Nevro Corp (NVRO) Risk Analysis

Even if we get approval or certification to expand our indications for use or generate positive data to support the use of our therapy and products for other market expansion opportunities, internal and external factors may make it more difficult for such expanded indications or uses to be commercially successful. These factors include, among others, the following: - the perceived efficacy and safety of our therapy and products for such additional indications or uses by healthcare professionals;- the scope, effectiveness and strength of product education, marketing and distribution support, including our sales and marketing team, for such new additional indications or uses;- our ability to offer our therapy and products for such additional indications or uses for sale at competitive prices;- the willingness of the target patient population to try new therapies and of physicians to prescribe these therapies;- education and awareness of patients, treating physicians and referring physicians concerning the use of our therapy and products for such additional indications or uses;- sufficient third-party coverage or reimbursement for such additional indications or uses;- natural disasters, pandemics and political unrest that could inhibit our ability to promote such new indications or uses and can negatively affect product demand by creating obstacles for patients to seek treatment and undergo elective procedures; and - the ability of our competitors to obtain similar approvals and to more successfully commercialize on such market expansion opportunities. For example, even though we have received approval for 10 kHz Therapy for the management of chronic intractable pain of the lower limbs, including unilateral or bilateral pain, associated with PDN and the management of NSBP (intractable back pain without prior surgery and not a candidate for back surgery), we will still be required to educate patients and healthcare professionals of the benefits of our therapy and products for the treatment of PDN and NSBP. If we are unable to successfully educate patients and healthcare professionals, including referring physicians, we will not be able to establish our 10 kHz Therapy as a viable treatment option for eligible PDN and NSBP patients. In addition, we will need to continue to establish payors acceptance of 10 kHz Therapy as a treatment option within the PDN and NSBP patient communities, a process that may not be successful and could take many years to gain broad acceptance. In addition to the foregoing factors, for our therapy for patients with NSBP to be commercially successful may require physicians who treat chronic back pain patients with back surgery to refer those patients to other physicians to perform an SCS procedure. As a result of the above factors, any future indications or uses of our therapy and products we may pursue may not be successfully commercialized and as a result, our business and operating results may be harmed.

Clinical studies are necessary to support PMA applications or similar foreign applications or submissions and may be necessary to support PMA supplements or similar foreign applications or submissions for modified versions of our marketed device products. This would require the enrollment of large numbers of suitable subjects, which may be difficult to identify, recruit and maintain as participants in the clinical study. Adverse outcomes in the post-approval studies could also result in restrictions or withdrawal of approval of the PMA or similar foreign approval or certification. We will likely need to conduct additional clinical studies in the future to support new indications for our products or for approvals, clearances or certifications of new product lines, or for the approval or certification of the use of our products in some foreign countries. Clinical testing can take many years, is expensive and carries uncertain outcomes. The initiation and completion of any of these studies may be prevented, delayed, or halted for numerous reasons, including, but not limited to, the following: - the FDA, Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), ethics committees, competent authorities of the EU member states or other regulatory authorities do not approve a clinical study protocol, force us to modify a previously approved protocol, or place a clinical study on hold;- patients do not enroll in, or enroll at a lower rate than we expect, or do not complete a clinical study;- patients or investigators do not comply with study protocols;- the FDA may disagree with our interpretation of the data from our pre-clinical studies and clinical trials, or may find the clinical trial design, conduct or results inadequate to prove safety or efficacy, and may require us to pursue additional pre-clinical studies or clinical trials, which could further delay the clearance or approval of our products and similar risk exists in foreign jurisdictions;- patients do not return for post-treatment follow-up at the expected rate;- patients experience serious or unexpected adverse side effects for a variety of reasons that may or may not be related to our products such as the advanced stage of co-morbidities that may exist at the time of treatment, causing a clinical study to be put on hold;- sites participating in an ongoing clinical study withdraw, requiring us to engage new sites;- difficulties or delays associated with establishing additional clinical sites;- third-party clinical investigators decline to participate in our clinical studies, do not perform the clinical studies on the anticipated schedule, or perform in a manner inconsistent with the investigator agreement, clinical study protocol, good clinical practices, other FDA, IRB or ethics committee requirements, and other foreign regulations governing clinical studies;- third-party organizations do not perform data collection and analysis in a timely or accurate manner;- regulatory inspections of our clinical studies or manufacturing facilities require us to undertake corrective action or suspend or terminate our clinical studies;- changes in federal, state, or foreign governmental statutes, regulations or policies;- interim or final results are inconclusive or unfavorable as to immediate and long-term safety or efficacy;- the study design is inadequate to demonstrate safety and efficacy; or - the statistical endpoints are not met. In addition, disruptions caused by macroeconomic factors, or global or local disruptions, may increase the likelihood that we encounter such difficulties or delays in initiating, enrolling, conducting, or completing our planned and ongoing clinical studies. Clinical failure can occur at any stage of the testing. Our clinical studies may produce negative or inconclusive results, and we may decide, or regulators may require us, to conduct additional clinical or non-clinical studies in addition to those we have planned. Our failure to adequately demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of any of our devices would prevent receipt of regulatory clearance, approval or certification and, ultimately, the commercialization of that device or indication for use. We could also encounter delays if the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities concludes that our financial relationships with investigators results in a perceived or actual conflict of interest that may have affected the interpretation of a study, the integrity of the data generated at the applicable clinical study site or the utility of the clinical study itself. Principal investigators for our clinical studies may serve as scientific advisors or consultants to us from time to time and receive cash compensation and/or equity-based awards in connection with such services. If these relationships and any related compensation to or ownership interest by the clinical investigator carrying out the study result in perceived or actual conflicts of interest, or if the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities concludes that the financial relationship may have affected interpretation of the study, the integrity of the data generated at the applicable clinical study site may be questioned and the utility of the clinical study itself may be jeopardized, which could result in the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities or notified bodies refusing to accept the data as support for our future applications. Any such delay or rejection could prevent us from commercializing any of our products currently in development. Even if our products are approved in the United States, Australia and certified in the EU, comparable regulatory authorities of additional foreign countries and/or notified bodies must also approve the manufacturing and marketing of our products in those countries. Approval or certification procedures vary among jurisdictions and can involve requirements and administrative review periods different from, and greater than, those in the United States, Australia or the EU, including additional preclinical studies or clinical studies. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly.

Until we are able to fully diversify our product portfolio, our growth and success continue to depend on physicians' acceptance and use of our 10 kHz Therapy to treat chronic back and leg pain, and our development and success in the markets for our newest indications, PDN and NSBP. We believe a significant limitation of current neuromodulation systems is the limited evidence supporting efficacy of traditional SCS products. Senza utilizes high-frequency stimulation technology capable of delivering waveform of up to 10,000 Hz, which has been shown to be effective in the treatment of both leg and back pain and the management of chronic pain associated with PDN and NSBP. However, we may face challenges convincing physicians, many of whom have extensive experience with competitors' SCS products and established relationships with other companies, to appreciate the benefits of the 10 kHz Therapy and, in particular, its ability to treat back pain as well as leg pain, and adopt it for treatment of their patients. If Senza is unable to gain acceptance by physicians for the treatment of back pain, leg pain, PDN, NSBP or other pain indications for which its use is approved or certified, our potential to expand the existing neuromodulation market will be significantly limited and our revenue potential will be negatively impacted.

In the United States, any modification to a product candidate for which we receive marketing authorization may require us to submit a PMA or PMSA supplement and obtain FDA approval, or to submit a new 510(k) premarket notification and obtain clearance prior to implementing the change. Certain modifications to a PMA-approved device may require approval of a new PMA or a PMA supplement, or alternatively a notification or other submission to the FDA. Similarly, any modification to a 510(k)-cleared device that could significantly affect its safety or effectiveness, or that would constitute a major change in its intended use, design or manufacture, generally requires a new 510(k) clearance or other marketing authorization. The FDA requires every manufacturer to make such determinations in the first instance, but the FDA may review any manufacturer's decision. The FDA may not agree with a manufacturer's decisions regarding whether new clearances or approvals are necessary. We may make modifications to our approved devices in the future that we believe do not require prior marketing authorization. If the FDA disagrees with our determination and requires us to submit a new PMA, PMA supplement or 510(k) premarket notification for modifications to our previously approved or cleared products, we may be required to cease marketing or to recall the modified product until we obtain approval, and we may be subject to significant regulatory fines or penalties. In addition, the FDA may not approve or clear our products for the indications that are necessary or desirable for successful commercialization or could require clinical trials to support any modifications. With respect to PMA-approved devices, any changes to the manufacturing processes may require prior approval of a PMA supplement before such changes may be implemented. Any delay or failure in obtaining required approvals would adversely affect our ability to introduce new or enhanced products in a timely manner, which in turn would harm our future growth. We obtained EU Medical Devices Regulation certification, effective on January 31, 2023. In the EU, we must inform the notified body that carried out the conformity assessment of the medical devices that we market or sell in the EU and the EEA of any planned substantial changes to our quality system or substantial changes to our medical devices that could affect compliance with the general safety and performance requirements laid down in Annex I to the EU Medical Devices Regulation or cause a substantial change to the intended use for which the device has been CE marked. The notified body will then assess the planned changes and verify whether they affect the products' ongoing conformity with the EU Medical Devices Regulation. If the assessment is favorable, the notified body will issue a new certificate of conformity or an addendum to the existing certificate attesting compliance with the general safety and performance requirements and quality system requirements laid down in the Annexes to the EU Medical Devices Regulation. The notified body may disagree with our proposed changes and product introductions or modifications could be delayed or canceled, which could adversely affect our ability to grow our business.

Filing, prosecuting and defending patents on our products in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive. The requirements for patentability may differ in certain countries, particularly developing countries, and the breadth of patent claims allowed can be inconsistent. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries may not protect our intellectual property rights to the same extent as laws in the United States. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in all countries outside the United States. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to develop their own products and, further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories in which we have patent protection that may not be sufficient to terminate infringing activities. We do not have patent rights in certain foreign countries in which a market may exist. Moreover, in foreign jurisdictions where we do have patent rights, proceedings to enforce such rights could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly, and our patent applications at risk of not issuing. Additionally, such proceedings could provoke third parties to assert claims against us. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate, and if we do prevail, the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. Thus, we may not be able to stop a competitor from marketing and selling in foreign countries products that are the same as or similar to our products, and our competitive position in the international market would be harmed.

Our registered or unregistered trademarks or trade names may be challenged, infringed, circumvented, declared generic or determined to be infringing on 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 with potential partners or customers in our markets of interest. In addition, third parties have registered trademarks similar and identical to our trademarks in foreign jurisdictions, and may in the future file for registration of such trademarks. If they succeed in registering or developing common law rights in such trademarks, and if we were not successful in challenging such third-party rights, we may not be able to use these trademarks to market our products in those countries. In any case, 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 may be adversely affected.

In addition to patent and trademark protection, we also rely on trade secrets, including unpatented know-how, technology and other proprietary information, to maintain our competitive position. We seek to protect our trade secrets, in part, by entering into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to them, such as our consultants and vendors, or our former or current employees. We also enter into confidentiality and invention or patent assignment agreements with our employees and consultants. Despite these efforts, however, any of these parties may breach the agreements and disclose our trade secrets and other unpatented or unregistered proprietary information, and once disclosed, we are likely to lose trade secret protection. Monitoring unauthorized uses and disclosures of our intellectual property is difficult, and we do not know whether the steps we have taken to protect our intellectual property ultimately will be effective. In addition, we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for any such breaches. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret is difficult, expensive and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, some courts inside and outside the United States are less willing or unwilling to enforce trade secret protection. Further, our competitors may independently develop knowledge, methods and know-how similar, equivalent, or superior to our proprietary technology. Competitors could purchase our products and attempt to replicate some or all of the competitive advantages we derive from our development efforts, willfully infringe our intellectual property rights, design around our protected technology or develop their own competitive technologies that fall outside of our intellectual property rights. In addition, our key employees, consultants, suppliers or other individuals with access to our proprietary technology and know-how may incorporate that technology and know-how into projects and inventions developed independently or with third parties. As a result, disputes may arise regarding the ownership of the proprietary rights to such technology or know-how, and any such dispute may not be resolved in our favor. If any of our trade secrets were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor, we would have no right to prevent them, or those to whom they communicate it, from using that technology or information to compete with us and our competitive position could be adversely affected. If our intellectual property is not adequately protected so as to protect our market against competitors' products and methods, our competitive position could be adversely affected, as could our business.

We could in the future be subject to claims that we or our employees have inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed alleged trade secrets or other proprietary information of former employers or competitors. In addition, many of our executive officers and key employees have worked for our major competitors (or companies acquired by these competitors), which include Boston Scientific, Medtronic and Abbott Laboratories. Although we have procedures in place that seek to prevent our employees and consultants from using the intellectual property, proprietary information, know-how or trade secrets of others in their work for us, we may in the future be subject to allegations that we caused an employee to breach the terms of his or her non-competition or non-solicitation agreement, or that we or these individuals have, inadvertently or otherwise, used or disclosed the alleged trade secrets or other proprietary information of a former employer or competitor. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. For example, in April 2018, Boston Scientific filed such suit against us, claiming trade secret misappropriation. While we believed the Boston Scientific claim lacked merit and ultimately prevailed, litigation necessarily results in substantial costs and a distraction to management. We may be subject to similar lawsuits in the future. If our defenses to litigation claim(s) fail, in addition to paying monetary damages, a court could prohibit us from using technologies or features that are essential to our products, if such technologies or features are found to incorporate or be derived from the trade secrets or other proprietary information of the former employers. An inability to incorporate technologies or features that are important or essential to our products would have a material adverse effect on our business, and may prevent us from selling our products or from practicing our processes. In addition, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel. Moreover, any such litigation or the threat thereof may adversely affect our ability to hire employees or contract with independent sales representatives. A loss of key personnel or their work product could hamper or prevent our ability to commercialize our products, which could have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Patent reform legislation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents. On September 16, 2011, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (the Leahy-Smith Act) was signed into law. The Leahy-Smith Act includes a number of significant changes to U.S. patent law. These include provisions that affect the way patent applications are prosecuted, redefine prior art and may affect patent litigation. The changes also switched the United States patent system from a "first-to-invent" system to a "first-to-file" system. Under a "first-to-file" system, assuming the other requirements for patentability are met, the first inventor to file a patent application generally will be entitled to the patent on an invention regardless of whether another inventor had made the invention earlier. The USPTO recently developed new regulations and procedures to govern administration of the Leahy-Smith Act, and many of the substantive changes to patent law associated with the Leahy-Smith Act, in particular, the first-to-file provisions, only became effective on March 16, 2013. The Leahy-Smith 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 and financial condition. In addition, patent reform legislation may pass in the future that could lead to additional uncertainties and increased costs surrounding the prosecution, enforcement and defense of our patents and applications. Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit have made, and will likely continue to make, changes in how the patent laws of the United States are interpreted. Similarly, foreign courts have made, and will likely continue to make, changes in how the patent laws in their respective jurisdictions are interpreted. We cannot predict future changes in the interpretation of patent laws or changes to patent laws that might be enacted into law by United States and foreign legislative bodies. Those changes may materially affect the value, validity, enforceability, and patent terms of our patents or patent applications, and our ability to obtain additional patent protection in the future.

Our success depends in part on not infringing the patents or violating the other proprietary rights of others. Intellectual property disputes can be costly to defend and may cause our business, operating results and financial condition to suffer. Significant litigation regarding patent rights occurs in the medical industry. Whether merited or not, it is possible that U.S. and foreign patents and pending patent applications controlled by third parties may be alleged to cover our products. We may also face allegations that our employees have misappropriated the intellectual property rights of their former employers or other third parties. For example, on December 9, 2016, Boston Scientific filed a patent infringement lawsuit alleging our manufacture, use and sale of the Senza system infringes certain of Boston Scientific's patents covering technology related to stimulation leads, batteries and telemetry units. On April 27, 2018, Boston Scientific filed a second lawsuit alleging patent infringement, theft of trade secrets, and tortious interference with contract. Although those lawsuits have been resolved, we may face other similar lawsuits in the future. Our competitors in both the United States and abroad, many of which have substantially greater resources and have made substantial investments in patent portfolios and competing technologies, may have applied for or obtained or may in the future apply for and obtain, patents that will prevent, limit, or otherwise interfere with our ability to make, use, sell, and/or export our products. For example, our major competitors, Medtronic, Boston Scientific and Abbott Laboratories, each have significant patent portfolios covering systems, sub-systems, methods, and manufacturing processes. These competitors may have one or more patents for which they can threaten and/or initiate patent infringement actions against us and/or any of our third-party suppliers. Our ability to defend ourselves and/or our third-party suppliers may be limited by our financial and human resources, the availability of reasonable defenses, and the ultimate acceptance of our defenses by the courts or juries. Further, if such patents are successfully asserted against us, this may result in an adverse impact on our business, including injunctions, damages and/or attorneys' fees. From time to time and in the ordinary course of business, we may develop non-infringement and/or invalidity positions with respect to third-party patents, which may or not be ultimately adjudicated as successful by a judge or jury if such patents were asserted against us. We may receive in the future, particularly as a public company, communications from patent holders, including non-practicing entities, alleging infringement of patents or other intellectual property rights or misappropriation of trade secrets, or offering licenses to such intellectual property. Similarly, any claims that we assert against perceived infringers could also provoke these parties to assert counterclaims against us alleging that we infringe their intellectual property rights. At any given time, we may be involved as either a plaintiff or a defendant in a number of patent infringement actions, the outcomes of which may not be known for prolonged periods of time. We may also become involved in disputes with others regarding the ownership of intellectual property rights. For example, we jointly develop intellectual property with certain parties, and disagreements may therefore arise as to the ownership of the intellectual property developed pursuant to these relationships. If we are unable to resolve these disputes, we could lose valuable intellectual property rights. The large number of patents, the rapid rate of new patent applications and issuances, the complexities of the technologies involved and the uncertainty of litigation significantly increase the risks related to any patent litigation. Any potential intellectual property litigation also could force us to do one or more of the following: - stop selling, making, using, or exporting products that use the disputed intellectual property;- obtain a license from the intellectual property owner to continue selling, making, exporting, or using products, which license may require substantial royalty payments and may not be available on reasonable terms, or at all;- incur significant legal expenses;- pay substantial damages or royalties to the party whose intellectual property rights we may be found to be infringing, potentially including treble damages if the court finds that the infringement was willful;- if a license is available from a third-party, we may have to pay substantial royalties, upfront fees or grant cross-licenses to intellectual property rights for our products and services;- pay the attorney fees and costs of litigation to the party whose intellectual property rights we may be found to be infringing;- find non-infringing substitute products, which could be costly and create significant delay due to the need for prior FDA authorization;- find alternative supplies for infringing products or processes, which could be costly and create significant delay due to the need for FDA regulatory clearance or approval; and/or - redesign those products or processes that infringe any third-party intellectual property, which could be costly, disruptive, and/or infeasible. From time to time, we may be subject to legal proceedings and claims with respect to intellectual property. For more information regarding any ongoing litigation(s), see the section titled "Legal Proceedings" included under Part I, Item 3 of this Annual Report. Even if resolved in our favor, litigation or other legal proceedings relating to intellectual property claims may cause us to incur significant expenses, and could distract our technical and management personnel from their normal responsibilities. In addition, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments, that we do not control. If securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a material adverse effect on the price of our common stock and the value of the 2025 Notes and/or the Braidwell Warrants. Additionally, because we often do not control the timing of the public announcements, there is the potential for these announcements to be made during market hours, necessitating a halt in the trading of our common stock for periods of time. Finally, any uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of any litigation could have a material adverse effect on our ability to raise the funds necessary to continue our operations. If any of the foregoing occurs, we may have to withdraw existing products from the market or may be unable to commercialize one or more of our products, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. Any litigation or claim against us, even those without merit, may cause us to incur substantial costs, and could place a significant strain on our financial resources, divert the attention of management from our core business and harm our reputation. Further, as the number of participants in the neuromodulation industry grows, the possibility of intellectual property infringement claims against us increases. In addition, we may indemnify our customers, suppliers and international distributors against claims relating to the infringement of the intellectual property rights of third parties relating to our products, methods, and/or manufacturing processes. Third parties may assert infringement claims against our customers, suppliers, or distributors. These claims may require us to initiate or defend protracted and costly litigation on behalf of our customers, suppliers or distributors, regardless of the merits of these claims. If any of these claims succeed, we may be forced to pay damages on behalf of our customers, suppliers, or distributors or may be required to obtain licenses for the products they use. If we cannot obtain all necessary licenses on commercially reasonable terms, our customers may be forced to stop using our products, or our suppliers may be forced to stop providing us with products. Similarly, interference or derivation proceedings provoked by third parties or brought by the USPTO or any foreign patent authority may be necessary to determine the priority of inventions or other matters of inventorship with respect to our patents or patent applications. An unfavorable outcome in these or any other such proceedings could require us to cease using the related technology or to attempt to license rights to it from the prevailing party. Our business could be harmed if the prevailing party does not offer us a license on commercially reasonable terms, if any license is offered at all. We may also become involved in other proceedings, such as re-examination or opposition proceedings, before the USPTO or its foreign counterparts relating to our intellectual property or the intellectual property rights of others. For example, two of our competitors, Boston Scientific and Medtronic, filed oppositions in the EU with respect to certain of our patents. Boston Scientific filed an entitlement action against us in the German courts (which has seen been resolved in our favor). In addition, an anonymous petitioner filed an opposition before the China National Intellectual Property Administration against one of our patents in China (which was dismissed, but for which the anonymous petitioner has filed an appeal). Defending our position in proceedings such as these will require management's time and attention, as well as financial costs. Given the competitive environment in which we operate, we expect additional challenges to our intellectual property portfolio as we continue commercialization of our products in the United States and abroad. An unfavorable outcome in these or any other such proceedings could cause us to lose valuable intellectual property rights and/or be unable to enforce our intellectual property rights, which could invite increased competition thereby materially harming our business.

We may not always be able to anticipate how to respond to laws or regulations around machine learning technology, artificial intelligence and automated decision making given they are still rapidly evolving. There is an increase in litigation in a number of jurisdictions, including the United States, relating to the use of artificial intelligence. New laws regulating artificial intelligence are at an advanced stage of the legislative process in the EU, and it is possible that new laws and regulations will be adopted in the United States and in other non-U.S. jurisdictions, or that existing laws and regulations may be interpreted in ways that would affect the operation of our learning platforms, online testing business and data analytics and the way in which we use artificial intelligence and machine learning technology. Further, the cost to comply with such laws or regulations, or decisions and/or guidance interpreting existing laws, could be significant and would increase our operating expenses, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. Please see "Risk Factors - Senza is subject to extensive governmental regulation in foreign jurisdictions, such as Europe, and our failure to comply with applicable requirements could cause our business to suffer" for more on developing regulations around use of artificial intelligence in the EU.

In order to sell our products in EU member states, our products must comply with the general safety and performance requirements of the EU Medical Devices Regulation, which repeals and replaces EU Medical Devices Directives. Compliance with these requirements is a prerequisite to be able to affix the European Conformity (CE) mark to our products, without which they cannot be sold or marketed in the EU. All medical devices placed on the market in the EU must meet the general safety and performance requirements laid down in Annex I to the EU Medical Devices Regulation including the requirement that a medical device must be designed and manufactured in such a way that, during normal conditions of use, it is suitable for its intended purpose. Medical devices must be safe and effective and must not compromise the clinical condition or safety of patients, or the safety and health of users and – where applicable – other persons, provided that any risks which may be associated with their use constitute acceptable risks when weighed against the benefits to the patient and are compatible with a high level of protection of health and safety, taking into account the generally acknowledged state of the art. To demonstrate compliance with the general safety and performance requirements, we must undergo a conformity assessment procedure, which varies according to the type of medical device and its (risk) classification. Except for low-risk medical devices (Class I), where the manufacturer can self-assess the conformity of its products with the general safety and performance requirements (except for any parts which relate to sterility, metrology or reuse aspects), a conformity assessment procedure requires the intervention of a notified body. The notified body would typically audit and examine the technical file and the quality system for the manufacture, design and final inspection of our devices. If satisfied that the relevant product conforms to the relevant general safety and performance requirements, the notified body issues a certificate of conformity, which the manufacturer uses as a basis for its own declaration of conformity. The manufacturer may then apply the European conformity marking (CE mark) to the device, which allows the device to be placed on the market throughout the EU. If we fail to comply with applicable laws and regulations, we would be unable to affix the CE mark to our products, which would prevent us from selling them within the EU. The aforementioned EU rules are generally applicable in the EEA. Following a national referendum and enactment of legislation by the government of the United Kingdom (UK), the UK formally withdrew from the EU and ratified a trade and cooperation agreement governing its relationship with the EU. The EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) was applied provisionally as of January 1, 2021 and entered into force on May 1, 2021. The TCA does not specifically refer to medical devices, but does provide for cooperation and exchange of information in the area of product safety and compliance, including market surveillance, enforcement activities and measures, standardization related activities, exchanges of officials, and coordinated product recalls (or other similar actions). For medical devices that are locally manufactured but use components from other countries, the "rules of origin" criteria will need to be reviewed. Depending on which countries products will be ultimately sold in, manufacturers may start seeking alternative sources for components if this would allow them to benefit from no tariffs. The rules for placing medical devices on the Northern Ireland market will differ from those in Great Britain. On June 26, 2022, the MHRA published its response to a 10-week consultation on the future regulation of medical devices in the United Kingdom (UK). The MHRA proposes amendments to the UK Medical Devices Regulations 2002 (which are based on EU legislation, primarily the EU Medical Devices Directives), in particular to create new access pathways to support innovation, create an innovative framework for regulating software and artificial intelligence as medical devices, reform in vitro diagnostic regulation, and foster sustainability through the reuse and remanufacture of medical devices. The MHRA has stated that it remains its intention to implement the proposals from such consultation through secondary legislation. In addition, on November 14, 2024, the MHRA launched a new consultation on proposals to update the regulatory framework for medical devices in Great Britain, covering four topics, namely (1) a new international reliance scheme to enable swifter market access for certain devices that have already been approved in a comparable regulator country; (2) the new UK Conformity Assessed (UKCA) mark and, in particular, proposals to remove the requirement to place such UKCA marking on devices; (3) conformity assessment procedures for in vitro diagnostic devices; and (4) maintaining in UK law certain pieces of "assimilated" EU law which are due to sunset in 2025. The MHRA consultation was opened until January 5, 2025 and it is expected that secondary legislation implementing the proposals would be introduced in 2025. See "Part 1, Item 1. Government Regulation - Regulation of Medical Devices in the European Union - Brexit and the UK Regulatory Framework." In order to continue to sell Senza in the EU and UK, we must maintain our certification and continue to comply with EU legislation and also the UK legislation. Our failure to continue to comply with applicable foreign regulatory requirements, including those administered by authorities of the EU member states or the MHRA, could result in enforcement actions against us, including refusal, suspension or withdrawal of our certificates issued by our notified bodies, which could impair our ability to market products in the Europe in the future. In addition, we are subject to the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which imposes obligations on companies that operate in our industry with respect to the processing of personal data of individuals within the EEA and the cross-border transfer of such data. The GDPR imposes onerous accountability obligations requiring data controllers and processors to maintain a record of their data processing and policies. If our or our partners' or service providers' privacy or data security measures fail to comply with the GDPR requirements, we may be subject to litigation, regulatory investigations, enforcement notices requiring us to change the way we use personal data and/or fines of up to 20 million Euros or up to 4% of the total worldwide annual turnover of the preceding financial year, whichever is higher, as well as compensation claims by affected individuals, negative publicity, reputational harm and a potential loss of business and goodwill. Among other requirements, the GDPR regulates transfers of personal data subject to the GDPR to third countries that have not been found to provide adequate protection to such personal data, including the United States, and the efficacy and longevity of current transfer mechanisms between the EEA, and the United States remains uncertain. Case law from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) states that reliance on the standard contractual clauses - a standard form of contract approved by the European Commission as an adequate personal data transfer mechanism - alone may not necessarily be sufficient in all circumstances and that transfers must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. On July 10, 2023, the European Commission adopted its Adequacy Decision in relation to the new EU-US Data Privacy Framework (DBF), rendering the DPF effective as a GDPR transfer mechanism to U.S. entities self-certified under the DPF. We expect the existing legal complexity and uncertainty regarding international personal data transfers to continue. In particular, we expect the DPF Adequacy Decision to be challenged and international transfers to the United States and to other jurisdictions more generally to continue to be subject to enhanced scrutiny by regulators. As a result, we may have to make certain operational changes and we will have to implement revised standard contractual clauses and other relevant documentation for existing data transfers within required time frames. Further, from January 1, 2021, companies have had to comply with the GDPR and the GDPR as incorporated into the UK national law, with each regime having the ability to fine up to the greater of €20 million/ £17.5 million or 4% of global turnover. On October 12, 2023, the UK Extension to the DPF came into effect (as approved by the UK Government), as a data transfer mechanism to U.S. entities self-certified under the DPF. In recent years, U.S. and European lawmakers and regulators have also expressed concern over electronic marketing and the use of third-party cookies, web beacons and similar technology for online behavioral advertising. In particular, recent European court and regulator decisions are driving increased attention to cookies and tracking technologies. If the trend of increasing enforcement by European regulators of the strict approach to opt-in consent for all but essential use cases, as seen in recent guidance and decisions continues, this could lead to substantial costs, require significant systems changes, limit the effectiveness of our marketing activities, divert the attention of our technology personnel, adversely affect our margins, and subject us to additional liabilities. In light of the complex and evolving nature of EU, EU Member State and UK privacy laws on cookies and tracking technologies, there can be no assurances that we will be successful in our efforts to comply with such laws; violations of such laws could result in regulatory investigations, fines, orders to cease/ change our use of such technologies, as well as civil claims including class actions, and reputational damage. Use of artificial intelligence is also increasingly being regulated. On May 21, 2024, the European Commission approved the EU Artificial Intelligence Act (EU AI Act), which establishes comprehensive, risk-based governance framework for artificial intelligence in the EU. The EU AI Act enters into force on August 2, 2024 and the majority of the substantive requirements will apply from August 2, 2026. The EU AI Act will apply to companies that develop, use and/or provide AI in the EU and includes requirements around transparency, conformity assessments and monitoring, risk assessments, human oversight, security, accuracy, general purpose AI and foundation models, and proposes fines for breach of up to 7% of worldwide annual turnover. In addition, on September 28, 2022, the European Commission proposed two Directives seeking to establish a harmonized civil liability regime for artificial intelligence in the EU, in order to facilitate civil claims in respect of harm caused by artificial intelligence and to include artificial intelligence-enabled products within the scope of the EU's existing strict liability regime. These regulatory proposals are at varying stages of the legislative process and are not yet finalized; the EU AI Act is at an advanced stage and the text is currently expected to be finalized by the end of 2023. Once finalized and in force, this regulatory framework is expected to have a material impact on the way artificial intelligence is regulated in the EU, and together with developing guidance and/ or decisions in this area, may affect our use of artificial intelligence and our ability to provide, improve or commercialize our services, require additional compliance measures and changes to our operations and processes, result in increased compliance costs and potential increases in civil claims against us, and could adversely affect our business, operations and financial condition. In the EU, according to the EU Medical Devices Regulation, only devices that are CE marked may be marketed and advertised in the EU in accordance with their intended purpose. We are also subject to Directive 2006/114/EC concerning misleading and comparative advertising, and Directive 2005/29/EC on unfair commercial practices, as well as other EU member state legislation governing the advertising and promotion of medical devices. EU member state legislation may also restrict or impose limitations on our ability to advertise our products directly to the general public. In addition, voluntary EU and national Codes of Conduct provide guidelines on the advertising and promotion of our products and may impose limitations on our promotional activities with healthcare professionals. The aforementioned EU rules are generally applicable in the EEA. Non-compliance with the above requirements would also affect our business in these three countries.

Our products must comply with regulatory requirements imposed by the FDA in the United States and similar agencies or bodies in foreign jurisdictions. These requirements may involve lengthy and detailed laboratory and clinical testing procedures, sampling activities, extensive agency review processes or notified bodies review processes, and other costly and time-consuming procedures. It often takes several years to satisfy these requirements, depending on the complexity and novelty of the product. We also are subject to numerous additional licensing and regulatory requirements relating to safe working conditions, manufacturing practices, environmental protection, fire hazard control and disposal of hazardous or potentially hazardous substances. Some of the most important requirements we must comply with include: - FFDCA and the FDA's implementing regulations (Title 21 CFR);- EU legislation on medical devices;- Medical Device Quality Management System Requirements (ISO 13485:2016);- Occupational Safety and Health Administration requirements; and - California Department of Health Services requirements. Government regulation may impede our ability to conduct clinical studies and to manufacture and sell our existing and future products. Government regulation also could delay our marketing of new products for a considerable period of time and impose costly procedures on our activities. Foreign regulatory agencies or notified bodies may not approve, clear or certify our current or future products on a timely basis, if at all. Any delay in obtaining, or failure to obtain, such approvals, clearances or certifications could negatively impact our marketing of any future products and reduce our product revenues. Our products remain subject to strict regulatory controls on manufacturing, marketing and use. We may be forced to modify or recall a product after release in response to regulatory action or unanticipated difficulties encountered in general use. Any such action could have a material effect on the reputation of our products and on our business and financial position. Further, regulations may change, and any additional regulation could limit or restrict our ability to use any of our technologies, which could harm our business. We could also be subject to new international, federal, state or local regulations that could affect our R&D programs and harm our business in unforeseen ways. If this happens, we may have to incur significant costs to comply with such laws and regulations, which will harm our results of operations. We also cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative or executive action, either in the United States or abroad. For example, in February 2024, the FDA issued a final rule to amend and replace the Quality System Regulation (QSR), which sets forth the FDA's current good manufacturing practice requirements for medical devices, to align more closely with the International Organization for Standardization standards. Specifically, this final rule, which the FDA expects to go into effect on February 2, 2026, establishes the "Quality Management System Regulation," (QMSR) which among other things, incorporates by reference the quality management system requirements of ISO 13485:2016. Although our quality management system is designed to comply with ISO 13485:2016 in connection with our certifications outside of the United States, and although the FDA has stated that the standards contained in ISO 13485:2016 are substantially similar to those set forth in the QSR, it is unclear the extent to which this final rule, once effective, could impose additional or different regulatory requirements on us that could increase the costs of compliance or otherwise negatively affect our business. If we are unable to comply with QMSR, once effective, or with any other changes in the laws or regulations enforced by FDA or comparable regulatory authorities, we may be subject to enforcement action, which could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Furthermore , the EU landscape concerning medical devices recently evolved and continues to undergo legislative changes. On May 26, 2021, the EU Medical Devices Regulation became applicable, and repealed and replaced the EU Medical Devices Directives. Unlike directives, which must be implemented into the national laws of the EU member states, regulations are directly applicable (i.e., without the need for adoption of EU member state laws implementing them) in all EU member states and are intended to eliminate current differences in the regulation of medical devices among EU member states. The EU Medical Devices Regulation, among other things, is intended to establish a uniform, transparent, predictable and sustainable regulatory framework across the EU for medical devices and ensure a high level of safety and health while supporting innovation. Our medical devices successfully obtained EU Medical Devices Regulation certification effective on January 31, 2023. We must now ensure continuous compliance with the new or reinforced requirements set forth in the EU Medical Devices Regulation. Non-compliance with said requirements may affect our business or the way we conduct our business in the EU. The aforementioned EU rules are generally applicable in the EEA. Non-compliance with the above requirements would also prevent us from selling our products in these three countries.

The medical device industry is regulated extensively by governmental authorities, principally the FDA and corresponding state and foreign regulatory agencies and authorities, such as the competent authorities of the EU member states. The FDA and other U.S. and foreign governmental agencies and authorities and notified bodies regulate and oversee, among other things, with respect to medical devices: - design, development and manufacturing;- testing, labeling, content and language of instructions for use and storage;- clinical studies;- product safety;- marketing, sales and distribution;- pre-market regulatory clearance, approval and certification;- conformity assessment procedures;- record-keeping procedures;- advertising and promotion;- recalls and other 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; and - product import and export. The laws and regulations to which we are subject are complex and have tended to become more stringent over time. Legislative or 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. New and changing laws, regulations, executive orders and other governmental actions, particularly from the new presidential administration, may also create uncertainty about how laws and regulations will be interpreted and applied. Such changes can adversely affect our business by increasing our costs, reducing spending by our customers, limiting our ability to pursue or offer new offerings, and requiring changes to our business or business strategy. New and changing laws, regulations, and executive orders can also create uncertainty about how such laws and regulations will be interpreted and applied. Regulatory changes and other actions that materially adversely affect our business may be announced with little or no advance notice, and we may not be able to effectively mitigate all adverse impacts from such measures. Differing interpretations of such legal obligations can expose us to significant fines, government investigations, litigation and reputational harm. If we are found to have violated laws, regulations, or executive orders, it could materially adversely affect our business, reputation, results of operations and financial condition. Our failure to comply with U.S. federal and state regulations or other foreign regulations applicable in the countries where we operate could lead to the issuance of warning letters or untitled letters, the imposition of injunctions, suspensions or loss of regulatory clearance, approvals or certifications, product recalls, termination of distribution, product seizures or civil penalties. In the most extreme cases, criminal sanctions or closure of our manufacturing facilities are possible. If any of these risks materialize, our business would be adversely affected.

Under the FDA medical device reporting regulations, medical device manufacturers are required to submit information to the FDA when they receive a report or become aware that a device has or may have caused or contributed to a death or serious injury or has or may have a malfunction that would likely cause or contribute to death or serious injury if the malfunction were to recur. All manufacturers placing medical devices on the market in the EU are legally bound to report serious incidents and Field Safety Corrective Actions (FSCAs) involving devices they produce or sell to the relevant authorities of the EU member states, in whose jurisdiction the incident occurred. Malfunction of our products could result in future voluntary corrective actions, such as recalls, including corrections, or customer notifications, or agency action, such as inspection or enforcement actions. If malfunctions do occur, we may be unable to correct the malfunctions adequately or prevent further malfunctions, in which case we may need to cease manufacture and distribution of the affected products, initiate voluntary recalls, and redesign the products. Regulatory authorities may also take actions against us, such as ordering recalls, imposing fines, or seizing the affected products. Any corrective action, whether voluntary or involuntary, will require the dedication of our time and capital, distract management from operating our business, and may harm our reputation and financial results.

The FDA, competent authorities of the EU member states and similar foreign governmental authorities have the authority to require the recall of commercialized products in the event of material deficiencies or defects in design or manufacture that could affect patient safety. In the case of the FDA, the authority to require a recall must be based on an FDA finding that there is a reasonable probability that the device would cause serious adverse health consequences or death. Manufacturers may, under their own initiative, conduct a product notification or recall to inform physicians of changes to instructions for use, or if a deficiency in a device is found or suspected. A government-mandated recall or voluntary recall by us or one of our distributors could occur as a result of component failures, manufacturing errors, design or labeling defects or other issues. Recalls, which include certain notifications and corrections as well as removals, of our products could divert managerial and financial resources and could have an adverse effect on our financial condition, harm our reputation with customers, and reduce our ability to achieve expected revenue. In addition, the manufacturing of our products is subject to extensive post-market regulation by the FDA and foreign regulatory authorities, and any failure by us or our contract manufacturers or suppliers to comply with regulatory requirements could result in recalls, facility closures, and other penalties. We and our suppliers and contract manufacturers are subject to the QSR, and comparable foreign regulations which govern the methods used in, and the facilities and controls used for, the design, manufacture, quality assurance, labeling, packaging, sterilization, storage, shipping, and servicing of medical devices. These regulations are enforced through periodic inspections or audits of manufacturing facilities. Any manufacturing issues at our or our suppliers' or contract manufacturers' facilities, including failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in warning or untitled letters, manufacturing restrictions, voluntary or mandatory recalls or corrections, fines, withdrawals of regulatory clearances, approvals or certifications, product seizures, injunctions, or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties, which would adversely affect our business results and prospects.

A number of the critical components used in our products are supplied to us from single-source, or in certain cases sole-source, suppliers, including but not limited to: leads, lead extenders, surgical leads, neurostimulator components and telemetry modules. Our ability to supply our products commercially depends, in part, on our ability to obtain a supply of these components that have been manufactured in accordance with regulatory requirements and in sufficient quantities for commercialization and clinical testing. In some cases, we have not entered into manufacturing, supply or quality agreements with our single-source and sole-source suppliers, some of which supply components critical to our products. We are not certain that our single-source or sole-source suppliers will be able to meet our demand for their products and services, either because of the nature of our agreements with those suppliers, or our limited experience with those suppliers, or due to our relative importance as a customer to those suppliers or otherwise. It may be difficult for us to assess their ability to timely meet our demand in the future based on past performance. While our suppliers have generally met our demand for their products on a timely basis in the past, they may subordinate our needs in the future to the needs of their other customers. Establishing additional or replacement suppliers for the components or processes used in our products, if required, may not be accomplished quickly. If we are able to find a replacement supplier, such replacement supplier would need to be qualified and may require additional regulatory authority approval or certification, which could result in further delay. While we seek to maintain adequate inventory of the single-source or sole-source components and materials used in our products, any interruption or delay in the supply of components or materials, or our inability to obtain components or materials from alternate sources at acceptable prices in a timely manner, could impair our ability to meet the demand of our customers and cause them to cancel orders. In addition, from time to time, certain of our suppliers experience interruptions and variances in their manufacturing processes, including suppliers of our leads and batteries. Because we are reliant on these single source suppliers, we are particularly susceptible to supply shortages and, if one of our suppliers were to experience an ongoing or continued manufacturing problem, and, in particular, our leads and battery suppliers, our ability to meet our forecasted commercial demand could be materially and negatively impacted. If our third-party suppliers fail to deliver the required commercial quantities of materials, or the level of services we require, on a timely basis and at commercially reasonable prices, and we are unable to find one or more replacement suppliers capable of production at a substantially equivalent cost in substantially equivalent volumes and quality, and on a timely basis, the continued commercialization of our products would be impeded, delayed, limited or prevented, which could harm our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects.

In the United States, in order for physicians to use our products, the hospital facilities where these physicians treat patients typically require us to enter into purchasing contracts. The process of securing a satisfactory contract can be lengthy and time-consuming and require extensive negotiations and management time. In the EU, from time to time, certain institutions require us to engage in a contract bidding process in the event that such institutions are considering making purchase commitments that exceed specified cost thresholds, which vary by jurisdiction. These processes are only open at certain periods of time, have varying demands that we may not be able to meet, and thus we may not be successful in the bidding process. If we do not receive access to hospital facilities via these contracting processes or otherwise, or if we are unable to secure contracts or tender successful bids, our sales may stagnate or decrease and our operating results may be harmed. Furthermore, we may expend significant effort in these time-consuming processes and still may not obtain a purchase contract from such hospitals.