.

Under the FDA medical device reporting regulations, medical device manufacturers are required to report to the FDA that a device has or may have caused or contributed to a death or serious injury or has malfunctioned in a way that would likely cause or contribute to a death or serious injury. If the Company fails to report these events to the FDA within the required timeframes, or at all, the FDA could take enforcement action against the Company. Any such adverse event involving the Company's products could also result in future voluntary corrective actions, such as recalls or customer notifications, or agency action, such as inspection or enforcement action. Any corrective action, whether voluntary or involuntary, as well as defending against potential lawsuits, will require the dedication of the Company's time and capital, distract management from operating its business, and may harm the Company's reputation and financial results.

The Company is not permitted to promote or market its product candidates until FDA approval is obtained. After approval, its promotional materials and training methods must comply with the FDA and other applicable laws and regulations, including the prohibition of the promotion of unapproved or off-label use. Practitioners may use the Company's products off-label, as the FDA does not restrict or regulate a practitioner's choice of treatment within the practice of medicine. However, if the FDA determines that the Company's promotional materials or training constitutes promotion of an off-label use, it could request that the Company modify its training or promotional materials or subject the Company to regulatory or enforcement actions, including the issuance of an untitled letter, a warning letter, injunction, seizure, civil fine, or criminal penalties. Other federal, state, or foreign enforcement authorities might also take action if they consider the Company's promotional or training materials to constitute promotion of an off-label use, which could result in significant fines or penalties under other statutory authorities, such as laws prohibiting false claims for reimbursement. In that event, the Company's reputation could be damaged, which may lead to reduced or non-acceptance of its proposed product candidates by the market. In addition, the off-label use of the Company's products may increase the risk of product liability claims. Product liability claims are expensive to defend and could divert the attention of the Company's management, result in substantial damage awards against the Company, and harm its reputation.

If the Company or its manufacturers or other third-party contractors fail to comply with applicable federal, state or foreign laws or regulations, the Company could be subject to regulatory actions, which could affect its ability to successfully develop, market and sell its SCD product candidate or any future product candidates under development and could harm its reputation and lead to reduced or non-acceptance of its proposed product candidates by the market. Even technical recommendations or evidence by the FDA through letters, site visits, and overall recommendations to academia or biotechnology companies may make the manufacturing of a clinical product extremely labor intensive or expensive, making the product candidate no longer viable to manufacture in a cost-efficient manner. The mode of administration or the required testing of the product candidate may make that candidate no longer commercially viable. The conduct of clinical trials may be critiqued by the FDA, or a clinical trial site's Institutional Review Board or Institutional Biosafety Committee, which may delay or make impossible the clinical testing of a product candidate. For example, the Institutional Review Board for a clinical trial may stop a trial or deem a product candidate unsafe to continue testing. This would have a material adverse effect on the value of the product candidate and the Company's business, results of operations and financial condition.

Except in certain circumstances, products approved under an HDE cannot be sold for an amount that exceeds the costs of the research and development, fabrication, and distribution of the device (i.e., for profit). Currently, under section 520(m)(6)(A)(i) of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended (the "FD&C Act") by the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act, a Humanitarian Use Device ("HUD") is only eligible to be sold for profit after receiving HDE approval if the device (1) is intended for the treatment or diagnosis of a disease or condition that occurs in pediatric patients or in a pediatric subpopulation, and such device is labeled for use in pediatric patients or in a pediatric subpopulation in which the disease or condition occurs; or (2) is intended for the treatment or diagnosis of a disease or condition that does not occur in pediatric patients or that occurs in pediatric patients in such numbers that the development of the device for such patients is impossible, highly impracticable, or unsafe. If an HDE-approved device does not meet this eligibility criteria, the device cannot be sold for profit. With enactment of the FDA Reauthorization Act of 2017, Congress provided that the exemption for the HUD/HDE profitability is available as long as the request for an exemption is submitted on or before October 1, 2022. Not receiving an exemption for the HUD/HDE profitability would have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations and financial condition. In addition, if the FDA subsequently approves a PMA or clears a 510(k) for the HUD or another comparable device with the same indication, the FDA may withdraw the HDE. Once a comparable device becomes legally marketed through PMA approval or 510(k) clearance to treat or diagnose the disease or condition in question, there may no longer be a need for the HUD and so the HUD may no longer meet the requirements of section 520(m)(2)(B) of the FD&C Act.

The Company may encounter various challenges and difficulties in its application to seek approval from the FDA to sell and market its SCD product candidates, including the application for HDE for pediatric AKI indication and the pivotal trial for adult AKI indication. The Company is required to submit a substantial amount of supporting documentation for its HDE application to demonstrate the eligibility of the SCD to treat pediatric patients. The Company submitted an application for a HDE for SCD in June 2022 for the treatment of pediatric patients with AKI on CRRT. On September 29, 2023, the Company received correspondence from the FDA indicating that this HDE is approvable for use in children weighing 10 kilograms or more with AKI and sepsis or a septic condition requiring CRRT in the hospital ICU. On October 30, 2023, the Company announced that it received the approvable letter from the FDA. On February 22, 2024, the Company announced the receipt of the approval order from the FDA. The Company believes the approval of its HDE will confirm SCD and its technology as an effective tool to treat hyperinflammation related diseases, which will enable us to successfully execute our business and growth strategies. The Company believes that its novel therapeutic device is readily applicable for use in other indications, which will require additional clinical studies and FDA approval. For example, on September 28, 2023, the Company received Breakthrough Device Designation for our patented and cell-directed SCD for use with patients in the hospital ICU with acute or chronic systolic heart failure and worsening renal function due to cardiorenal syndrome or right ventricular dysfunction awaiting implantation of a left ventricular assist device, and on October 18, 2023, the Company received Breakthrough Device Designation for our patented and cell-directed SCD for use with patients in the hospital ICU with AKI and acute on chronic liver failure. While the Company expects the Breakthrough Device Designation to expedite the clinical development and regulatory review of the SCD program for use in this patient population, there is no guarantee that the Company will be able to expedite the clinical development or obtain regulatory approval. While the Company recently obtained approval from the FDA to conduct the AKI adult pivotal trial for SCE, there is no guarantee that the Company will be able to complete such trial in a timely manner, or at all, nor will there be any assurance that positive data will be generated from such trials. Even if the Company is able to generate positive results from this trial, the FDA and other regulatory agencies may require the Company to conduct additional trials to support the study or disagree with the design of the trial and request changes or improvements to such design. The Company is also subject to numerous other risks relating to the regulatory approval process, which include but are not limited to: - an inability to secure and obtain support and references from collaborators and suppliers required by the FDA;- a disagreement with the FDA regarding the design of the trial, including the number of clinical study subjects and other data, which may require SeaStar Medical to conduct additional testing or increase the size and complexity of its pivotal study;- a failure to obtain a sufficient supply of filters to conduct its trial;- an inability to enroll a sufficient number of subjects;- a shortage of necessary raw materials, such as calcium; and - delays and failures to train qualified personnel to operate the SCD therapy. Even if the Company obtains approval, the FDA or other regulatory authorities may require expensive or burdensome post-market testing or controls. Any delay in, or failure to receive or maintain, clearance or approval for its future products could prevent the Company from generating revenue from these products or achieving profitability. Additionally, the FDA and other regulatory authorities have broad enforcement powers. Regulatory enforcement or inquiries, or other increased scrutiny on the Company, could dissuade some physicians from using its products and adversely affect its reputation and the perceived safety and efficacy of its products. Delays or rejections may occur based on changes in governmental policies for medical devices during the period of product development. The FDA can delay, limit or deny approval of a PMA application for many reasons, including: - the Company's inability to demonstrate the safety or effectiveness of the SCD or any other product it develops to the FDA's satisfaction;- insufficient data from its preclinical studies and clinical trials, including for its SCD, to support approval;- failure of the facilities of its third-party manufacturers or suppliers to meet applicable requirements;- inadequate compliance with preclinical, clinical or other regulations;- its failure to meet the FDA's statistical requirements for approval; and - changes in the FDA's approval policies, or the adoption of new regulations that require additional data or additional clinical studies. If the Company is not able to obtain regulatory approval of its SCD in a timely manner or at all, it may not be able to continue to operate its business and may be forced to shut down its operations.

In both the United States and international markets, the use and success of medical devices is dependent in part on the availability of reimbursement from third-party payors, such as government and private insurance plans. Healthcare providers that use medical devices generally rely on third-party payors to pay for all or part of the costs and fees associated with the medical procedures being performed or to compensate them for their patient care services. Should the Company's products under development be approved for commercialization by the FDA, reimbursement may not be available in the United States or other countries or, even if approved, the amount of reimbursement may not be sufficient to allow sales of the Company's future products, including the SCD, on a profitable basis. The coverage decisions of third-party payors will be significantly influenced by the assessment of the Company's future products by health technology assessment bodies. These assessments are outside the Company's control, and any such evaluations may not be conducted or have a favorable outcome. If approved for use in the United States, the Company expects that any products that it develops, including the SCD, will be purchased primarily by medical institutions through their operations budget. Payors may include the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services ("CMS"), which administers the Medicare program and works in partnership with state governments to administer Medicaid, other government programs and private insurance plans. The process involved in applying for coverage and incremental reimbursement from CMS is lengthy and expensive. Further, Medicare coverage is based on the Company's ability to demonstrate that the treatment is "reasonable and necessary" for Medicare beneficiaries. Even if products utilizing the Company's SCD technology receive FDA and other regulatory clearance or approval, they may not be granted coverage and reimbursement by any payor, including by CMS. For some governmental programs, such as Medicaid, coverage and adequate reimbursement differ from state to state and some state Medicaid programs may not pay adequate amounts for the procedure products utilizing the Company's technology system, or any payment at all. Moreover, many private payors use coverage decisions and payment amounts determined by CMS as guidelines in setting their coverage and reimbursement policies and amounts. However, no uniform policy for coverage and reimbursement of medical devices exists among third-party payors in the United States. Therefore, coverage and reimbursement can differ significantly from payor to payor. If CMS or other agencies limit coverage or decrease or limit reimbursement payments for doctors and hospitals, this may affect coverage and reimbursement determinations by many private payors for any future SeaStar Medical products.

The Company currently outsources the manufacturing of all components used with its SCD which are then assembled (kitted) and shipped by the Company. Manufacturing of the Company's SCD cartridge is an involved process and is currently limited to one approved supplier. Manufacturing of the Company's SCD blood tubing set is straight-forward but is also currently limited to one approved supplier. Certain other SCD kit components are readily available from multiple sources. To support its current clinical trial needs and its commercial sales, the Company complies with, and intends to continue to comply with, current Good Manufacturing Practice ("cGMP") for the outsourced manufacturing and in-house kitting of its products where applicable. The Company's ability to adequately procure the outsourced components and supply its SCD in a timely matter is dependent on the uninterrupted and efficient operation of its third-party suppliers and manufacturers, and those of the parties producing raw materials and supplies upon which it relies for the manufacturing of its products. Availability of the Company's products may be impacted by: - the availability of specified components, particularly those for which it has no other currently approved supplier;- the ability of the Company to assemble and fulfill orders for pediatric and adult SCDs;- maintenance of its quality management system and facility qualifications;- continued compliance with regulatory requirements and cGMP;- facility environmental contamination or catastrophic loss or damage;- product quality success rates and yields; and - global viruses and pandemics. If efficient manufacture and supply of its SCD is interrupted, the Company may experience delayed shipments or supply constraints. If it is unable to provide an uninterrupted supply of its products, the Company's ongoing clinical trials may be delayed, and/or commercial sales can be impaired, which could materially and adversely affect its business, results of operations, and financial condition.

In August 2024, the Company terminated its Distribution Agreement with Nuwellis, which was the Company's exclusive distribution agreement with a third-party distribution partner. The Company has currently elected to commercialize its FDA approved SCD-PED (SCD-pediatric, tradename ‘QUELIMMUNE'), using its own commercial resources. The Company does not have experience with selling and distributing QUELIMMUNE and its results may fall short of investors' expectations. If the Company is unable to develop effective sales and distribution capabilities internally, we may not be able to successfully generate sales of our products, including QUELIMMUNE, and our business and results of operations may be adversely affected.

To achieve the levels of production necessary to commercialize its SCD and any other future products, the Company will need to secure large-scale manufacturing agreements with contract manufacturers that comply with the manufacturing standards prescribed by various federal, state, and local regulatory agencies in the United States and any other country of use. The Company has limited experience coordinating and overseeing the manufacturing of medical device products on a large-scale. Manufacturing and control problems could arise as the Company attempts to commercialize its products and manufacturing may not be completed in a timely manner or at a commercially reasonable cost. In addition, the Company may not be able to adequately finance the manufacturing and distribution of its products on terms acceptable to the Company, if at all. If the Company cannot successfully oversee and finance the manufacturing of its products after receiving regulatory approval, it may not generate sufficient revenue to become profitable.