Centogene (CNTGF) Risk Analysis

Our laboratory in the United States is subject to the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1998 ("CLIA"), a United States federal law that regulates all clinical diagnostic laboratories that perform testing on specimens derived from humans for the purpose of providing information for the diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of disease. CLIA regulations mandate specific standards in the areas of personnel qualifications, administration, participation in proficiency testing, patient test management, quality control, quality assurance, and inspections. Our laboratory facilities located in Rostock, Germany and Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States each have a current certificate of accreditation under CLIA to conduct all genetic and biochemical analyses offered through our accreditation by the College of American Pathologists ("CAP"). To renew the CLIA certificates, we are subject to survey and inspection every two years. Moreover, CLIA inspectors may make unannounced inspections of our clinical laboratories at any time. Any sanction imposed under CLIA, its implementing regulations, or state or foreign laws or regulations governing licensure, or our failure to renew a CLIA certificate, a state or foreign license, or accreditation, could have a material adverse effect on our business. Most CLIA deficiencies are not classified as "condition-level" deficiencies, and there are no adverse effects upon the laboratory operations as long as the deficiencies are corrected. Remediation of these deficiencies are routine matters, with corrections occurring within several hours or weeks. More serious CLIA deficiencies could rise to the level of "condition-level" deficiencies, and CMS has the authority to impose a wide range of sanctions, including revocation of the CLIA certification along with a bar on the ownership or operation of a CLIA certified laboratory by any owners or operators of the deficient laboratory. There is an administrative hearing procedure that can be pursued by the laboratory in the event of imposition of such sanctions, during which the sanctions are stayed, but the process can take a number of years to complete. If we were to lose our CLIA certification or CAP accreditation, we would not be able to operate our clinical laboratories and perform our genetic or other tests, which would result in material harm to our business and results of operations. We are also required to maintain a license for our Cambridge laboratory facility to perform testing in Massachusetts. Massachusetts laws establish standards for day-to-day operation of our clinical laboratory, including the training and skills required of personnel and quality control over and above that required by CLIA. We are also licensed to perform testing in our Cambridge laboratory facility by the states of California, Pennsylvania and Maryland. We are in the process of obtaining a New York State license to perform testing and deliver the related test report for specimens originating from New York. For samples tested in the U.S., we are also subject to HIPAA, under which the Department of Health and Human Services established comprehensive federal standards with respect to the privacy and security of protected health information and requirements for the use of certain standardized electronic transactions; certain of our services, including our online client-facing portals for reporting and research, are subject to these standards and requirements. Amendments to HIPAA under the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (the "HITECH Act"), and related regulatory amendments, which strengthen and expand HIPAA privacy and security standards, increase penalties for violators, extend enforcement authority to state attorneys general, and impose requirements for breach notification. We furnish to pharmaceutical partners genomic information that has been de-identified in accordance with HIPAA or anonymized in accordance with GDPR and relevant international health information privacy regulations. The laws of certain states and countries may require specific consent from the individual either to retain or utilize certain genetic or other information for research or other purposes even if such information has been de-identified, or may require that we obtain a waiver of such consent from an ethical or privacy review board. Even where we furnish to pharmaceutical partners and academic researchers genomic information that has been de-identified or anonymized in accordance with applicable laws and regulations, pharmaceutical partners or academic researchers may use technology or other methods to link that de-identified or anonymized genomic information to the patient from whom it was obtained in contravention of one or more applicable laws and regulations. Similarly, as we expand our decision support applications and offerings, we may encounter greater regulatory risk, such as compliance with HIPAA, GDPR and other regulations governing the use of protected health information and the promotion of FDA approved drugs. A finding that we have failed to comply with any such laws and any remedial activities required to ensure compliance with such laws could cause us to incur substantial costs, to be subject to unfavorable publicity or public opinion, to change our business practices, or to limit the retention or use of genetic or other information in a manner that, individually or collectively, could be adverse to our business. In the European Union, various regulations apply to genetic or other testing and the use of genomic information. In Germany, the Genetic Diagnosis Act (Gendiagnostikgesetz) (the "GenDG") and guidelines and written opinions on novel genetic screenings developed by the Commission on Genetic Testing, an interdisciplinary independent commission established in 2009 in accordance with the GenDG, apply to such testing. The GenDG prohibits us from communicating results of genetic or other tests directly to a patient located within Germany. Instead, the results may only be provided to a physician who is a qualified genetic counsellor under applicable rules. In addition to CLIA, GDPR, HIPAA and the GenDG, our operations are subject to other extensive federal, state, local, and foreign laws and regulations, all of which are subject to change. Our failure to comply with any such laws and regulations could lead to civil or criminal penalties, exclusion from participation in government healthcare programs, or prohibitions or restrictions on our ability to conduct commercial activities. We believe that we are in material compliance with all statutory and regulatory requirements, but there is a risk that one or more government agencies could take a contrary position. These laws and regulations are complex and are subject to interpretation by the courts and by government agencies. If one or more such agencies allege that we may be in violation of any of these requirements, regardless of the outcome, it could damage our reputation and adversely affect important business relationships with third parties.

In the United States, the European Union, its member states and some other foreign jurisdictions, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system. These changes could affect our ability to sell profitably any products for which we require approvals. Among policy makers and payors in the United States and elsewhere, there is significant interest in promoting changes in healthcare systems with the stated goals of containing healthcare costs, improving quality and/or expanding access to healthcare. Specifically, regulatory authorities in some jurisdictions, including the United States and the European Union, may designate drugs for relatively small patient populations as orphan drugs. Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may designate a drug as an orphan drug if it is a drug intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally defined as a patient population of fewer than 200,000 individuals annually in the United States, or a patient population of greater than 200,000 in the United States where there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing the drug will be recovered from sales in the United States. In the United States, orphan drug designation entitles a party to financial incentives such as opportunities for grant funding towards clinical trial costs, tax advantages and user-fee waivers. Similarly, in the European Union, the European Commission grants orphan drug designation after receiving the opinion of the EMA's Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products on an orphan drug designation application. Orphan drug designation is intended to promote the development of drugs that are intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of life-threatening or chronically debilitating conditions affecting not more than five in 10,000 persons in the European Union and for which no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention, or treatment has been authorized (or the product would be a significant benefit to those affected). In addition, designation is granted for drugs intended for the diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of a life-threatening, seriously debilitating or serious and chronic condition and when, without incentives, it is unlikely that sales of the drug in the European Union would be sufficient to justify the necessary investment in developing the drug. In the European Union, orphan drug designation entitles a party to financial incentives, such as reduction of fees or fee waivers, and a ten-year market exclusivity once the drug is on the market. These legislative initiatives have led to an increase in investment and activity in the rare disease drug development space. If these and other legislative initiatives were to change to become less favorable to orphan drug developers and researchers, it could harm our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We are subject to numerous, and sometimes conflicting, legal regimes in the countries in which we operate, including on matters as diverse as health and safety standards, marketing and promotional activities, anticorruption, import/export controls, content requirements, trade restrictions, tariffs, taxation, sanctions, immigration, internal and disclosure control obligations, securities regulation, anti-competition, data privacy and labor relations. This includes in emerging markets where legal systems may be less developed or familiar to us. We strive to abide by and maintain compliance with these laws and regulations. Compliance with diverse legal requirements is costly, time-consuming and requires significant resources. Violations of one or more of these regulations in the conduct of our business could result in significant fines, criminal sanctions against us or our supervisory board or officers, prohibitions on doing business and damage to our reputation. Violations of these regulations in connection with the performance of our obligations to our clients or pharmaceutical partners also could result in liability for significant monetary damages, fines and/or criminal prosecution, unfavorable publicity and other reputational damage, restrictions on our ability to process information and allegations by our clients or pharmaceutical partners that we have not performed our contractual obligations. Due to the varying degrees of development of the legal systems of the countries in which we operate, local laws might be insufficient to protect our rights. The United Kingdom withdrew from the European Union ("Brexit") and ratified an agreement on the future trading relationship between the parties (the "UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement" or "TCA"). The TCA is subject to formal approval by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union before it comes into effect and has been applied provisionally since January 1, 2021. Because the agreement merely sets forth a framework in many respects and will require complex additional bilateral negotiations between the United Kingdom and the European Union as both parties continue to work on the rules for implementation, significant uncertainty remains about how the precise terms of the relationship between the parties will differ from the terms before withdrawal. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency ("MHRA") was appointed as the United Kingdom's standalone medicines and medical devices regulator (responsible for designating Review Bodies), effective January 1, 2021, and new legislation has been introduced in the United Kingdom, the provisions of which remain to be clarified. Further MHRA guidance is anticipated in the coming months. Our international operations could be affected by changes in laws, trade regulations, labor and employment regulations, and procedures and actions affecting approval, products and solutions, pricing, reimbursement and marketing of our products and solutions, as well as by inter-governmental disputes. Any of these changes could adversely affect our business. The imposition of new laws or regulations, including potential trade barriers, may increase our operating costs, impose restrictions on our operations or require us to spend additional funds to gain compliance with the new rules, if possible, which could have an adverse impact on our financial condition.

After approval, devices subject to FDA or EMA regulation are required to comply with post-market requirements. Among the requirements, we and our suppliers must comply with the FDA's Quality System Regulations ("QSRs"), which set forth requirements for the design and manufacture of devices, including the methods and documentation for the design, control testing, quality assurance, labeling, packaging, storage, and shipping of our devices. Our limited experience in complying with these requirements may lead to operational challenges as we increase the scale of our QSR-compliant operations in the United States and develop and refine our policies and procedures for evaluating and mitigating issues we encounter with our processes. Further, if there are any modifications made to the manufacturing of our PMA-approved marketed solutions, a PMA supplement may be required to be submitted to, and approved by, the FDA before the modified device may be marketed. Other post-market requirements include the reporting of adverse events and malfunctions of which we become aware within the prescribed time frame to the FDA, post-approval studies, establishment registration and device listing, and restrictions on advertising and promotion. We may fail to meet these requirements, which could subject our business to further regulatory risks and costs. The FDA enforces the post-market requirements of the FDC Act through announced and unannounced inspections. Failure to comply with applicable regulatory requirements could require us to expend time and resources to respond to the FDA's observations and to implement corrective and preventive actions, as appropriate. If we cannot resolve such issues to the satisfaction of the FDA, we may be subject to enforcement actions, including untitled or warning letters, fines, injunctions, or civil or criminal penalties. In addition, we could be subject to a recall or seizure of current or future solutions, operating restrictions, a partial suspension, or a total shutdown of service. Any such enforcement action would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

The diagnostic tests we currently offer might meet the definition of LDTs, as they have been designed, developed and validated for use in a single CLIA-certified laboratory. If our tests are LDTs, they are currently not subject to FDA or EU regulation as an in-vitro-diagnostic. In May 2022 when the new IVD Regulation 2017/746/EU comes into force in the European Union, a qualification of our diagnostic tests as IVD-MDs becomes more likely as the manufacture of diagnostic tests "on an industrial scale" will not qualify as LDTs. If the FDA or EU takes action to finalize and implement a regulatory system for LDTs, or if legislation is enacted that subjects LDTs to FDA regulation, we would need to comply with the FDA regulatory requirements for our LDTs. If the FDA takes action to regulate LDTs as devices, we believe that our LDTs would likely be regulated as Class II devices. In the EU, genetic or other tests on humans and prenatal tests for genetically caused disorders are regulated as Class C devices under the IVD Regulation. If our LDTs are subject to the IVD Regulation, our tests that qualify as Class C devices will be subject to conformity assessments performed by a notified body. If services that are currently marketed as LDTs become subject to FDA requirements for in-vitro-diagnostics or are qualified as being subject to the European Union regulations on in vitro diagnostic medical devices, including requirements for premarket clearance or approval, we may not be able to obtain such clearance or approvals on a timely basis, or at all. Our business could be negatively impacted if we are required to stop selling genetic rare disease knowledge and interpretation-based products and solutions pending their clearance or approval, or the launch of any new products and solutions that we develop could be delayed. Likewise, for tests that are regulated as medical devices, we may not be able to obtain clearance or approval of new devices or modifications to marketed devices on a timely basis, or at all, which could delay or prevent us from commercializing our tests and harm our business. Class II medical devices must obtain FDA clearance of a premarket notification, or 510(k), prior to marketing, unless the FDA has exempted the device from this requirement. Under the 510(k) process, we must demonstrate that our test is substantially equivalent in technological characteristics and intended use to a legally marketed predicate device. The FDA's review and clearance of a 510(k) usually takes from four to twelve months, but it can take longer. Any modifications to an FDA-cleared device that could significantly affect its safety or effectiveness or that would constitute a major change in its intended use would require a new 510(k) clearance or, if the modified device is not substantially equivalent, possibly a de novo classification request or a premarket approval application ("PMA"). If we are unable to identify an appropriate predicate that is substantially equivalent to our device, we would be required to submit a PMA application or a de novo reclassification request, because devices that have not been classified are automatically categorized as Class III. Under the de novo process, we may request that the FDA classify a new low or moderate risk device that lacks an appropriate predicate as a Class I or Class II device. The de novo process typically requires the development of clinical data and usually takes between six to twelve months from the time of submission of the de novo application, but it can take longer.

The FDA does not currently regulate most laboratory developed tests ("LDTs"). We believe that the tests we currently offer meet the definition of LDTs, as they have been designed, developed and validated for use in a single CLIA-certified laboratory. If our tests are qualified as LDTs, they are currently not subject to FDA regulation as medical devices. Since the early 1990s, the FDA has taken the position that, although LDTs are medical devices, it would exercise enforcement discretion by not requiring compliance with the FDC Act, or its regulations for LDTs. That remains the guidance of the FDA today. However, the FDA has taken certain actions in the past that, if renewed by the FDA, could result in a new regulatory approach for LDTs. In October 2014, the FDA published two draft guidance documents that, if finalized, would implement a regulatory approach for most LDTs. The draft guidance documents proposed to impose a risk-based, phased-in approach for LDTs similar to the existing framework for in vitro diagnostic devices. In January 2017, the FDA released a discussion paper synthesizing public comments on the 2014 draft guidance documents and outlining an updated possible approach to regulation of LDTs. Although the discussion paper has no legal status and does not represent a final version of the LDT draft guidance documents, it proposes a risk-based framework that would require most LDTs to comply with most of the FDA's regulatory requirements for medical devices. In March 2017, a discussion draft of the Diagnostic Accuracy and Innovation Act ("DAIA") was circulated, which, if enacted, would implement a regulatory scheme for all diagnostic tests, including both in vitro diagnostic devices and LDTs. Under DAIA, CMS would have jurisdiction over laboratory operations under an amended CLIA, and the FDA would regulate the design, development and validation of diagnostic tests under an amended FDC Act. We cannot predict whether this bill or any other any other legislative proposal will be enacted into law or the impact such new legal requirements would have on our business. We also cannot predict whether the FDA will take action to regulate LDTs or what approach the FDA will seek to take. In addition, in November 2013, the FDA finalized guidance regarding the sale and use of products labeled for research or investigational use only. Among other things, the guidance states that the FDA continues to be concerned about distribution of research- or investigational-use only products intended for clinical diagnostic use. The guidance states that the FDA will assess whether a manufacturer of such research- or investigational-use only products intends that its products be used for clinical diagnostic purposes by examining the totality of circumstances, including advertising, instructions for clinical interpretation, presentations that describe clinical use, and specialized technical support such as assistance performing clinical validation, surrounding the distribution of the product in question. The FDA has advised that if evidence demonstrates that a product is inappropriately labeled for research- or investigational-use only, the device could be deemed misbranded and adulterated within the meaning of the FDC Act. If the FDA were to undertake enforcement actions, some of our suppliers may cease selling research-use only ("RUO") products to us, and any failure to obtain an acceptable substitute could significantly and adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. In the European Union LDTs are similarly exempt from the regulations that govern medical devices and in-vitro diagnostics ("IVDs") under certain conditions. The European Union and German legislation on in-vitro diagnostic medical devices ("IVD-MDD") applies. According to the recitals of the Council Directive 98/79/EC on IVD-MDD, reagents which are produced within "health-institution laboratories" for use in that environment and which are not subject to commercial transactions are not covered by the Directive. However, the legal framework for applying the exemption clauses for LDTs is not entirely clear as the IVD-MDD lacks an explicit definition and there is no related case law. On May 26, 2022, when the new Regulation (EU) 2017/746 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2017 on in-vitro diagnostic medical devices ("IVD-MDR") becomes applicable, the general safety and performance requirements set out in Annex I of the IVD-MDR are applicable also to devices manufactured and used only within health institutions. Overall the exemptions for LDTs will be narrowed, as even in relation to LDTs, health institutions-among others-have to provide information upon request on the use of such devices to their competent authority and each health institution will have to draw up a declaration which it will make publicly available. If these conditions are not met and/or diagnostic tests are manufactured and used only within health institutions but "on an industrial scale", such tests will qualify as IVDs with the full applicability of the IVD-MDR. If we were not able to qualify for an exemption, we would be subject to regulation in the European Union. We also cannot predict whether the EU will amend or implement new laws which may impact our current operations.

Once a patient has been identified and diagnosed through our diagnostics testing, we provide each patient's physician with a diagnostic report. If a positive diagnosis is confirmed, we provide the physician with information on relevant treatment options, although the physician is responsible for ultimately making clinically relevant decisions for the treatment of his or her patient. In the United States, the FDA and other regulatory agencies strictly regulate the promotional claims that may be made about prescription drugs and devices. In particular, a device may not be promoted for uses or indications beyond those contained in the device's approved labeling, or "off-label" uses. Similar laws and regulations exist in other jurisdictions where we promote our products. If the FDA determines that we have promoted our products for off-label use, it could request that we modify those promotional materials or take regulatory or enforcement actions, including the issuance of an untitled letter, warning letter, injunction, seizure, civil fine and criminal penalties. It is also possible that other federal, state or foreign enforcement authorities may take action if they consider our promotional or training materials to constitute promotion of an unapproved use. If not successfully defended, enforcement actions related to off-label promotion could result in significant fines or penalties. The U.S. government has levied large civil and criminal fines against companies for alleged improper promotion and has entered into corporate integrity agreements and deferred prosecution agreements with companies that engaged in off-label promotion. The FDA has also requested that such companies enter into consent decrees and has taken other enforcement action. If the DOJ or FDA determines that we have engaged in off-label promotion in our test reports, we may be subject to civil or criminal fines. Although our policy is to refrain from statements that could be considered off-label promotion of third parties, the regulatory standards regarding off-label promotion are ambiguous, and the FDA or another regulatory agency could conclude that we have engaged in off-label promotion. In addition to promoting our devices in a manner consistent with their approved indications, we must have adequate substantiation for the claims we make for our products or solutions. If any of our claims are determined to be false, misleading or deceptive, our products or solutions could be considered to be misbranded under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the "FDC Act") or to violate the Federal Trade Commission Act. We could also face lawsuits from our competitors under the Lanham Act, alleging that our marketing materials are false or misleading. Such lawsuits, whether with or without merit, are typically time-consuming, costly to defend, and could harm our reputation. Federal and state legislation regulate interactions between medical device manufacturers and healthcare professionals. We are subject to federal and state laws targeting fraud and abuse in healthcare, including anti-kickback laws, false claims laws, and other laws constraining or otherwise related to financial arrangements manufacturers may enter into with healthcare professionals. For example, the Physician Payments Sunshine Act requires device manufacturers to report and disclose payments or other transfers of value made to physicians and teaching hospitals. Violations of these laws can result in criminal or civil sanctions, including fines, imprisonment, and exclusion from government reimbursement programs, all of which could materially harm our business. In addition, incentives exist under applicable laws that encourage competitors, employees, and physicians to report violations of law governing promotional activities for pharmaceutical products and solutions. These incentives could lead to so-called whistleblower lawsuits as part of which such persons seek to collect a portion of monies allegedly overbilled to government agencies due to, for example, promotion of pharmaceutical products and solutions beyond labeled claims. These incentives could also lead to lawsuits that claim we have mischaracterized a competitor's service in the marketplace and, as a result, we could be sued for alleged damages to our competitors. Such lawsuits, whether with or without merit, are typically time-consuming and costly to defend. Such lawsuits may also result in related shareholder lawsuits, which may also be costly to defend.

We provide diagnostic testing services to patients of our pharmaceutical partners and diagnostics clients worldwide. We also provide products and solutions, including biomarker development and testing, to our pharmaceutical partners. Such products and solutions involve the aggregation of data obtained from patients in our existing data repository and data obtained from new tests conducted both on patients whose samples remain in our biobank or new patients from whom we collect samples. To a large extent, we also rely upon our pharmaceutical partners, our clients and, in some cases, third-party laboratories to collect the subject's informed consent and comply with applicable local laws and international regulations. Although we maintain policies and procedures designed to monitor the collection of consents by both ourselves and such third parties, we or third parties may not obtain the required consents in a timely manner, or at all. In addition, consents that we have obtained or will obtain may not meet the existing or future standards required by relevant governmental authorities. The collection of data and samples in many different countries results in complex legal questions regarding the adequacy of consent and the status of genetic material under a large number of different legal systems. In some jurisdictions, samples that contain a person's DNA might irrevocably qualify as personal data, as in theory such samples can never be completely anonymized. Legitimate interests of the donor might cause a "revival" of his or her personal rights in the future and limit our rights of utilization. The subject's consent obtained in any particular country could be withdrawn or challenged in the future, and those consents could prove invalid, unlawful, or otherwise inadequate for our purposes. Furthermore, we may face disputes with patients should their data be used in a manner which they did not expect or if the consent was recorded incorrectly or obtained fraudulently. Any findings against us, or our pharmaceutical partners, clients or distributors, could deny us access to or force us to stop using certain of our clinical data or samples, which would impede our genetic or other information solution development efforts. We could become involved in legal challenges, which could consume our management and financial resources.

Our business depends on our ability to quickly and reliably receive samples from physicians. Our CentoCard product is typically sent from locations worldwide to our laboratory in Rostock, Germany as well as our Cambridge, Massachusetts facility. Disruptions in delivery, whether due to factors beyond our control such as natural disasters, terrorist threats, political instability, governmental policies, failures by physicians to properly label or package the samples, failure by postage services, labor disruptions, bad weather or other factors could adversely affect the receipt by us of samples or specimen integrity and could impact our ability to process samples in a timely manner and to provide our services to our clients and pharmaceutical partners. In particular, there is a general trend in certain countries, for example in China and certain countries in South America, where policies have been introduced that restrict the processing of genetic or other testing outside the country in which the patient is located. This could disrupt the transportation of samples to our testing facilities in Germany and the United States from such countries, and could adversely impact our current business operations or prevent us from expanding into certain new regions. In addition, the majority of our samples are delivered to us via regular postal services worldwide. If such services are disrupted, or if we are unable to continue to obtain expedited delivery services or specialized delivery services for certain products, such as our prenatal algorithmic test, on commercially reasonable terms, our operating results may be adversely affected.

Since our incorporation we have had, on a continuous basis, our place of "effective management" in Germany. Therefore, we believe that we qualify as a tax resident of Germany on the basis of German domestic law. As an entity incorporated under Dutch law, however, we also qualify as a tax resident of the Netherlands on the basis of Dutch domestic law. However, based on our current management structure and the current tax laws of Germany and the Netherlands, as well as applicable income tax treaties, and current interpretations thereof, we believe that we are tax resident solely in Germany for the purposes of the double tax treaty between Germany and the Netherlands due to the "effective management" tie-breaker. The test of "effective management" is largely a question of fact and degree based on all the circumstances, rather than a question of law. Nevertheless, the relevant case law and OECD guidance suggest that the Company is likely to be regarded as having become a German tax resident from incorporation and remaining so if, as the Company intends, (i) most meetings of its management board are held in Germany (and none are held in the Netherlands) with a majority of directors present in Germany for those meetings; (ii) at those meetings there are full discussions of, and decisions are made regarding, the key strategic issues affecting the Company and its subsidiaries; (iii) those meetings are properly minuted; (iv) at least some of the directors of the Company, together with supporting staff, are based in Germany; and (v) the Company has permanent staffed office premises in Germany. We may, however, become subject to limited income tax liability in other countries with regard to the income generated in the respective other country, for example, due to the existence of a permanent establishment or a permanent representative in such other country. The applicable tax laws, tax treaties or interpretations thereof may change. Furthermore, whether we have our place of effective management in Germany and are as such tax resident in Germany is largely a question of fact and degree based on all the circumstances, rather than only a question of law, which facts and degree may also change. Changes to applicable tax laws, tax treaties or interpretations thereof and changes to applicable facts and circumstances (for example, a change of board members or the place where board meetings take place), or changes in the applicable tax treaties, including a potential future change to the MLI tie-breaker reservation, may result in us also becoming a tax resident of the Netherlands or another jurisdiction (other than Germany), potentially also triggering an exit liability in Germany. As a consequence, our overall effective income tax rate and income tax expense could materially increase, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects, which could cause our share price and trading volume to decline. However, if there is a double tax treaty between Germany and the respective other country, the double taxation of income may be reduced or avoided entirely.

Because we have limited financial and managerial resources, we focus on research and development programs that we identify for rare diseases in collaboration with our pharmaceutical partners, or based on our assessment of the market needs. As a result, we may forego or delay pursuit of opportunities with other orphan drug candidates or for other indications that later prove to have greater commercial potential. Our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial drugs or profitable market opportunities. Our spending on current and future research and development programs for specific diseases may not yield any relevant results that are helpful to our existing programs or assist in the creation of any commercially viable drugs. If we do not accurately evaluate the commercial potential or target market for a particular drug candidate, we may relinquish valuable rights to that drug candidate through collaboration, licensing or other royalty arrangements.

Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in certain foreign jurisdictions. Accordingly, we may face an increased risk in these jurisdictions that unauthorized parties may attempt to copy or otherwise obtain or use our patented technology, trademarks, formulations or other intellectual property. The laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as the laws of Germany or the United States. Specifically, 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 biotechnology. This could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents or other intellectual property rights and to prevent third parties from selling or importing products made using our inventions in and to the United States, Germany or other jurisdictions. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent or other protection to develop their own products and, further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we have patent protection but enforcement is not as strong as that in Germany or the United States. These products may compete with our products and solutions, and our patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing. In addition, the use of our patents and/or other intellectual property rights may be permitted in individual cases because, for example, prior use rights or other privileges exist, such as e.g. use of the patents for experimental or research purposes. Additionally, many countries have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner must grant licenses to third parties or limit the enforceability of patents against third parties, including government agencies or government contractors. In these countries, patents may provide limited or no benefit. 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. Monitoring infringement and misappropriation of intellectual property can be difficult and expensive, and we may not be able to detect every instance of infringement or misappropriation of our proprietary rights. Even if we do detect infringement or misappropriation of our proprietary rights, proceedings to enforce our intellectual property rights could result in substantial costs, divert the efforts and attention of our employees and management from other aspects of our business, put our patents at risk of being invalidated or construed narrowly 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, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our intellectual property and proprietary rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop. In addition, changes in the law and legal decisions by courts in Germany, the United States and other jurisdictions, in particular, the newly formed European Unified Patent Court, may affect our ability to obtain adequate protection for our products and solutions and to enforce our intellectual property rights. Any of the foregoing could materially harm our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of patent laws could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of patent applications and the enforcement or defense of issued patents. From time to time, the United States Supreme Court (the "Supreme Court"), other federal courts, the U.S. Congress, the USPTO, or other foreign patent offices, courts or legislators may change the standards of patentability and any such changes could have a negative impact on our business. Assuming that other requirements for patentability are met, prior to March 2013, in the United States, the first to invent the claimed invention was entitled to the patent, while outside the United States, the first to file a patent application was entitled to the patent. After March 2013, under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (the "America Invents Act"), enacted in September 2011, the United States transitioned to a first inventor to file system in which, assuming that other requirements for patentability are met, the first inventor to file a patent application will be entitled to the patent on an invention regardless of whether a third party was the first to invent the claimed invention. The America Invents Act also includes a number of significant changes that affect the way patent applications will be prosecuted and also may affect patent litigation. These include allowing third-party submission of prior art to the USPTO during patent prosecution and additional procedures to attack the validity of a patent by USPTO-administered post-grant proceedings, including post-grant review, inter partes review, and derivation proceedings. However, the America Invents Act and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects. In addition, the patent positions of companies in our industry are particularly uncertain. Recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings have narrowed the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances and weakened the rights of patent owners in certain situations. For example, diagnostic method claims and "gene patents" were considered in two landmark Supreme Court cases, Mayo Collaborative v. Prometheus Laboratories ("Prometheus"), and Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics ("Myriad"). In Prometheus, a case involving patent claims over a medical testing method directed to optimizing the amount of drug administered to a specific patient, Prometheus' claims failed to incorporate sufficient inventive content above and beyond merely describing underlying natural correlations to allow the claimed processes to qualify as patent-eligible processes that apply natural laws. In Myriad, a case brought by multiple plaintiffs challenging the validity of patent claims held by Myriad Genetics, Inc. relating to the breast cancer susceptibility genes BRCA1 and BRCA2, the court held that isolated genomic DNA that exists in nature, such as the DNA constituting the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, is not patentable subject matter, but that cDNA, which is an artificial construct created from RNA transcripts of genes, may be patent eligible. The Federal Circuit has begun to apply the holdings in Prometheus and Myriad. In 2015, the Federal Circuit, in Ariosa v. Sequenom, applying Prometheus, found claims to a prenatal diagnostic method that relied on a natural product to be patent ineligible, and clarified that the absence of preemption of a natural phenomenon was not sufficient to demonstrate patent eligibility. In response to the Supreme Court decisions in Prometheus, Myriad, and Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International ("Alice Corp."), and others, the USPTO has updated the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure to provide guidance to USPTO personnel in determining the eligibility of patent claims reciting judicially recognized exceptions to patentable subject matter, including laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas, for patent eligibility. The USPTO guidance indicates that claims reciting a judicial exception to patent-eligible subject matter must amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself in order to be patent-eligible subject matter. We cannot assure you that our efforts to seek patent protection for our products and solutions will not be negatively impacted by this interim guidance issued by the USPTO, the decisions described above, rulings in other cases, or changes in guidance or procedures issued by the USPTO. We cannot fully predict what impact the Supreme Court's decisions in Prometheus, Myriad, Alice Corp., and other decisions may have on our ability or the ability of companies or other entities to obtain or enforce patents relating to DNA, genes, or genomic-related discoveries in the future. Despite the USPTO's interim guidance and Federal Circuit cases described above, the contours of when claims reciting laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas may meet the patent eligibility requirements are not clear and may take years to develop via interpretation at the USPTO and in the courts. There are many previously issued patents claiming nucleic acids and diagnostic methods based on natural correlations that issued before the recent Supreme Court decisions discussed, and although many of these patents may be invalid under the standards set forth in the Supreme Court's recent decisions, until successfully challenged, these patents are presumed valid and enforceable, and certain third parties could allege that we infringe, or request that we obtain a license to, these patents. Whether based on patents issued prior to or after these Supreme Court decisions, we might have to defend ourselves against claims of patent infringement, or choose to license rights, if available, under patents claiming such methods. In particular, although the Supreme Court has held in Myriad that isolated genomic DNA is not patent-eligible subject matter, certain third parties could allege that activities that we may undertake infringe other classes of gene-related patent claims, and we could have to defend ourselves against these claims by asserting non-infringement and/or invalidity positions, or pay to obtain a license to these claims. In any of the foregoing or in other situations involving third-party intellectual property rights, if we are unsuccessful in defending against claims of patent infringement, we could be forced to pay damages or be subjected to an injunction that would prevent us from utilizing the patented subject matter in question if we are unable to obtain a license on reasonable terms or at all. Such outcomes could materially affect our ability to offer our products and solutions and have a material adverse impact on our business. Even if we are able to obtain a license or successfully defend against claims of patent infringement, the cost and distraction associated with the defense or settlement of these claims could have a material adverse impact on our business. Any of the foregoing could materially harm our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

In connection with the development of new products and solutions we may license intellectual property from third parties in the future, or may deem it necessary to do so in order to commercialize our products or solutions. We may be unable to obtain these licenses at a reasonable cost, or at all. We could, therefore, incur substantial costs related to royalty payments or other payments for licenses obtained from third parties. We may also be unable to obtain exclusive rights to use such intellectual property or technology in all relevant fields of use and in all territories in which we may wish to develop or commercialize our products and solutions in the future and, as a result, we may not be able to prevent competitors from developing and commercializing competitive products or solutions. Moreover, we could encounter delays in introducing new products or solutions while we attempt to develop alternative products and solutions, and the defense of any lawsuit or failure to obtain any of these licenses on favorable terms could prevent us from commercializing our products and solutions, which would materially affect our ability to grow. Our licensors might conclude that we have materially breached our license agreements and might therefore terminate the license agreements, thereby removing our ability to develop and commercialize products and solutions covered by such agreements. License agreements could also be time-limited or terminated when possible. If these in-licenses are terminated, or if the underlying patents fail to provide the intended exclusivity, competitors might have the freedom to market competing products and solutions identical or similar to ours. Disputes may arise regarding intellectual property subject to a licensing agreement, including: - the scope of rights granted under the license agreement and other interpretation-related issues; as well as the effectiveness of the license agreement in general;- the extent to which our products and solutions infringe on intellectual property of the licensor that is not subject to the licensing agreement;- the sublicensing of patent and other rights under our collaborative development relationships;- our diligence obligations under the license agreement and what activities satisfy those diligence obligations;- which royalties payments are owed;- the inventorship and ownership of inventions and know-how resulting from the joint creation or use of intellectual property by our licensors and us and our partners, including the question of bearing the costs; and - the priority of invention of patented technology. In addition, agreements under which we license intellectual property or technology from third parties could be complex and turn out to be invalid in whole or in part. 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. Moreover, if disputes over intellectual property or technology that we have licensed prevent or impair our ability to maintain other licensing arrangements on commercially acceptable terms, defending our position could materially harm our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations. With regard to the expected start of the Unified Patent Court in the late second half of 2022, it should be noted that this is a completely new court system, whose procedural and adjudicative methods as well as the mutual effects between the national European patent jurisdictions and the jurisdiction of the new system are practically impossible to assess at present. This creates an uncertainty that may harm our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations because decisions may be issued and case law may develop that is disadvantageous for us.

Obtaining and maintaining a patent portfolio entails significant expense and resources. Part of the expense includes periodic maintenance fees, renewal fees, annuity fees and various other governmental fees associated with patents and patent applications due in several stages over the lifetime of patents and patent applications. The USPTO and various non-U.S. government agencies require compliance with several procedural, documentary, fee payment, and other similar provisions during the patent application process. We may or may not choose to pursue or maintain protection for particular inventions. In addition, there are situations 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. If we choose to forego patent protection or allow a patent application or patent or other intellectual property right to lapse purposefully or inadvertently, our competitive position could suffer. In such an event, potential competitors might be able to enter the market with similar or identical products and solutions. If we fail to obtain, maintain, protect or enforce our intellectual property rights successfully, our competitive position could suffer. Any of the foregoing could materially harm our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

Our commercial success depends upon our ability to develop and commercialize products and solutions and use our proprietary technologies without infringing, misappropriating or otherwise violating the intellectual property and proprietary rights of third parties. We could become party to, or threatened with, adversarial proceedings or litigation regarding intellectual property rights with respect to our technology and any products or solutions we may develop, including interference proceedings, post-grant review, inter partes review, and derivation proceedings before the USPTO and similar proceedings in foreign jurisdictions, such as oppositions before the EPO or nullity or entitlement proceedings. Third parties may assert infringement and other claims against us based on existing patents or patents that may be granted in the future, regardless of their merit, and we may assert infringement and other claims against third parties. As we continue to commercialize our genetic rare disease information solutions (including our biomarkers), launch new solutions and enter new markets, we expect that competitors will claim that our products or solutions infringe or otherwise violate their intellectual property rights, including as part of business strategies designed to impede our successful commercialization and entry into new markets. Third parties may have obtained, and may in the future obtain, patents under which such third parties may claim that the use of our technologies constitutes patent infringement. Third parties have in the past asserted and may in the future assert that we are employing their proprietary technology without authorization, and we occasionally receive letters from third parties inviting us to take licenses under, or alleging that we infringe, their patents. Depending upon the circumstances, we may elect to remove a particular biomarker from one of our products or solutions. Even if we believe that third-party intellectual property claims are without merit, there is no assurance that a court would find in our favor on questions of infringement, validity, enforceability, or priority. A court of competent jurisdiction could hold that these third-party patents are valid, enforceable, and infringed, which could materially and adversely affect our ability to commercialize any products or solutions we may develop or have developed. In order to successfully challenge the validity of any such U.S. patent in federal court or in courts in other jurisdictions, we would need to overcome a presumption of validity. As this burden is a high one, requiring us to present clear and convincing evidence as to the invalidity of any such U.S. patent claim, there is no assurance that a court of competent jurisdiction would invalidate the claims of any such U.S. patent. The same applies to other jurisdictions. Even if we were to find prior art that could justify the invalidation of the intellectual property right under which we are attacked, because of the bifurcated system dealing with infringement and validity before different courts in some jurisdictions (e.g. Germany), we may first be injuncted for infringement of the intellectual property right, which may be corrected only after subsequent invalidation of the intellectual property right. If we are found to infringe a third party's intellectual property rights, and we are unsuccessful in demonstrating that such patents are invalid or unenforceable, we could be required to obtain a license from such third party to continue commercializing our products or solutions. However, we may not be able to obtain any required license on commercially reasonable terms, or at all and therefore may be unable to develop, sell or otherwise commercialize our products or solutions. Even if we were able to obtain a license, it could be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors and other third parties access to the same technologies licensed to us, and it could require us to make substantial licensing, royalty and other payments. Furthermore, parties making claims against us may be able to obtain injunctive or other relief, which could block our ability to develop, commercialize, and sell our products and solutions, and could result in the award of substantial damages against us. In the event of a successful claim of infringement, misappropriation or other intellectual property violation against us, we may be required to render account for and pay damages and attorneys' fees, recall or destroy stocks and obtain one or more licenses from third parties, or be prohibited from developing, commercializing and selling certain products or solutions. In addition, we could be found liable for significant monetary damages, including treble damages and attorneys' fees, if we are found to have willfully infringed a patent or other intellectual property right. The new European Unified Patent Court system, which is expected to start at late 2022, will allow the patent owner to obtain injunctive relief with unitary effect, i.e. within the territories of the EU Member States participating in the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court including e.g. claims for damages, compensation, recall, destruction and information with regard to its Unitary Patents. For European patents not taken out of the Unified Patent Court system by "opt-out", decisions of the courts of the Unified Patent Court system cover the territory of the EU Member States participating in the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court for which the European patent has effect. This may result in the loss of significant market opportunities and substantial adverse effects of a judgement. 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 personnel from their normal responsibilities. In addition, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions, or other interim proceedings or developments, and if securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a substantial adverse effect on the price of our shares. Such litigation or proceedings could substantially increase our operating losses and reduce the resources available for development activities or any future sales, marketing, or distribution activities. We may not have sufficient financial or other resources to conduct such litigation or proceedings adequately. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of such litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their greater financial resources and more mature and developed intellectual property portfolios. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation. We also could incur substantial costs and divert the attention of our management and other employees in participating in litigation or proceedings of this nature, and an adverse ruling or perception of an adverse ruling in could have a material adverse impact on our cash position and share price. Any of the foregoing could materially harm our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

The issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity, or enforceability, and our patents may be challenged in the courts or patent offices in the United States and abroad. Others have filed, and in the future are likely to file, patent applications or related intellectual property rights that are similar or identical to ours. To determine the priority of inventions, demonstrate that we did not derive our invention from another individual or entity, or defend third-party challenges or reservations of the granting authorities to the validity or enforceability of our patent rights, we may have to participate in opposition, derivation, revocation, reexamination, entitlement, post-grant and inter partes review, or interference proceedings at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the "USPTO") or similar offices or respective courts in Europe or other jurisdictions. For example, we are aware of an opposition proceeding filed at the European Patent Office ("EPO") by Sanofi against EP Patent No. 2 718 725 B1 (the "725 Patent"), a European patent that we own relating to our biomarker for Gaucher disease. The EPO opposition proceeding challenges the patentability of the ‘725 Patent in its entirety. The EPO rejected the opposition in the first instance in the hearing held on February 4, 2020. Sanofi filed an appeal against the opposition decision to the Board of Appeal at the EPO and the ‘725 Patent may still be revoked or maintained in amended form, in whole or in part, if the Board of Appeal does not uphold the opposition decision. Revoking the ‘725 Patent may limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical products and solutions to ours, or limit the duration of the patent protection of our products and solutions. We are also aware of an opposition proceeding filed at the European Patent Office ("EPO") by Sanofi against EP Patent No. 3 318 881 B1 (the "881 Patent") on April 15, 2021, another European patent that we own relating to our biomarker for Gaucher disease. The EPO opposition proceeding challenges the patentability of the ‘881 Patent in its entirety. Oral proceedings concerning the European patent will take place before the opposition division of the EPO on May 04, 2022. The '881 Patent may be revoked or maintained in amended form, in whole or in part, which could materially harm our business. Should the '881 Patent be revoked or maintained in amended form, we would have the right to appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division. However, the outcome of the appeal is unclear. Revoking the ‘881 Patent may limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical products and solutions to ours, or limit the duration of the patent protection of our products and solutions. See "Item 4. Information On The Company-B. Business Overview-Legal Proceedings" and "Item 8. Financial Information-A. Consolidated Statements and Other Financial Information-Legal Proceedings." Sanofi or other third parties may file future oppositions or other challenges, in Europe or other jurisdictions, against other patents that we own and may also challenge or attack the validity of the national parts of the ‘725 Patent and/or the '881 Patent before national patent courts in parallel or after the proceedings before the EPO. An adverse determination in any such proceeding or litigation could reduce the scope of, or invalidate, our patent rights, allow third parties to commercialize our products or solutions and compete directly with us, without payment to us. It is expected that actions will also be possible before the new European Unified Patent Court from the second half of 2022. If we do not actively exclude our existing (European patent applications as well as granted) European patents from this system ("opt-out"), they will become part of this new court system and it will be possible for third parties to challenge these patents before the courts of the Unified Patent Court system, with the consequence that these patents can then be restricted or revoked for the territory of all EU Member States participating in the Unitary Patent Court system (at the time of February 2022, these are Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia, Sweden; other countries may be added in the future, in particular Cyprus, Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Romania and Slovakia) for which the European patent has effect. The same applies for future European patents and patent applications that are not opted out of the Unified Patent Court system, which is possible for a period of seven years after the date of entry into force of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court unless an action has already been brought before the Unified Patent Court system in respect of the European patent or patent application. For future European patent applications it also has to be decided whether a request for unitary effect is submitted with the consequence that the patent if grantable will be granted as Unitary Patent and can therefore be challenged before the Unified Patent Court and be restricted or revoked for the territory of all EU Member States participating in the Unitary Patent Court system. Moreover, we 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 or nullity or entitlement proceedings, that challenge priority of invention or other features of patentability. Such challenges may result in loss of patent rights, loss of exclusivity, or in patents being cancelled, narrowed, amended, invalidated, revoked 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 solutions, or limit the duration of the patent protection of our products and solutions. Such proceedings could also result in substantial costs in legal fees and require significant time from our management and employees, even if the eventual outcome is favorable to us. In the event of entitlement proceedings, purported co-inventors may bring claims for ownership, co-ownership, compensation and/or damages. In addition, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments, and if securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a substantial adverse effect on the price of our common shares. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects. In addition, if we initiate legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent covering our products or solutions, the defendant could counterclaim that such patent is invalid or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity or unenforceability are commonplace. Grounds for a validity challenge could be an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, including lack of novelty, obviousness, or non-enablement. Grounds for an unenforceability assertion could be an allegation that someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld relevant information from the USPTO, or made a misleading statement, during prosecution. In other jurisdictions, defendants have and/or may have comparable grounds for defending against such claims, especially with regard to claims that a patent is invalid. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. With respect to the validity question, for example, we cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior art of which we and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution or that a court or office dealing with the invalidity will judge prior art known to us to be detrimental to novelty in a manner deviating from our opinion and/or the opinion of the granting authority, or will consider the invention to be obvious and thus not protectable on the basis of such prior art. Such challenges could result in the revocation of, cancellation of, or amendment to our patents in such a way that they no longer sufficiently cover our products and solutions. If a third party were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity or unenforceability, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on our products or solutions. Such a loss of patent protection would materially harm our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

In addition to seeking patent protection for our products and solutions, we also rely upon trade secret protection and non-disclosure agreements and invention assignment agreements with our management and employees, consultants and other third parties to protect our unpatented know-how, technology, and other confidential or proprietary information. For example, significant elements of our proprietary platform and some of our tests, including aspects of sample preparation, computational-biological algorithms, and related processes and software, are based on unpatented trade secrets and know-how that to our knowledge are not publicly disclosed. In addition to contractual measures, we try to protect the confidential nature of our proprietary information using physical and technological security measures. Such measures may not provide adequate protection for our proprietary information; for example, in the case of misappropriation of intellectual rights by a member of management, an employee, consultant, or other third party with authorized access. We also cannot rule out the possibility that third parties specifically try to obtain our know-how, trade secrets or other confidential and proprietary information. Trade secrets and know-how can be difficult to protect. We cannot guarantee that we have entered into applicable non-disclosure agreements and invention assignment agreements with our management and employees, consultants and other third parties who have had access to our trade secrets or other proprietary information. Our security and contractual measures may not prevent a member of management, an employee, consultant, or other third party from misappropriating our trade secrets and providing them to a competitor, other third parties or to the public, and any recourse we take against such misconduct, including litigation, may not provide an adequate remedy to protect our interests fully. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated intellectual property can be difficult, expensive, and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. Due to variation in the degree of protection afforded to intellectual property of this nature under the laws and regulations applicable to different international markets where our services are sold, our ability to pursue and obtain an adequate remedy may depend significantly on the jurisdiction in which the misconduct takes place and our ability to enforce a favorable judgment against the offending party in a jurisdiction in which such party has substantial assets. In addition, trade secrets may be independently developed by others in a manner that could prevent legal recourse by us. If any of our confidential or proprietary information, such as our trade secrets, were to be disclosed or misappropriated, or if any such information were independently developed by a competitor, our competitive position could be harmed.

Our success depends in large part on our ability to obtain and maintain patent and other intellectual property protection in the United States and other countries for our biomarkers and other products and solutions. Patent law relating to the scope of claims in the fields in which we operate is complex and uncertain, so we cannot make any assurances that we will be able to obtain or maintain patent or other intellectual property rights, or that the patent and other intellectual property rights we may obtain will be valuable, provide an effective barrier to competitors or otherwise provide competitive advantages. In particular, our Lyso-Gb3 biomarker, which we use to support the diagnosis of Fabry disease, is not protected by any patents or included in any pending patent applications, and its successful commercialization by one of our competitors or by other third parties, which, in all probability, we would not be able to prevent, could materially harm our business or results of operations. Moreover, patent applications that we have made in the past have been subject to comment and revision by the relevant patent offices, which have resulted in our withdrawal of certain patent applications. If we are unable to obtain or maintain patent or other intellectual property protection with respect to our proprietary products and solutions, our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects could be materially harmed. The scope of patent protection is uncertain. Changes in either the patent laws or their interpretation in the United States and other countries 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 patents. We cannot predict whether the patent applications we are currently pursuing will issue as patents in any particular jurisdiction or whether the claims of any issued patents will provide sufficient protection from competitors. The patent prosecution process is expensive, time-consuming, and complex, and we may not be able to file, prosecute, maintain, enforce, or license all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner. It is also possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development output in time to obtain patent protection. Parties who have access to confidential or patentable aspects of our research and development output, such as our management and employees, advisors, and other third parties, and who are party to non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with us, may breach such agreements and disclose such output before a patent application is filed, thereby jeopardizing our ability to seek patent protection, or might themselves file respective IP rights. In addition, publications of discoveries in the scientific literature often lag behind the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the United States and other jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing, or in some cases not at all. Therefore, we cannot be certain that we were the first to make the inventions claimed in our patents or pending patent applications, or that we were the first to file for patent protection of such inventions. The patent position of companies in our industry generally is unsettled, 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. Our pending and future patent applications may not result in patents being issued that protect our products or solutions or which effectively prevent others from commercializing competitive products and solutions. Moreover, the coverage claimed in a patent application can be significantly reduced before the patent is issued, and its scope can be reinterpreted after issuance. Even if patent applications issue as patents, they may not issue in a form that will provide us with any meaningful protection, prevent competitors or other third parties from competing with us, or otherwise provide us with any competitive advantage. Any patents that we hold may be challenged, narrowed, circumvented, or invalidated by third parties. In particular, for more information regarding U.S. patent law decisions that negatively impact the patentability of biomarkers, diagnostic products and diagnostic methods, and the validity of granted U.S. patents covering such subject matter, see "-Developments in patent law could have a negative impact on our business" below. Consequently, we do not know whether any of our biomarkers or other products and solutions will be protectable or remain protected by valid and enforceable patents. Our competitors or other third parties may be able to circumvent our patents by developing similar or alternative products and solutions in a non-infringing manner. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

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 solutions that are similar to any products or solutions we develop or commercialize or utilize similar technology but that are not covered by the claims of our patents or patents that we might own or license in the future;- we might not have been the first to make the inventions covered by the issued patents or pending patent applications that we own or may own or license in the future, and this may result for example in possible rights to use the invention for the one who first made the invention; and in the invalidity of our patents;- we might not have been the first to file patent applications covering certain of our 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 or license in the future will not lead to issued patents;- our issued patents may be held invalid or unenforceable, including as a result of legal challenges by our competitors;- our customers or competitors might conduct research and development activities in countries where we do not have patent rights and then use the information learned from such activities to develop competitive products or solutions for sale in our major commercial markets;- we may not develop additional proprietary technologies that are patentable;- the patents of others may harm our business; and - we 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 materially harm our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

As a Dutch public company, we are subject to the DCGC. The DCGC contains both principles and best practice provisions that regulate relations between the management board, the supervisory board and the shareholders. The DCGC is based on a "comply or explain" principle. Accordingly, companies are required to disclose in their annual reports, filed in the Netherlands, whether they comply with the provisions of the DCGC. If they do not comply with those provisions (for example, because of a conflicting Nasdaq requirement), the company is required to give the reasons for such non-compliance. The DCGC applies to Dutch companies listed on a government-recognized stock exchange, whether in the Netherlands or elsewhere, including Nasdaq. We do not comply with all best practice provisions of the DCGC. This may affect your rights as a shareholder and you may not have the same level of protection as a shareholder in a Dutch company that fully complies with the DCGC.

Most of our personnel, including our directors, work in Germany and are subject to German employment law. Inventions which may be the subject of a patent or of protection as a utility model and which are or were made by personnel working in Germany (except for legal representatives of our respective legal entities, for example managing directors) are subject to the provisions of the German Act on Employees' Inventions (Gesetz über Arbeitnehmererfindungen) (the "German Inventions Act"), which regulates the ownership of, and compensation for, inventions made by employees. We face the risk that disputes may occur between us and our current or past employees pertaining to the sufficiency of compensation paid by us, allocation of rights to inventions under this Act or alleged non-adherence to the provisions of this Act, any of which may be costly to resolve and take up our management's time and efforts whether we prevail or fail in such dispute. In addition, under the German Inventions Act, certain employees retain rights to patents and/or utility models they invented or co-invented and disclosed to us prior to October 1, 2009. If we do not manage to have the respective third-party interests transferred to us or are unable to obtain an exclusive license to any such third-party co-owners' or owners' interest in such patents and/or utility models, such co-owners or owners may be able to transfer or license their rights to other third parties, including our competitors. In addition, we may need the cooperation of any such co-owners or owners to enforce any such patents and/or utility models against third parties, or to conclude license agreements regarding such patents and/or utility models with third parties, and such cooperation may not be provided to us. While we believe that all of our current and past German employee inventors have subsequently assigned to us their interest in inventions, patents and/or utility models they invented or co-invented, there can be no assurance that all such assignments are fully effective, which can lead to unexpected costs or economic disadvantages. Even if we lawfully own all inventions created by our employees who are subject to the German Inventions Act, we are required under German law to reasonably compensate such employees for the use of the inventions and intellectual property rights related thereto. If we are required to pay compensation or face other disputes under the German Inventions Act, our results of operations could be adversely affected. Legal representatives of legal entities, for example managing directors, whose contractual relationships with the respective entity are subject to German law and that are not subject to the German Inventions Act as well as consultants must assign and transfer their interest in inventions, patents and/or utility models they invent or co-invent to us in order for us to have any rights to such inventions, patents and/or utility models. While we believe that all assignments have been made, there can be no assurance that all such assignments are fully effective, which may harm our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations. If any of our current or past employees, legal representatives of our legal entities or consultants obtain or retain ownership or co-ownership of any inventions or related intellectual property rights that we believe we own, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights and be required to acquire the respective third-party interests or to obtain and maintain licenses from such employees or legal representatives of legal entities or consultants to such inventions or intellectual property rights, which may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all, or may be non-exclusive. If we are unable to acquire the respective third-party interests or to obtain and maintain a license to any such employee's, legal representative's of legal entities or consultant's interest in such inventions or intellectual property rights, we may need to cease the development, manufacture, and commercialization of one or more of the products or solutions we may develop or may have developed. In addition, any loss of exclusivity of our intellectual property rights could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical products and solutions. We may also face entitlement, compensation and/or damages claims from our current or past employees, legal representatives of our legal entities or consultants owning or co-owning any inventions or related intellectual property rights that we believe we own. Any of the foregoing events could materially harm our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

Our inability to identify a sufficient number of patients for our partners' clinical trials could result in significant delays and could require our partners to abandon one or more clinical trials altogether. Enrollment delays in our partners' clinical trials may result in increased development costs for our partners' drug candidates, which would cause the value of the solutions which we offer to our pharmaceutical partners to decline. If we are unable to identify patients with a specified driver of disease or applicable genomic alteration, this could compromise our ability to add value to our partners' clinical trials by accelerating clinical development and regulatory timelines. In addition, our projections of both the number of people who have these diseases, as well as the subset of people with these diseases who have the potential to benefit from treatment with our partners' existing treatments or drug candidates, are based on our internal estimates derived from data in our repository. These estimates may prove to be incorrect, and new studies may reduce the estimated incidence or prevalence of these diseases. The number of patients in the United States, European Union and elsewhere may turn out to be lower than expected, may not be otherwise amenable to treatment with our partners' drug candidates or patients may be difficult to identify and access, all of which would adversely affect our business, prospects and ability to achieve or sustain profitability.

As our sales volume grows, we will need to continue to increase our infrastructure for sample intake, customer service, billing and general process improvements, expand our internal quality assurance program, and extend our platform to support comprehensive genomic and other analyses at a larger scale within expected turnaround times. We will need additional certified laboratory scientists and other scientific and technical personnel to process higher volumes of our products and solutions. Portions of our process cannot be fully automated and will require additional personnel to scale. We will also need to purchase additional equipment, some of which can take a long time to procure, set up, and validate, and increase our software and computing capacity to meet increased demand. We may fail to successfully implement any of these increases in scale, expansion of personnel, equipment, software and computing capacities, or process enhancements and we may have inadequate space in our laboratory facilities to accommodate such required expansion. As additional products and solutions are commercialized, we will need to incorporate new equipment, implement new technology systems and laboratory processes, and hire new personnel with different qualifications. Failure to manage this growth or transition could result in turnaround time delays, higher product costs, declining product quality, deteriorating customer service, and slower responses to competitive challenges. A failure in any one of these areas could make it difficult or impossible for us to meet market expectations for our products and solutions, and could damage our reputation and the prospects for our business.

If we are not able to obtain favorable pricing for our products and solutions to enable us to meet our profitability expectations, our revenues and profitability could materially suffer. The rates we are able to charge for our products and solutions are affected by a number of factors, including: - general economic and political conditions in the countries in which we operate;- the competitive environment in our industry, as described below;- our clients' and pharmaceutical partners' cost sensitivities;- our ability to accurately estimate, attain and sustain revenues and royalties, margins and cash flows over the full partnership period for our solutions, which includes our ability to estimate the impact of inflation and foreign exchange on our margins over long-term contracts; and - procurement practices of our pharmaceutical partners and clients and their use of third-party advisors. The competitive environment in our industry affects our ability to obtain favorable pricing in a number of ways, all of which could have a material negative impact on our results of operations. The less we are able to clearly convey the value of our products and solutions or differentiate our products and solutions, the more risk we have that they will be seen as commodities, with price being the driving factor in selecting us as a partner. Competitors may be willing, at times, to price contracts or products lower than we do in an effort to enter the market or increase market share. Further, if competitors develop and implement methodologies that yield greater efficiency or efficacy, they may be able to offer products and solutions similar to ours at lower prices.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, we took a series of measures aimed at minimizing the disruptions to our business and operations, including by adding COVID-19 molecular testing to our product mix. To support the rapid rollout of our COVID-19 testing offering, we have incurred significant expenses and made significant investments, including the acquisition of laboratory facilities, walk-in testing facilities, and mobile test centers, as well as related equipment and inventory. Our COVID-19 testing business grew significantly since the second quarter of 2020 and, as a result, we started managing and reporting it as a separate reportable business segment in the third quarter of 2020. Total investments in COVID-19 testing as of December 31, 2021 amounted to €2,834 thousand, of which €2,480 thousand are COVID-19 related mobile test laboratories and equipment. An amount of €354 thousand is included in intangible assets and relates to the development of CENTOGENE's Corona Test Portal. While the COVID-19 pandemic has created an opportunity for our business and helped us offset the pandemic-related slowdown in our Diagnostics and Pharmaceutical businesses, we noticed a decrease in COVID-19 test order intakes during the third quarter of 2021, specifically in Germany, which led to management review of and resolution on options to discontinue lease contracts at unprofitable COVID-19 testing sites as well as reaching the decision to close a laboratory in Hamburg. Similarly, we have significantly ramped down COVID-19 related inventory levels to align with the needs of the remaining test sites and laboratories. Due to the impact of these changes during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly developments in vaccination campaigns with increasing vaccination numbers and relaxation of testing regulations by several countries, we reassessed certain related accounting judgments and estimates. As a result, in line with our accounting policies for long-lived assets, management reviewed the estimated useful lives of long-lived assets utilized in the COVID-19 test offerings given changes in circumstances and management's expectations. Management considered how the underlying assets are currently deployed, including whether the assets are utilized in leased facilities or service agreements which management is unlikely to renew, and potential alternative uses of the assets within the COVID-19 business or within the diagnostics and pharmaceutical businesses. Consequently, we prospectively adjusted the estimated useful lives of our long-lived assets which include property, plant and equipment, right-of-use assets and intangible assets which had an aggregate carrying amount of € 8,549 thousand to a remaining estimated useful life of eight months, with effect at the beginning of the third quarter of 2021. This prospective change in estimate resulted in accelerated depreciation expense of €4,138 thousand during the year ended December 31, 2021. Additionally, following the closure of the Hamburg lab, we recognized an accelerated depreciation of right-of-use assets in an amount of € 746 thousand for the year ended December 31, 2021. We presently expect our COVID-19 testing business to continue contributing to our revenue in 2022. However, the demand for our COVID-19 tests may not be sustainable and the recent increase in our revenues from COVID-19 testing may not be indicative of future revenues. Such demand, and the revenues of our COVID-19 testing segment, may shrink rapidly in the future, for instance: - as the pandemic abates or infection rates decline;- as governmental and health authorities relax rules on mandatory COVID-19 testing;- as vaccinations become more widely administered; or - if other tests become more accepted or produce results more quickly, more accurately or at lower cost;in each case in particular in the regions where we offer our COVID-19 testing services. As a result, we may be unable to recoup the significant expenses we incurred in connection with our COVID-19 testing business. In addition, while we are depreciating all of the investments made in our COVID-19 testing business on an accelerated timetable, we may be required to write-down some or all of our investments in, and working capital related to, our COVID-19 testing business. Any of the foregoing developments and events could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial position.