Talis Biomedical (TLIS) Risk Factors

The degree of future protection afforded by our intellectual property rights is uncertain because intellectual property rights have limitations and may not adequately protect our business or permit us to maintain our competitive advantage. For example: - others may be able to make products or provide services that are similar to ours but that are not protected by our intellectual property;- we or our licensors might not have been the first to make the inventions covered by our patents;- we or our licensors might not have been the first to file patent applications covering certain of our or their inventions;- others may independently develop similar or alternative technologies or duplicate any of our technologies without infringing our intellectual property rights;- it is possible that our pending patent applications or those that we may own in the future will not lead to issued patents;- issued patents for which we have rights may be held invalid or unenforceable, including as a result of legal challenges by our competitors;- our competitors might conduct activities in countries where we do not have patent rights and then use the information learned from such activities to develop competitive products in our commercial markets;- we may not develop additional proprietary technologies that are patentable;- if enforced, a court may not hold that our patents are valid, enforceable and infringed;- we cannot predict the scope of protection of any patent issuing based on our patent applications, including whether the patent applications that we own or in-license will result in issued patents with claims that cover our product candidates or uses thereof in the United States or in other foreign countries;- the claims of any patent issuing based on our patent applications may not provide protection against competitors or any competitive advantages, or may be challenged by third parties;- we may need to initiate litigation or administrative proceedings to enforce and/or defend our patent rights which will be costly whether we win or lose;- we may fail to adequately protect and police our trademarks and trade secrets;- the patents of others may harm our business, including if others obtain patents claiming subject matter similar to or improving that covered by our patents and patent applications; and - we or our licensors may choose not to file a patent in order to maintain certain trade secrets or know-how, and a third party may subsequently file a patent covering such intellectual property. Should any of these events occur, they could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

Our trademarks or trade names may be challenged, opposed, infringed, circumvented, invalidated, cancelled, declared generic, determined to be not entitled to registration, or determined to be infringing on other marks. During trademark registration proceedings, we may receive rejections of our applications by the USPTO or in other foreign jurisdictions. Although we would be given an opportunity to respond to those rejections, we may be unable to overcome such rejections. In addition, in the USPTO and in comparable agencies in many foreign jurisdictions, third parties are given an opportunity to oppose pending trademark applications and to seek to cancel registered trademarks. Opposition or cancellation proceedings may be filed against our trademarks, and our trademarks may not survive such proceedings. For example, our application to register the trademark TALIS in the United States was the subject of an opposition before the USPTO and related litigation which was resolved with a settlement agreement imposing certain restrictions on our use and registration of our trademarks. Any trademark litigation could be expensive. In addition, we could be found liable for significant monetary damages, including treble damages, disgorgement of profits and attorneys' fees, if we are found to have willfully infringed a trademark. We may not be able to protect our exclusive right to these trademarks and trade names or may be forced to stop using these names, which we need for name recognition by potential collaborators or customers in our markets of interest. If we are unable to establish name recognition based on our trademarks and trade names, we may not be able to compete effectively and our business may be adversely affected. We may license our trademarks and trade names to third parties, such as distributors. Though these license agreements may provide guidelines for how our trademarks and trade names may be used, a breach of these agreements or misuse of our trademarks and trade names by our licensees may jeopardize our rights in or diminish the goodwill associated with our trademarks and trade names.

Many of our employees, consultants, and advisors are currently or were previously employed at universities or other healthcare, biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. Although we try to ensure that our employees, consultants, and advisors do not use the proprietary information or know-how of others in their work for us, we may be subject to claims that we or these individuals have used or disclosed intellectual property, including trade secrets or other proprietary information, of any such individual's current or former employer. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management. We may be subject to claims that former employees, collaborators, or other third parties have an interest in our patents or other intellectual property as an inventor or co-inventor. The failure to name the proper inventors on a patent application can result in the patents issuing thereon being unenforceable. Inventorship disputes may arise from conflicting views regarding the contributions of different individuals named as inventors, the effects of foreign laws where foreign nationals are involved in the development of the subject matter of the patent, conflicting obligations of third parties involved in developing our product candidates or as a result of questions regarding co-ownership of potential joint inventions. For example, we may have inventorship disputes arise from conflicting obligations of consultants or others who are involved in developing our product candidates. Alternatively, or additionally, we may enter into agreements to clarify the scope of our rights in such intellectual property. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these and other claims challenging inventorship. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights, such as exclusive ownership of, or right to use, valuable intellectual property. Such an outcome could have a material adverse effect on our business. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management and other employees. In addition, while it is our policy to require our employees and contractors who may be involved in the conception or development of intellectual property to execute agreements assigning such intellectual property to us, we may be unsuccessful in executing such an agreement with each party who, in fact, conceives or develops intellectual property that we regard as our own. The assignment of intellectual property rights may not be self-executing, or the assignment agreements may be breached, and we may be forced to bring claims against third parties, or defend claims that they may bring against us, to determine the ownership of what we regard as our intellectual property. Such claims could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

In addition to seeking patent protection for certain aspects of our technology, we also consider trade secrets, including technical and commercial information, including but not limited to confidential and unpatented formulas, processes, know-how, customer and supplier lists, methods of distribution, and advertising strategies, important to the maintenance of our competitive position. We protect trade secrets and confidential and unpatented information, in part, by entering into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to such knowledge, such as our employees, corporate collaborators, outside scientific collaborators, contract research organizations, contract manufacturers, consultants, advisors and other third parties. We also enter into confidentiality and invention or patent assignment agreements with our employees and consultants that obligate them to maintain confidentiality and assign their invention rights to us. We cannot guarantee that we have entered into such agreements with each party that may have or have had access to our trade secrets or proprietary technology and processes or that the assignment agreements that have been entered into are self-executing. Despite these efforts, any of these parties may breach the agreements, intentionally or inadvertently, and disclose our proprietary information, including our trade secrets, or claim ownership in intellectual property that we believe is owned by us. 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 will be effective. In addition, we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for 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 in the U.S. and certain foreign jurisdictions are less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets. Moreover, our competitors or other third parties may independently develop knowledge, methods and know-how equivalent to our trade secrets or seek to reverse engineer our technology for which we do not have patent protection. If any of our trade secrets were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor or other third parties, we would have no right to prevent them from using that technology or information to compete with us. If any of our trade secrets were to be disclosed to or independently developed by a competitor, our competitive position would be harmed. We are also subject both in the U.S. and outside the U.S. to various regulatory schemes regarding requests for the information we provide to regulatory authorities, which may include, in whole or in part, trade secrets or confidential commercial information. While we are likely to be notified in advance of any disclosure of such information and would likely object to such disclosure, there can be no assurance that our challenge to the request would be successful. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

Filing, prosecuting, enforcing and defending patents in all countries and jurisdictions throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and our intellectual property rights in some countries outside the United States could be less extensive than those in the United States, assuming that rights are obtained in the United States. In-licensing patents covering our technology in all countries throughout the world may similarly be prohibitively expensive, if such opportunities are available at all. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as federal and state laws in the United States, even in jurisdictions where we do pursue patent protection. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in all countries outside the United States, even in jurisdictions where we do pursue patent protection, or from selling or importing our technology in and into the United States or other jurisdictions. We generally apply for patents in those countries where we intend to make, have made, use, offer for sale or sell products and where we assess the risk of infringement to justify the cost of seeking patent protection. However, we may not seek protection in all countries where we will commercialize our products and we may not accurately predict all the countries where patent protection would ultimately be desirable. If we fail to timely file a patent application in any such country or major market, we may be precluded from doing so at a later date. Competitors may use our technology in jurisdictions where we do not pursue and obtain patent protection to develop their own tests and products and may export otherwise infringing tests and products to territories where we have patent protection, but where our ability to enforce our patent rights is not as strong as in the United States. These tests and products may compete with technologies that we or our collaborators may develop, and our patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent such competition. The laws of some other countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent 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 U.S. law does. Patent protection must ultimately be sought on a country-by-country basis, which is an expensive and time-consuming process with uncertain outcomes. Accordingly, we may choose not to seek patent protection in certain countries, and we will not have the benefit of patent protection in such countries. In addition, the legal systems of some countries, particularly developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents and other intellectual property protection, especially those relating to biopharmaceuticals or biotechnologies. As a result, many companies have encountered significant difficulties in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in certain jurisdictions outside the United States. Such issues may make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents, if obtained, or the misappropriation of our other intellectual property rights. For example, many other countries, including countries in the EU, have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner must grant licenses to third parties. In addition, many countries limit the enforceability of patents against third parties, including government agencies or government contractors. In these countries, patents may provide limited or no benefit. In those countries, we and our licensors may have limited remedies if patents are infringed or if we or our licensors are compelled to grant a license to a third party, which could materially diminish the value of those patents and could limit our potential revenue opportunities. Accordingly, our and our licensors' efforts to enforce intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we own or license. Similarly, if our trade secrets are disclosed in a foreign jurisdiction, competitors worldwide could have access to our proprietary information and we may be without satisfactory recourse. Such disclosure could have a material adverse effect on our business. Furthermore, proceedings to enforce our patent rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, subject our patents to the risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly, subject our patent applications to the risk of not issuing or provoke third parties to assert claims against us. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate, and the damages or other remedies awarded to us, if any, may not be commercially meaningful, while the damages and other remedies we may be ordered to pay such third parties may be significant. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop or license. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of the patent laws in the United States and international jurisdictions could increase the uncertainties and costs, and may diminish our ability to protect our inventions, obtain, maintain, and enforce our intellectual property rights and, more generally, could affect the value of our intellectual property or narrow the scope of our owned and licensed patents. There are numerous recent changes to the patent laws and proposed changes to the rules of the USPTO which may have a significant impact on our ability to protect our technology and enforce our intellectual property rights. For example, the AIA, enacted on September 16, 2011, resulted in significant changes to the U.S. patent system. An important change introduced by the AIA is that, as of March 16, 2013, the United States transitioned from a "first-to-invent" to a "first-to-file" system for deciding which party should be granted a patent when two or more patent applications are filed by different parties claiming the same invention. 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 a patent on the invention regardless of whether another inventor had made the invention earlier. A third party that files a patent application in the USPTO after March 16, 2013, but before us could therefore be awarded a patent covering an invention of ours even if we made the invention before it was made by the third party. Circumstances could prevent us from promptly filing patent applications on our inventions. Since patent applications in the United States and most other countries are confidential for a period of time (typically 18 months), after filing or until issuance, we cannot be certain that we or our licensors were the first to either (1) file any patent application related to our product candidates and other proprietary technologies we may develop or (2) invent any of the inventions claimed in our or our licensor's patents or patent applications. Even where we have a valid and enforceable patent, we may not be able to exclude others from practicing the claimed invention where the other party can show that they used the invention in commerce before our filing date or the other party benefits from a compulsory license. The AIA provided opportunities for third parties to challenge any issued patent in the USPTO. Those provisions apply to all of our U.S. patents, regardless of when issued. Because of a lower evidentiary standard in USPTO proceedings compared to the evidentiary standard in U.S. federal courts necessary to invalidate a patent claim, a third party could potentially provide evidence in a USPTO proceeding sufficient for the USPTO to hold a claim invalid even though the same evidence would be insufficient to invalidate the claim if first presented in a district court action. Accordingly, a third party may attempt to use the USPTO procedures to invalidate our patent claims that would not have been invalidated if first challenged by the third party as a defendant in a district court action. These provisions could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our or our licensors' patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our or our licensors' issued patents. Depending on decisions by the U.S. Congress, the federal courts and the USPTO, the laws and regulations governing U.S. patents could change in unpredictable ways that would weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce our existing patents and patents that we might obtain in the future. For example, in the 2013 case Assoc. for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court held that certain claims to naturally-occurring substances are not patentable. Although we do not believe that any of the patents owned or licensed by us will be found invalid based on this decision, we cannot predict how future decisions by Congress, the federal courts or the USPTO may impact the value of our patents. In addition, the European patent system is relatively stringent in the type of amendments that are allowed during prosecution, but the complexity and uncertainty of European patent laws has also increased in recent years. Complying with these laws and regulations could limit our ability to obtain new patents in the future that may be important for our business. In addition, changes in, or different interpretations of, patent laws in the United States and other countries may permit others to use our discoveries or to develop and commercialize our technology without providing any compensation to us, or may limit the scope of patent protection that we are able to obtain. The laws of some countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as U.S. laws, and those countries may lack adequate rules and procedures for defending our intellectual property rights. If the patent applications we hold or have in-licensed with respect to our current and future technology fail to issue, if the validity, breadth or strength of protection of our patent rights is threatened, or if such patent rights fail to provide meaningful exclusivity for our methods and related products that we or our collaborators may develop, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us, encourage competitors to develop competing technology and threaten our or our collaborators' ability to commercialize future products or services. Any such outcome could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Our intellectual property rights may be subject to a reservation of rights by one or more third parties. For example, certain intellectual property rights related to structures, such as the rotor or test chambers, within Talis One test cartridges were generated, at least in part, through the use of U.S. government funding and are therefore subject to certain federal regulations. As a result, the U.S. government may have certain rights to intellectual property embodied in the cartridges of our current or future products pursuant to the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 (Bayh-Dole Act). These U.S. government rights include a non-exclusive, non-transferable, irrevocable worldwide license to use inventions for any governmental purpose. In addition, the U.S. government has what are referred to as "march-in" rights to, under certain limited circumstances, require the licensor to grant exclusive, partially exclusive or non-exclusive licenses to any of these inventions to a third party if it determines that (1) adequate steps have not been taken to commercialize the invention and achieve practical application of the government-funded technology, (2) government action is necessary to meet public health or safety needs, (3) government action is necessary to meet requirements for public use under federal regulations or (4) we fail to meet requirements of federal regulations. The U.S. government also has the right to take title to these inventions if we or our licensors fail to disclose the invention to the government or fail to file an application to register the intellectual property within specified time limits. These rights may permit the government to disclose our confidential information to third parties. In addition, our rights in such inventions may be subject to certain requirements to manufacture products embodying such inventions in the United States. Intellectual property generated under a government funded program is also subject to certain reporting requirements, compliance with which may require us to expend substantial resources. To the extent any of our future owned or licensed intellectual property is also generated through the use of U.S. government funding, the provisions of the Bayh-Dole Act may similarly apply. Any exercise by the government of such rights could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Obtaining and maintaining a patent portfolio entails significant expense, including periodic maintenance fees, renewal fees, annuity fees and various other governmental fees on patents and patent applications. These expenditures can be at numerous stages of prosecuting patent applications and over the lifetime of maintaining and enforcing issued patents. We may or may not choose to pursue or maintain protection for particular intellectual property in our portfolio. If we choose to forgo patent protection or to allow a patent application or patent to lapse purposefully or inadvertently, our competitive position could suffer. Furthermore, we employ reputable law firms and other professionals to help us comply with the various procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions we are subject to and, in many cases, an inadvertent lapse can be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with a jurisdiction's applicable rules. There are situations, however, in which failure to make certain payments or noncompliance with certain requirements in the patent process can result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. In such an event, our competitors might be able to enter the market, which would have a material adverse effect on our business. Legal action that may be required to enforce our patent rights can be expensive and may involve the diversion of significant management time. There can be no assurance that we will have sufficient financial or other resources to file and pursue infringement claims, which typically last for years before they are concluded. In addition, these legal actions could be unsuccessful and result in the limitation of scope or invalidation of our patents, a finding that they are unenforceable or a requirement that we enter into a licensing agreement with or pay monies to a third party for use of technology covered by our patents. We may or may not choose to pursue litigation or other actions against those that have infringed on our patents, or have used them without authorization, due to the associated expense and time commitment of monitoring these activities. If we fail to successfully protect or enforce our intellectual property rights, our competitive position could suffer, which could harm our results of operations.

We cannot guarantee that any of our patent searches or analyses, including the identification of relevant patents, the scope of patent claims or the expiration of relevant patents, are complete or thorough, nor can we be certain that we have identified each and every third-party patent and pending application in the United States and abroad that is relevant to or necessary for the commercialization of our product candidates in any jurisdiction. The scope of a patent claim is determined by an interpretation of the law, the written disclosure in a patent and the patent's prosecution history. Our interpretation of the relevance or the scope of a patent or a pending application may be incorrect, which may negatively impact our ability to market our products. We may incorrectly determine that our products are not covered by a third-party patent or may incorrectly predict whether a third-party's pending application will issue with claims of relevant scope. Our determination of the expiration date of any patent in the United States or abroad that we consider relevant may be incorrect, which may negatively impact our ability to develop and market our product candidates. Our failure to identify and correctly interpret relevant patents may negatively impact our ability to develop and market our products. One aspect of the determination of patentability of our inventions depends on the scope and content of the "prior art," information that was or is deemed available to a person of skill in the relevant art prior to the priority date of the claimed invention. For example, we have identified certain third-party patents that may be asserted against us with respect to our technology. These patents may expire prior to commercial launch of our products. We believe that the relevant claims of these third-party patents are likely invalid or unenforceable, and we may choose to challenge those patents, though the outcome of any challenge that we may initiate in the future is uncertain. We may also decide in the future to seek a license to those third-party patents, but we might not be able to do so on reasonable terms. There may be prior art of which we are not aware that may affect the patentability of our patent claims or, if issued, affect the validity or enforceability of a patent claim. Further, we may not be aware of all third-party intellectual property rights potentially relating to our product candidates or their intended uses, and as a result the impact of such third-party intellectual property rights upon the patentability of our own patents and patent applications, as well as the impact of such third-party intellectual property upon our freedom to operate, is highly uncertain. Because patent applications in the United States and most other countries are confidential for typically a period of 18 months after filing, or may not be published at all, we cannot be certain that we were the first to file any patent application related to our product candidates. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our patent rights are highly uncertain. Furthermore, for U.S. applications in which all claims are entitled to a priority date before March 16, 2013, an interference proceeding can be provoked by a third party or instituted by the USPTO to determine who was the first to invent any of the subject matter covered by the patent claims of our applications. For U.S. applications containing a claim not entitled to priority before March 16, 2013, there is a greater level of uncertainty in the patent law in view of the passage of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA), which brought into effect significant changes to the U.S. patent laws, including new procedures for challenging pending patent applications and issued patents.

Patents relating to certain components of our Talis One cartridge are controlled by a third party. Such third party has rights to file, prosecute, maintain, and defend the patents we have licensed from such licensor. If our licensors or any future licensees having rights to file, prosecute, maintain, and defend patent rights that are critical to our products fail to conduct these activities, including due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on our licensors' business operations, our ability to develop and commercialize our products may be adversely affected and we may not be able to prevent competitors from making, using, or selling competing products. We cannot be certain that such activities by our licensors have been or will be conducted in compliance with applicable laws and regulations or will result in valid and enforceable patents or other intellectual property rights. Pursuant to the terms of the license agreements with some of our licensors, the licensors may have the right to control enforcement of our licensed patents or defense of any claims asserting the invalidity of these patents and, even if we are permitted to pursue such enforcement or defense, we cannot ensure the cooperation of our licensors. We cannot be certain that our licensors will allocate sufficient resources or prioritize their or our enforcement of such patents or defense of such claims to protect our interests in the licensed patents. Even if we are not a party to these legal actions, an adverse outcome could harm our business because it might prevent us from continuing to license intellectual property that we may need in our business. In addition, even when we have the right to control patent prosecution of licensed patents and patent applications, enforcement of licensed patents, or defense of claims asserting the invalidity of those patents, we may still be adversely affected or prejudiced by actions or inactions of our licensors and their counsel that took place prior to or after our assuming control. In the event we breach any of our obligations related to such prosecution, we may incur significant liability to our licensing partners.

We are dependent on patents, know-how, and proprietary technology, both our own and licensed from others. We are a party to a number of intellectual property license agreements that are important to our business and expect to enter into additional license agreements in the future. For example, we have licensed technology related to frangible seals and reagent plugs in our Talis One cartridges, under an agreement with thinXXS. Our existing license agreements impose (under certain circumstances), and we expect that future license agreements will impose, various diligence, milestone payment, royalty and other obligations on us. If we fail to comply with our obligations under these agreements, including due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on our business operations or our use of the intellectual property licensed to us in an unauthorized manner, or we are subject to a bankruptcy, we may be required to pay damages and the licensor may have the right to terminate the license. Any termination of these licenses could result in the loss of significant rights and could harm our ability to develop, manufacture and/or commercialize our system or product candidates. In addition, the agreements under which we license intellectual property or technology to or from third parties are complex, and certain provisions in such agreements may be susceptible to multiple interpretations. The resolution of any contract interpretation disagreement that may arise could narrow what we believe to be the scope of our rights to the relevant intellectual property or technology or increase what we believe to be our financial or other obligations under the relevant agreement, either of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Moreover, if disputes over intellectual property that we have licensed prevent or impair our ability to maintain our current licensing arrangements on commercially acceptable terms, we may be unable to successfully develop and commercialize the affected product candidates. Our business also would suffer if any current or future licensors fail to abide by the terms of the license, if the licensors fail to enforce licensed patents against infringing third parties, if the licensed patents or other rights are found to be invalid or unenforceable, or if we are unable to enter into necessary licenses on acceptable terms. Moreover, our licensors may own or control intellectual property that has not been licensed to us and, as a result, we may be subject to claims, regardless of their merit, that we are infringing or otherwise violating the licensor's rights. In addition, while we cannot currently determine the amount of the royalty obligations we would be required to pay on sales of future products, if any, the amounts may be significant. The amount of our future royalty obligations will depend on the technology and intellectual property we use in products that we successfully develop and commercialize, if any. Therefore, even if we successfully develop and commercialize products, we may be unable to achieve or maintain profitability. The growth of our business may depend, in part, on our ability to acquire or in-license additional proprietary rights, including to advance the development or commercialization of our products. In that event, we may be required to expend considerable time and resources to license such technology. From time to time, in order to avoid infringing third-party patents, we may be required to license technology from additional third parties to further develop or commercialize our products. We may be unable to acquire or in-license any relevant third-party intellectual property rights, including any such intellectual property rights required to manufacture, use or sell our products, that we identify as necessary or important to our business operations. We may fail to obtain any of these licenses at a reasonable cost or on reasonable terms, if at all, and as a result we may be unable to develop or commercialize the affected product candidates, and we may have to abandon development of the relevant products, which would harm our business. We may need to cease use of the compositions or methods covered by such third-party intellectual property rights, and may need to seek to develop alternative approaches that do not infringe on such intellectual property rights which may entail additional costs and development delays, even if we were able to develop such alternatives, which may not be feasible. Even if we are able to obtain a license under such intellectual property rights, any such license may be non-exclusive, which may allow our competitors' access to the same technologies licensed to us. The licensing and acquisition of third-party intellectual property rights is a competitive practice, and companies that may be more established, or have greater resources than we do, may also be pursuing strategies to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights that we may consider necessary or attractive in order to commercialize our products. More established companies may have a competitive advantage over us due to their larger size and cash resources or greater clinical development and commercialization capabilities. There can be no assurance that we will be able to successfully complete such negotiations and ultimately acquire the rights to the intellectual property surrounding the additional products that we may seek to acquire. Disputes may also arise between us and our licensors regarding intellectual property subject to a license agreement. If disputes over intellectual property that we have licensed prevent or impair our ability to maintain our current licensing arrangements on acceptable terms, we may be unable to successfully develop and commercialize the affected product. We are generally also subject to all of the same risks with respect to protection of intellectual property that we license as we are for intellectual property that we own, which are described below. If we or our licensors fail to adequately protect this intellectual property, our ability to commercialize our products could suffer.

Our success depends in part on our ability to obtain, maintain, defend and enforce patents and other forms of intellectual property rights, including in-licenses of intellectual property rights of others, for our products, as well as our ability to preserve our trade secrets, to prevent third parties from infringing, misappropriating, mischaracterizing or otherwise violating our intellectual property and proprietary rights. Our ability to protect our products from unauthorized use by third parties depends on the extent to which valid and enforceable patents cover them or they are effectively protected as trade secrets. While we have a number of issued patents in the United States and foreign countries, several aspects of our patent portfolio are in much earlier stages of prosecution in the United States and foreign countries. Moreover, we do not own or license any issued patents related to certain aspects of our products and technology, including certain structures and components used in our instruments and established molecular biology techniques. The patent position of biotechnology companies generally is highly uncertain, involves complex legal and factual questions, and has been the subject of much litigation in recent years. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability, and commercial value of our patent rights are highly uncertain. There can be no assurance that our patent rights will not be invalidated or held to be unenforceable, will adequately protect our technology, products or provide any competitive advantage, or that any of our pending or future patent applications will issue as valid and enforceable patents. Our ability to obtain and maintain patent protection for our products is uncertain due to a number of factors, including that: - we or our licensors may not have been the first to invent the technology covered by our pending patent applications or issued patents;- we or our licensors may not be the first to file all patent applications covering our methods or products, as patent applications in the United States and most other countries are confidential for a period of time after filing;- our products and related methods may not be patentable;- our disclosures in patent applications may not be sufficient to meet the statutory requirements for patentability;- there may be prior art of which we or the examiner may not be aware that may affect the patentability of our invention claims, or, if issued, affect the validity or enforceability of a patent claim;- any or all of our pending patent applications may not result in issued patents;- others may independently develop identical, similar or alternative technologies;- others may design around our patent claims to produce competitive technologies or methods or products that fall outside of the scope of our patents;- we may fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development output before it is too late to obtain patent protection;- parties with access to patentable aspects of our research and development output, such as our employees, corporate collaborators, outside scientific collaborators, contract research organizations, contract manufacturers, consultants, advisors and other third parties, may disclose such results before a patent application is filed, thereby jeopardizing our ability to seek patent protection;- we may not seek or obtain patent protection in countries that may eventually provide us a significant business opportunity;- any patents issued to us may not provide a basis for commercially viable products or methods, may not provide any competitive advantages or may be successfully challenged by third parties;- the patents of others could harm our business;- a third party may challenge our patents and, if challenged, a court may hold that one or more of our patents are invalid in whole or in part;- a third party may challenge our patents in various patent offices and, if challenged, we may be compelled to limit the scope of our allowed or granted claims or lose the allowed or granted claims altogether;- our competitors could conduct research and development activities in countries where we will not have enforceable patent rights and then use the information learned from such activities to develop competitive methods or products for sale in our major commercial markets; and - the growing scientific and patent literature relating to molecular testing, including our own patents and publications, may make it increasingly difficult or impossible to patent new products and methods in the future. Even if we have or obtain patents covering our products or methods, we may still be barred from making, using and selling such products or methods because of the patent rights of others. Others may have filed, and in the future may file, patent applications covering compositions, products or methods that are similar or identical to ours, which could materially affect our ability to successfully develop our technology or to successfully commercialize any approved products alone or with collaborators. Patent applications in the U.S. and elsewhere are generally published approximately 18 months after the earliest filing for which priority is claimed, with such earliest filing date being commonly referred to as the priority date. Therefore, patent applications covering our methods and products could have been filed by others without our knowledge. Additionally, pending claims in patent applications which have been published can, subject to certain limitations, be later amended in a manner that could cover our system technologies or related products. These patent applications may have priority over patent applications filed by us. The issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity or enforceability, and our owned and licensed patents may be challenged in the courts or patent offices in the United States and abroad. We may be subject to third-party pre-issuance submissions of prior art to the USPTO, or become involved in opposition, derivation, revocation, reexamination, post-grant and inter-partes review, or interference proceedings challenging our patent rights. An adverse determination in any such submission, proceeding or litigation could reduce the scope of, or invalidate, our patent rights, allow third parties to commercialize our products and technology and compete directly with us, without payment to us, or result in our inability to manufacture or commercialize products without infringing third-party patent rights. Moreover, we, or our licensors, may have to participate in interference proceedings declared by the USPTO to determine priority of invention or in post-grant challenge proceedings, such as oppositions in a foreign patent office, that challenge priority of invention or other features of patentability. Such challenges may result in loss of exclusivity or freedom to operate or in patent claims being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable, in whole or in part, which could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical products and technology, or limit the duration of the patent protection of our products and technology. Such proceedings also may result in substantial cost and require significant time from our employees and management, even if the eventual outcome is favorable to us. Furthermore, we cannot guarantee that any patents will be issued from any of our pending or future patent applications. Criteria determining patentable subject matter and enforcement thereof may be impacted from future judicial and legislative changes or developments in the United States and abroad. Additionally, the standards applied by the 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 in diagnostic patents. As such, we do not know the degree of future protection that we will have on our proprietary products and technology. Thus, even if our patent applications issue as patents, they may not issue in a form that will provide us with meaningful protection, prevent competitors from competing with us or otherwise provide us with any competitive advantage. While we will endeavor to protect our technology with intellectual property rights such as patents, as appropriate, the process of obtaining patents is time-consuming, expensive and sometimes unpredictable. In addition, third parties may be able to develop technology that is similar to, or better than, ours in a way that is not covered by the claims of our patents, or may have blocking patents that could prevent us from marketing our products or practicing our own patented technology. Moreover, patents have a limited lifespan. In the United States, if all maintenance fees are paid timely, the natural expiration of a patent is generally 20 years from the filing date of the earliest U.S. or international (PCT) application, to which priority is claimed (excluding provisional applications), thus the life of a patent, and the protection it affords, is limited. In addition, although upon issuance in the United States a patent's life can be increased based on certain delays caused by the USPTO, this increase can be reduced or eliminated based on certain delays caused by the patent applicant during patent prosecution. Without patent protection for current or future methods and related products, we may face competing technology. Given the amount of time required for the development and testing, and regulatory review where necessary, patents protecting such technology might expire before or shortly after such technology is commercialized. As a result, our patent portfolio may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing technology similar or identical to that we or our collaborators may develop. Moreover, certain of our patents and patent applications are, and others may in the future be, co-owned with third parties. If we are unable to obtain an exclusive license to any such third-party co-owners' interest in such patents or patent applications, such co-owners may be able to use or license their rights to other third parties, including our competitors, and our competitors could market competing products and technology. In addition, we may need the cooperation of any such co-owners of our patents in order to enforce such patents against third parties, and such cooperation may not be provided to us. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial conditions, results of operations, and prospects.

Competitors and other third parties may infringe, misappropriate, mischaracterize or otherwise violate our patents and intellectual property rights or the patents and intellectual property rights of our licensors. The enforcement of such claims can be expensive and time-consuming and divert the time and attention of our management and scientific personnel. Our pending patent applications cannot be enforced against third parties practicing the technology claimed in such applications unless and until a patent issues from such applications. Further, there can be no assurance that the pending patent application in question will result in an issued patent for enforcement. In an infringement proceeding, a court may decide that a patent owned or in-licensed by us is invalid or unenforceable, or may refuse to stop the other party from using the technology at issue on the grounds that our owned and in-licensed patents do not cover the technology in question. An adverse result in any litigation proceeding could put one or more of our owned or in-licensed patents at risk of being invalidated, interpreted narrowly or amended to no longer cover our technology or products. If we were to initiate legal proceedings against any other third party to enforce a patent covering our technology, the defendant could assert that our patent is invalid or unenforceable. If we or one of our licensing partners initiate legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent covering our technologies, the defendant could counterclaim we infringe their patents or that the patent covering our technology is invalid or unenforceable, or both. In patent litigation in the United States and Europe, defendants alleging invalidity or unenforceability are common. Grounds for a validity challenge could be an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, for example, lack of novelty, obviousness, lack of written description or non-enablement. Third parties might allege unenforceability of our patents because during prosecution of the patent an individual connected with such prosecution withheld relevant information, or made a misleading statement affecting the interpretation of the relevant scope of the claims. There is a risk that a court will decide that a patent of ours is invalid or unenforceable, in whole or in part, and that we do not have the right to stop the other party from using the invention at issue. Third parties may also raise challenges to the validity of our patent claims before administrative bodies in the United States or abroad, even outside the context of litigation. Such mechanisms include re-examination, post-grant review, inter-partes review, interference proceedings, derivation proceedings, and equivalent proceedings in foreign jurisdictions (e.g., opposition proceedings). Such proceedings could result in the revocation of, cancellation of, or amendment to our patents in such a way that they no longer cover our technology or products and that we do not have the right to stop the other party from using the invention at issue. The outcome of proceedings involving assertions of invalidity and unenforceability, including during patent litigation, is unpredictable. With respect to the validity of patents, for example, we cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior art of which we and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution, but that an adverse third party may identify and submit in support of such assertions of invalidity. If a defendant were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity or unenforceability, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on our technology. 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 we do not have the right to stop the other party from using the invention at issue on the grounds that our patent claims do not cover the invention, or decide that the other party's use of our patented technology falls under the safe harbor to patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271(e)(1). Such a loss of patent protection could have a material adverse effect on our business. Our patents and other intellectual property rights also will not protect our technology if competitors design around our protected technology without infringing our patents or other intellectual property rights. Interference or derivation proceedings provoked by third parties or brought by the USPTO may be necessary to determine the priority of inventions with respect to, or the correct inventorship of, our patents or patent applications or those of our licensors. Even if resolved in our favor, litigation or other legal proceedings relating to intellectual property claims may cause us to incur negative publicity, reputational harm, significant expenses and could distract our personnel from their normal responsibilities, and 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. In addition, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation. There could also be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions, or other interim proceedings or developments, and 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. Such litigation or proceedings could substantially increase our operating losses and reduce the resources available for development activities or any future sales, marketing, or commercialization activities. We may not have sufficient financial or other resources to conduct such litigation or proceedings adequately. Uncertainties resulting from patent and other intellectual property litigation or other proceedings could have a material adverse effect on our ability to compete in the marketplace, our ability to raise additional funds, and could otherwise have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects. Similarly, if we assert trademark infringement claims, a court may determine that the marks we have asserted are invalid or unenforceable, or that the party against whom we have asserted trademark infringement has superior rights to the marks in question. In this case, we could ultimately be forced to cease use of such trademarks.

We expect to file a voluntary petition under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code and ultimately seek to liquidate the Company under a plan. The price of our common stock has been volatile following the November 2023 announcement of our reduction in force and exploration of strategic alternatives, as a result of the commencement of the Chapter 11 Case our common stock may further decrease in value or become worthless. Accordingly, any trading in our common stock during the pendency of our Chapter 11 Case is highly speculative and poses substantial risks to purchasers of our common stock. Recoveries in the Chapter 11 Case for holders of common stock, if any, will depend upon, among other things, (a) our ability to (i) defend, settle, estimate, or subordinate claims against the Company in connection with the Company's pending securities class action litigation, (ii) reject its leases for the Redwood City, CA and Chicago, IL office facilities on favorable terms and (iii) negotiate and confirm a plan, (b) the terms of such plan, (c) the costs associated with the Chapter 11 Case and (d) and the value of our remaining assets. We cannot predict how our common stock will be treated under a plan. We expect our stockholders' equity to decrease as we use cash on hand to support our wind down operations in bankruptcy. Consequently, there is a significant risk that the holders of our common stock will receive no recovery under the Chapter 11 Case and that our common stock will be worthless.

Either upon an independent motion or in lieu of converting or dismissing the Chapter 11 Case, upon the showing of "cause," including fraud, dishonesty, incompetence, or gross mismanagement of the Company's affairs by current management or if in the interest of creditors, equity security holders, and other interests of the Company, the bankruptcy court may appoint a Chapter 11 trustee. If a Chapter 11 trustee is appointed, he or she displaces the Company's board and management and investigates the acts, conduct, assets, liabilities, and financial condition of the debtor and thereafter is obligated to file and report regarding this investigation and is then required to negotiate and file a plan as soon as practicable. If a Chapter 11 trustee is not appointed after a request is made, then the Court shall appoint an examiner if a party requests the appointment of an examiner and it would be in the interest of creditors, any equity security holders, and other interests of the estate or the debtor has fixed, liquidated, unsecured debtors, other than debtors for goods, services, or taxes, or owing to an insider, exceeding $5 million. An examiner does not displace management but has the obligation to investigates the acts, conduct, assets, liabilities, and financial condition of the debtor and thereafter is obligated to file a report of investigation. While the bankruptcy court has discretion if any party were to file a motion for the appointment of a Chapter 11 Trustee or an examiner, including with respect to the scope and costs of the examiner's investigation; the appointment of either could have a material impact on the costs of the Chapter 11 case, its length, or the strategy with respect thereto.

Provisions of our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws may delay or discourage transactions involving an actual or potential change in our control or change in our management, including transactions in which stockholders might otherwise receive a premium for their shares or transactions that our stockholders might otherwise deem to be in their best interests. Therefore, these provisions could adversely affect the price of our common stock. Among other things, our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws: - permit our Board of Directors to issue shares of preferred stock, with any rights, preferences and privileges as they may designate (including the right to approve an acquisition or other change in our control);- provide that the authorized number of directors may be changed only by resolution of the Board of Directors;- provide that the Board of Directors or any individual director may only be removed with cause and the affirmative vote of the holders of at least 66 2/3% of the voting power of all of our then outstanding capital stock;- provide that all vacancies, including newly created directorships, may, except as otherwise required by law, be filled by the affirmative vote of a majority of directors then in office, even if less than a quorum;- divide our Board of Directors into three classes;- require that any action to be taken by our stockholders must be effected at a duly called annual or special meeting of stockholders and not be taken by written consent;- provide that stockholders seeking to present proposals before a meeting of stockholders or to nominate candidates for election as directors at a meeting of stockholders must provide notice in writing in a timely manner and also specify requirements as to the form and content of a stockholder's notice;- do not provide for cumulative voting rights (therefore allowing the holders of a majority of the shares of common stock entitled to vote in any election of directors to elect all of the directors standing for election, if they should so choose); and - provide that special meetings of our stockholders may be called only by the chairman of the board, our Chief Executive Officer or by the Board of Directors pursuant to a resolution adopted by a majority of the total number of authorized directors. The amendment of any of these provisions, with the exception of the ability of our Board of Directors to issue shares of preferred stock and designate any rights, preferences and privileges thereto, would require approval by the holders of at least 66 2/3% of our then-outstanding voting capital stock. In addition, as a Delaware corporation, we are subject to Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law. These provisions may prohibit large stockholders, in particular those owning 15% or more of our outstanding voting stock, from merging or combining with us for a certain period of time. A Delaware corporation may opt out of this provision by express provision in its original certificate of incorporation or by amendment to its certificate of incorporation or bylaws approved by its stockholders. However, we have not opted out of this provision. These and other provisions in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation, amended and restated bylaws and Delaware law could make it more difficult for stockholders or potential acquirers to obtain control of our Board of Directors or initiate actions that are opposed by our then-current Board of Directors, including delay or impede a merger, tender offer or proxy contest involving our company. The existence of these provisions could negatively affect the price of our common stock and limit opportunities for you to realize value in a corporate transaction.

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation provides that, to the fullest extent permitted by law, unless we consent in writing to the selection of an alternative forum, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (or, if the Court of Chancery does not have jurisdiction, any state court located within the State of Delaware, or if all such state courts lack jurisdiction, the federal district court for the District of Delaware) will be the sole and exclusive forum for the following types of actions or proceedings under Delaware statutory or common law: (1) any derivative action or proceeding brought on our behalf; (2) any action asserting a breach of a fiduciary duty owed by any current or former director, officer or other employee, to us or our stockholders; (3) any action or proceeding asserting a claim against us or any of our current or former directors, officers or other employees, arising out of or pursuant to any provisions of the Delaware General Corporation Law, our amended and restated certificate of incorporation, or our amended and restated bylaws; (4) any action or proceeding to interpret, apply, enforce or determine the validity of our amended and restated certificate of incorporation or our amended and restated bylaws; (5) any action or proceeding as to which the Delaware General Corporation Law confers jurisdiction to the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware; and (6) any action asserting a claim against us, or any of our directors, officers or other employees, that is governed by the internal affairs doctrine, in all cases to the fullest extent permitted by law and subject to the court's having personal jurisdiction over the indispensable parties named as defendants. The amended and restated certificate of incorporation states that these choice of forum provisions will not apply to suits brought to enforce a duty or liability created by the Securities Act, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) or any other claim for which the federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction. This amended and restated certificate of incorporation will further provide that, unless we consent in writing to the selection of an alternative forum, the federal district courts of the United States of America will be the exclusive forum for resolving any complaint asserting a cause of action arising under the Securities Act. These choice of forum provisions may limit a stockholder's ability to bring a claim in a judicial forum that it finds favorable for disputes with us or our directors, officers, or other employees and may discourage these types of lawsuits. Furthermore, if a court were to find the choice of forum provisions contained in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation to be inapplicable or unenforceable in an action, we may incur additional costs associated with resolving such action in other jurisdictions.

As of March 19, 2024, our executive officers, directors and five percent or greater stockholders and their respective affiliates, beneficially own, in the aggregate, approximately 74% of our outstanding voting stock. Further, 66% of our outstanding voting stock is owned by entities affiliated with Baker Bros. Advisors LP (Baker Bros.). In addition, the holders of our Series 1 convertible preferred stock, which, subject to certain limitations, is a voting common stock equivalent, may elect to convert shares of Series 1 convertible preferred stock into shares of Series 2 convertible preferred stock, which is a non-voting common stock equivalent. These shares of Series 2 convertible preferred stock are then convertible into shares of our common stock, subject to certain beneficial ownership limitations. We also have a nominating agreement with Baker Bros. that provides that, for so long as it continues to own a certain number of shares of our common stock, we have the obligation to support the nomination of, and to cause our Board of Directors to include in the slate of nominees recommended to our stockholders for election, one or two individuals designated by Baker Bros. As a result, Baker Bros. is able to exercise considerable influence over matters requiring stockholder approval, including the election of directors, amendments of our organizational documents and approval of any merger, sale of substantially all our assets or other significant corporate transactions for the foreseeable future. This concentration of ownership may prevent or discourage unsolicited acquisition proposals or offers for our common stock that you or other stockholders may feel are in your or their best interest as one of our stockholders.

The trading market for our common stock will rely in part on the research and reports that industry or securities analysts publish about us or our business. We do not currently have and may never obtain research coverage by industry or securities analysts. If no or few analysts commence coverage of us, the trading price of our common stock could decrease. Even if we do obtain analyst coverage, if one or more of the analysts covering our business downgrade their evaluations of our common stock, the price of our common stock could decline. If one or more of these analysts cease to cover our common stock, we could lose visibility in the market for our common stock, which in turn could cause the price of our common stock to decline.

We are an emerging growth company, as defined in the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act, as amended (JOBS Act). For so long as we remain an emerging growth company, we are permitted by Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) rules and plan to rely on exemptions from certain disclosure requirements that are applicable to other SEC-registered public companies that are not emerging growth companies. These exemptions include not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002, as amended (Sarbanes-Oxley Act), not being required to comply with any requirement that may be adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board regarding mandatory audit firm rotation or a supplement to the auditor's report providing additional information about the audit and the financial statements, reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation and exemptions from the requirements of holding a nonbinding advisory vote on executive compensation and stockholder approval of any golden parachute payments not previously approved. As a result, the information we provide stockholders will be different from the information that is available with respect to other public companies. We cannot predict whether investors will find our common stock less attractive if we rely on these exemptions. In addition, as an emerging growth company the JOBS Act allows us to delay adoption of new or revised accounting pronouncements applicable to public companies until such pronouncements are made applicable to private companies, unless we later irrevocably elect not to avail ourselves of this exemption. We have elected to use this extended transition period under the JOBS Act; however, we may choose to early adopt new or revised accounting pronouncements, if permitted under such pronouncements. Even after we no longer qualify as an emerging growth company, we may still qualify as a "smaller reporting company" which may allow us to take advantage of many of the same exemptions from disclosure requirements including not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. If some investors find our common stock less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for our common stock and our stock price may be more volatile.

Sales of a substantial number of shares of our common stock in the public market, or the perception that these sales might occur, could depress the market price of our common stock and could impair our ability to raise capital through the sale of additional equity securities. There were 718,230 shares of common stock issuable upon the exercise of options outstanding and 14,484 shares of common stock issuable upon vesting of restricted stock units as of December 31, 2023. We registered all of the shares of common stock issuable upon exercise of such outstanding options or other equity incentives we may grant in the future, for public resale under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (Securities Act). The shares of common stock will become eligible for sale in the public market to the extent such options are exercised, subject to compliance with applicable securities laws. Further, based on shares outstanding as of December 31, 2023, holders of approximately 2,499,285 shares (adjusted for the 1-for-15 reverse stock split and activity during the twelve months ended December 31, 2023), or 66% of our capital stock have certain registration rights with respect to the resale of such shares. In March 2024, we terminated a previously filed registration statement on Form S-3 as the Company was no longer eligible to register securities on Form S-3 and obtained a waiver of the registration rights relating to these 2,499,285 shares. This waiver of the registration rights is effective for a period of thirty (30) days from the filing of this Form 10-K. The issuance of shares in connection with any subsequent issuance could depress the market price of our common stock. We are unable to predict the effect that such issuances and/or sales may have on the prevailing market price of our common stock.

We have incurred substantial losses during our history and do not expect to become profitable in the near future, and we may never achieve profitability. Unused U.S. federal net operating losses (NOLs) for taxable years beginning before January 1, 2018, may be carried forward to offset future taxable income, if any, until such unused NOLs expire. Under the TCJA, as modified by the CARES Act, U.S. federal NOLs incurred in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017, can be carried forward indefinitely, but the deductibility of such U.S. federal NOLs in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2020, is limited to 80% of taxable income. It is uncertain if and to what extent various states will conform to the TCJA or the CARES Act. As of December 31, 2023, we had $30.9 million of U.S. federal NOLs that were generated in 2017 and prior periods that will expire at various dates through 2037, and $258.2 million of U.S. federal NOLs that can be carried forward indefinitely under current law. As of December 31, 2023, we also had aggregate U.S. federal research and development (R&D) credits of approximately $11.4 million and U.S. state research and development (R&D) credits of approximately $8.7 million. Our NOL carryforwards and R&D credits are subject to review and possible adjustment by the U.S. and state tax authorities. In addition, under Sections 382 and 383 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (Code), and corresponding provisions of state law, if a corporation undergoes an "ownership change," which is generally defined as a greater than 50 percentage point change (by value) in its equity ownership over a three-year period, the corporation's ability to use its pre-change NOL carryforwards, R&D credits and certain other tax attributes to offset its post-change income or taxes may be limited. This could limit the amount of NOLs, R&D credit carryforwards or other applicable tax attributes that we can utilize annually to offset future taxable income or tax liabilities. Subsequent ownership changes and changes to the U.S. tax rules in respect of the utilization of NOLs, R&D credits and other applicable tax attributes carried forward may further affect the limitation in future years. In addition, at the state level, there may be periods during which the use of NOLs is suspended or otherwise limited, which could accelerate or permanently increase state taxes owed. For example, California recently imposed limits on the usability of California state NOL carryforwards to offset taxable income in tax years beginning after 2019 and before 2023. As a result, we may be unable to use all or a material portion of our NOL carryforwards and other tax attributes, which could adversely affect our future cash flows.

You should not rely on an investment in our common stock to provide dividend income. We have never declared or paid cash dividends on our capital stock, and we do not anticipate that we will pay any dividends to holders of our common stock in the foreseeable future. Instead, we plan to retain all available funds and future earnings to fund the development and expansion of our business. In addition, any future credit facility or financing we obtain may contain, terms prohibiting or limiting the amount of dividends that may be declared or paid on our common stock. Accordingly, investors must rely on sales of their common stock after price appreciation, which may never occur, as the only way to realize any return on their investment. As a result, investors seeking cash dividends should not purchase our common stock.

Since November 2023, we have ceased substantially all of our research and development and manufacturing activities while our Board of Directors considers strategic alternatives. We may be unable to complete a strategic transaction within a reasonable timeframe, on attractive terms or at all, and market conditions, including the historical volatility in our common stock will likely limit our ability to raise capital on favorable terms, or at all, and the terms of any public or private offerings of debt or equity securities likely would be significantly dilutive to existing stockholders. There is no set timetable for the overall process given the anticipated timelines for different strategic alternatives may vary, and there can be no assurance that this process will result in us pursuing a transaction or that any transaction, if pursued, will be completed on attractive terms or at all. Given these challenges, if we are unable to complete a strategic transaction, then we may cease all operations and seek stockholder approval to voluntarily dissolve and liquidate the Company. The completion of a strategic transaction or the voluntary dissolution and liquidation of the Company each would have a material adverse effect on our growth strategy and our results of operations and financial condition.

Our success depends on physician and customer confidence that we can provide reliable and highly accurate diagnostic tests and enable better patient care. We believe that physicians and other healthcare providers are likely to be particularly sensitive to defects, errors or reliability issues in our products, including if our products fail to accurately diagnose infections with high accuracy from patient samples, and there can be no guarantee that our products will meet their expectations. There is no guarantee that the accuracy and reproducibility we have demonstrated to date will continue as our product deliveries increase and our product portfolio expands. Our products use a number of complex and sophisticated biochemical and bioinformatics processes, many of which are highly sensitive to external factors. For example, the Talis One system, comprised of a compact instrument, universal single-use test cartridges and software, including a central cloud database, may contain undetected errors or defects when first introduced or as new versions are released. Our diagnostic tests may contain errors or defects or be subject to reliability issues, and while we have made efforts to test them extensively, we cannot assure that our current diagnostic tests, or those developed in the future, will not have performance problems. An operational, technological or other failure in one of these complex processes or fluctuations in external variables may result in sensitivity or specificity rates that are lower than we anticipate, thus affecting the accuracy of a diagnostic result, or result in longer than expected turnaround times or they may cause our products to malfunction. Due to the complexity of our instrument and cartridge, it may be difficult or impossible to identify the reason for such performance. Performance issues would increase our costs in the near-term and accordingly adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. In addition, failure to maintain high-quality customer support, or a market perception that we do not maintain high-quality customer support, could adversely affect our reputation and our ability to sell our Talis One system. We may also be subject to warranty claims or breach of contract for damages related to errors, defects or reliability issues in our products. Further, our products are designed to be used at the customer's location by untrained personnel. We cannot provide assurance that our products will be approved for use by untrained personnel or that our customers will always use our products in the manner in which we intend. Any intentional or unintentional misuse of our products by our customers could lead to substantial civil and criminal monetary and non-monetary penalties and could cause us to incur significant legal and investigatory fees. If our products do not perform, or are perceived to not have performed, as expected or favorably in comparison to competitive products, our operating results, reputation, and business will suffer, and we may also be subject to legal claims arising from product limitations, errors, or inaccuracies. Additionally, many of the pathogens for which we are developing tests may mutate over time. Such mutations may negatively affect the accuracy of our tests or even make our tests obsolete if our tests are unable to detect future variants. The failure of our products to perform as expected could significantly impair our operating results and our reputation, including if we become subject to legal claims arising from any defects or errors in our products or test results. Operational, technical and other difficulties adversely affecting test performance may harm our reputation, impact the commercial attractiveness of our products, increase our costs or divert our resources, including management's time and attention, from other projects and priorities. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Expedited, reliable shipping and delivery services and secure warehousing are essential to our operations. When we commercialize our products, we intend to rely heavily on providers of transport services for reliable and secure point-to-point transport of our diagnostic tests to our customers and for tracking of these shipments and require warehousing for our diagnostic tests, sample collection kits and supplies. Should a carrier encounter delivery performance issues such as loss, damage or destruction of any systems, it would be costly to replace such systems in a timely manner and such occurrences may damage our reputation and lead to decreased demand for our diagnostic tests and increased cost and expense to our business. In addition, we have and may continue to experience higher costs for transportation and warehousing and significant inflation that could adversely affect our operating margins and results of operations, if these costs continue to rise after we commercialize our products. Similarly, strikes, severe weather, natural disasters, civil unrest and disturbances or other service interruptions affecting delivery or warehousing services we use would adversely affect our ability to process orders for our diagnostic tests on a timely basis.

Our facilities are located in areas which have experienced severe earthquakes and fires and are at risk for rolling or prolonged power outages. If these earthquakes, fires, other natural disasters, power outages, health pandemics or epidemics, terrorism and similar unforeseen events beyond our control, including for example the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, prevented us from using all or a significant portion of our facilities, it may be difficult or, in certain cases, impossible for us to continue our business for a substantial period of time and/or could result in the loss of commercial inventory or inventory and supplies required for our clinical trials. We do not have a disaster recovery or business continuity plan in place and may incur substantial expenses as a result of the absence or limited nature of our internal or third-party service provider disaster recovery and business continuity plans, which, particularly when taken together with our lack of earthquake insurance, could have a material adverse effect on our business. Furthermore, integral parties in our supply chain are operating from single sites, increasing their vulnerability to natural disasters or other sudden, unforeseen and severe adverse events. If such an event were to affect our supply chain, it could have a material adverse effect on our ability to conduct our clinical trials, our development plans and business.