Quantum-Si (QSI) Risk Factors

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

We may identify third-party technology that we may need to license or acquire in order to develop or commercialize our products or technologies. However, we may be unable to secure such licenses or acquisitions. The licensing or acquisition of third-party intellectual property rights is a competitive area, and several more established companies may pursue strategies to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights that we may consider attractive or necessary. These established companies may have a competitive advantage over us due to their size, capital resources and greater clinical development and commercialization capabilities. In addition, companies that perceive us to be a competitor may be unwilling to assign or license rights to us. We also may be unable to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights on terms that would allow us to make an appropriate return on our investment or at all. In return for the use of a third party's technology, we may agree to pay the licensor royalties based on sales of our products or services. Royalties are a component of cost of products or technologies and affect the margins on our products. We may also need to negotiate licenses to patents or patent applications before or after introducing a commercial product. We may not be able to obtain necessary licenses to patents or patent applications, and our business may suffer if we are unable to enter into the necessary licenses on acceptable terms or at all, if any necessary licenses are subsequently terminated, if the licensor fails to abide by the terms of the license or fails to prevent infringement by third parties, or if the licensed intellectual property rights are found to be invalid or unenforceable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We may in the future register with the FDA as a specification developer and list ancillary products such as customized reagents with the FDA as Class I general purpose laboratory equipment and reagents. A clinical laboratory could potentially use our custom-manufactured reagents to create what is called an LDT. LDTs are diagnostic tests that are developed, validated and performed by a single clinical laboratory operating in compliance with the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments ("CLIA"), and under the oversight of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services ("CMS"). Historically, FDA has generally exercised enforcement discretion not to regulate LDTs as medical devices, although as discussed above in October 2023 it issued a proposed rule to regulate LDTs under the current medical device framework and phase out its existing enforcement discretion policy for LDTs. The FDA initiated this rulemaking following several years of inaction by Congress and in light of public health concerns the agency perceives to exist with certain marketed LDTs, in part as a result of the growth in the volume and complexity of testing services utilizing LDTs, such as genetic testing services over the past four decades Congress also continues to face pressure from stakeholders to enact a comprehensive legislative solution to create a harmonized paradigm for oversight of LDTs by both the FDA and CMS. Any legislative or administrative rule making or new federal oversight of LDTs, if and when finalized, could decrease demand for our reagents by affecting how customers can use those products. Additionally, compliance with additional regulatory burdens could be time consuming and costly for our customers. We cannot predict how these various efforts will be resolved, how Congress or the FDA will regulate LDTs in the future, or how that modernized regulatory system will impact our business. Further, the FDA may disagree that such products are Class 1 medical devices and require us to obtain pre-market clearance or approval before we can continue to sell our reagent products to certain customers.

Although our current protein sequencing products are labeled, promoted, and sold as RUO products that are therefore not regulated as IVD medical devices, the FDA or comparable agencies of other countries could disagree with our conclusion that our products are intended for RUO or deem our sales, marketing and promotional efforts as being inconsistent with the criteria for RUO products. For example, our customers may independently elect to use our RUO labeled products in their own lab-developed tests ("LDTs") for clinical diagnostic uses, which could subject our products to government regulation, and regulatory requirements related to marketing, selling, and distribution of RUO products could change or be uncertain, even if clinical uses of our RUO products by our customers were done without our consent. FDA reviews the totality of the circumstances when it comes to evaluating whether equipment and testing components are properly labeled as RUO and takes the position that merely including a labeling statement that the product is for research purposes only will not necessarily render the device exempt from the FDA's device regulatory requirements if the circumstances surrounding the distribution, marketing and promotional practices indicate that the manufacturer knows its products are, or intends for its products to be, used for clinical diagnostic purposes. If the FDA or other regulatory authorities assert that any of our RUO products are subject to regulatory clearance or approval, our business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows could be adversely affected. For a number of years, the FDA has exercised its regulatory enforcement discretion not to regulate LDTs as medical devices if the tests are created and used within a single laboratory. However, in October 2023, the FDA issued a proposed rule aimed at regulating LDTs under the current medical device framework and proposing to phase out its existing enforcement discretion policy for this category of diagnostic tests; the public comment period ended in early December 2023. The proposal envisions that the LDT enforcement policy phase-out process would occur in gradual stages over a total period of four years, although more details are expected to be provided with the upcoming final rule. The likelihood of the FDA finalizing the proposed rule in April 2024 (as currently projected), as well as potential litigation challenging the agency's authority to take such action, is uncertain at this time. Affected entities continue to press for a comprehensive legislative solution instead of implementation of the proposed FDA administrative action, which may be disruptive to the industry and to patient access to certain diagnostic tests, and litigation against FDA is expected to be initiated following issuance of the final rule. Separately, federal legislators have been working with stakeholders for several years on a possible bill to reform the regulation of in vitro clinical tests including LDTs. For example, as drafted and re-introduced for consideration by the current Congress, the Verifying Accurate, Leading-edge IVCT Development Act ("VALID Act") would codify into law the term "in vitro clinical test" ("IVCT") to create new medical product category separate from medical devices that includes products currently regulated as IVDs as well as LDTs. The VALID Act would also create a new system for labs and hospitals to use to submit their tests electronically to the FDA for approval, which is aimed at reducing the amount of time it takes for the agency to approve such tests, and establish a new program to expedite the development of diagnostic tests that can be used to address a current unmet need for patients. Any legislative or administrative rule making or new federal oversight of LDTs, if and when finalized, may impact the sales of our products and how customers use our products, and may require us to change our business model in order to maintain compliance with these laws. We cannot predict how these various efforts will be resolved, how Congress or the FDA will regulate LDTs in the future, or how that modernized regulatory system will impact our business. Changes to the current regulatory framework, including the imposition of additional or new regulations, including regulation of our products, could arise at any time during the development or marketing of our products, which may negatively affect our ability to obtain or maintain FDA or comparable regulatory approval of our products, if required. Further, sales of devices for diagnostic purposes may subject us to additional healthcare regulation and enforcement by the applicable government agencies. Such laws include, without limitation, state and federal anti-kickback or anti-referral laws, healthcare fraud and abuse laws, false claims laws, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA"), the Physician Payments Sunshine Act and related transparency and manufacturer reporting laws, and other laws and regulations applicable to medical device manufacturers.

Our protein sequencing products are currently labeled, promoted, and sold primarily to academic and research institutions and research companies as RUO products. They are not currently designed, or intended to be used, for clinical diagnostic purposes or as medical devices. If we elect to label and market our products for use as, or in the performance of, clinical diagnostics in the United States, thereby subjecting them to FDA regulation as medical devices, we would be required to obtain pre-market authorization from the FDA, unless an exception applies. In the future, if we choose to develop and market our products for clinical or diagnostic uses in the United States, we will be required to comply with FDA's regulations for in vitro diagnostic ("IVD") medical devices. Complying with FDA's medical device regulations may be expensive, time-consuming, and subject us to significant and/or unanticipated delays. There can be no guarantee that we will be able to obtain the appropriate marketing authorization for our protein sequencing products that may be developed for clinical or diagnostic intended uses in the future. We may in the future register with the FDA as a specification developer and list some of our ancillary products with the FDA as Class I general purpose laboratory equipment, subjecting us to ongoing inspections by the FDA. While this regulatory classification is exempt from certain FDA requirements, such as the need to submit a pre-market notification commonly known as a 510(k), and some of the requirements of the FDA's Quality System Regulations ("QSR"), those device products would be subject to mandatory general controls that apply to all classes of medical devices. In addition to establishment registration, device listing and compliance with applicable QSR, general controls include compliance with FDA regulations for labeling, reporting adverse events or malfunctions for the products, and general prohibitions against misbranding and adulteration. There can be no assurance that future products for which we may seek pre-market clearance or approval will be approved or cleared by FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority on a timely basis, if at all, nor can there be assurance that labeling claims will be consistent with our anticipated claims or adequate to support continued adoption of such products. Compliance with FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authority regulations will require substantial costs, and subject us to heightened scrutiny by regulators and substantial penalties for failure to comply with such requirements or the inability to market our products. The lengthy and unpredictable pre-market clearance or approval process, as well as the unpredictability of the results of any required clinical studies, may result in us failing to obtain regulatory clearance or approval to market such products, which would significantly harm our business, results of operations, reputation, and prospects. If we sought and received regulatory marketing authorization for certain of our protein sequencing products, we would be subject to ongoing FDA obligations and continued regulatory oversight and review, including the general controls listed above. In addition, we could be required to obtain a new clearance or approval before we could introduce subsequent modifications or improvements to such products. We could also be subject to additional FDA post-marketing obligations for such products, any or all of which would increase our costs and divert resources away from other projects. If we sought and received regulatory clearance or approval and are not able to maintain regulatory compliance with applicable laws, we could be prohibited from marketing our products for use as, or in the performance of, clinical diagnostics and/or could be subject to enforcement actions, including Warning Letters and adverse publicity, fines, injunctions, and civil penalties; recall or seizure of products; operating restrictions; and criminal prosecution. In addition, we could decide to seek regulatory clearance or approval for certain of our future clinical diagnostic products in countries outside of the United States. Sales of such products outside the United States will likely be subject to foreign regulatory requirements, which can vary greatly from country to country. As a result, the time required to obtain clearances or approvals outside the United States may differ from that required to obtain FDA marketing authorization and we may not be able to obtain foreign regulatory approvals on a timely basis or at all. In Europe, we would need to comply with the new Medical Device Regulation 2017/745 and In Vitro Diagnostic Regulation 2017/746, which became effective May 26, 2017, with application dates of May 26, 2021 (postponed from 2020) and May 26, 2022, respectively. This will increase the difficulty of regulatory approvals in Europe in the future. In addition, the FDA regulates exports of medical devices. Failure to comply with these regulatory requirements or obtain and maintain required approvals, clearances and certifications could impair our ability to commercialize our products for diagnostic use outside of the United States.

Our potential customer base for future clinical diagnostic applications of our protein sequencing technologies may be active on social media. We intend to engage through those platforms to elevate our national marketing presence, both for our RUO product offerings and any future medical device product offerings. Social media practices in the medical device and biopharmaceutical industries are evolving, which creates uncertainty and risk of non-compliance with regulations applicable to our business. For example, there is a risk of inappropriate disclosure of sensitive information or negative or inaccurate posts or comments about us or our products on any social networking website. If these events were to occur or we otherwise fail to comply with any applicable regulations, we could incur liability, face restrictive regulatory actions or experience other harm to our business.

Increasingly, in addition to the importance of their financial performance, companies are being judged by their performance on a variety of environmental, social and governance ("ESG") matters, which are considered to contribute to the long-term sustainability of companies' performance. A variety of organizations measure the performance of companies on such ESG topics, and the results of these assessments are widely publicized. In addition, investment in funds that specialize in companies that perform well in such assessments are becoming increasingly popular, and major institutional investors have publicly emphasized the importance of such ESG measures to their investment decisions. Topics taken into account in such assessments include, among others, the company's efforts and impacts on climate change and human rights, ethics and compliance with law, and the role of the company's board of directors in supervising various sustainability issues. The severity and frequency of weather-related natural disasters has been amplified, and is expected to continue to be amplified, by global climate change. Such natural disasters have caused, and in the future may cause, damage to and/or disrupt our operations, which may result in a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations. Our suppliers, vendors and business partners also face similar risks, and any disruption to their operations could have an adverse effect on our supply and manufacturing chain. Climate change has had significant legislative and regulatory effects on a global basis, and there are expected to be additional changes to the regulations in these areas. These changes could directly increase the cost of energy, which may have an impact on the way we manufacture products or utilize energy to produce our products. In addition, any new regulations or laws in the environmental area might increase the cost of raw materials we use in our products and the cost of compliance. Other regulations in the environmental area may require us to continue to monitor and ensure proper disposal or recycling of our products. In light of investors' increased focus on ESG matters, there can be no certainty that we will manage such issues successfully, or that we will successfully meet society's expectations as to our proper role. Any failure or perceived failure by us in this regard could have a material adverse effect on our reputation and on our business, share price, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows, including the sustainability of our business over time.

We currently rely on third-party foundries for the production of wafers, and we may not be able to obtain adequate supplies in a timely manner or on commercially reasonable terms. If any of these third parties were not able to supply our wafers, our semiconductor chip supply would be negatively impacted and our business would be harmed. In the event it becomes necessary to utilize a different third party for the production of wafers, we would experience additional costs and significant delays, including identifying and entering into an agreement with a new foundry partner as well as preparing such new foundry partner to meet the logistical requirements associated with producing our wafers, which would further harm our business. In addition, if we were to lose such third-party foundries, there can be no assurance that we will be able to identify or enter into agreements with alternative foundries on a timely basis on acceptable terms, if at all. An interruption in our ability to sell and deliver semiconductor chips to customers could occur if we encounter delays or difficulties in securing these wafers, if the quality of the wafers supplied do not meet specifications, or if we cannot then obtain an acceptable substitute. If any of these events occur, our business and operating results could be harmed.

Our ability to achieve and maintain scientific and commercial market acceptance of our products depends and will depend on a number of factors. Our products are and will be subject to market forces and adoption curves common to other new technologies. The market for proteomics and genomics technologies and products is in its early stages of development and if widespread adoption of our products takes longer than anticipated, we will continue to experience operating losses. The success of life sciences products is due, in large part, to acceptance by the scientific community and their adoption of certain products in the applicable field of research. The life sciences scientific community is often led by a small number of early adopters and key opinion leaders who significantly influence the rest of the community through publications in peer-reviewed journals. In such journal publications, the researchers will describe not only their discoveries, but also the methods, and typically the products used, to fuel such discoveries. Mentions in peer-reviewed journal publications is a driver for the general acceptance of life sciences products, such as our products. During the early access limited release phase of our commercialization launch plan, we collaborated with a small number of key opinion leaders who are highly skilled at evaluating novel technologies and whose feedback helped us solidify our commercialization plans and processes. Ensuring that early adopters and key opinion leaders publish research involving the use of our products during the early access limited release phase is critical to ensuring our products gain widespread scientific acceptance. In addition, continuing collaborative relationships with such key opinion leaders will be vital to maintaining any market acceptance we achieve. If too few researchers describe the use of our products, too many researchers shift to a competing product and publish research outlining their use of that product or too many researchers negatively describe the use of our products in publications, it may drive customers away from our products and it may delay our progression towards the broad commercial release phase of our commercialization plan. Other factors in achieving commercial market acceptance, include: - our ability to market and increase awareness of the capabilities of our products;- the ability of our products to demonstrate comparable performance in intended use applications broadly in the hands of customers consistent with the early access limited release phase of our commercialization plan;- our potential customers' willingness to adopt new products and workflows;- our product's ease of use and whether it reliably provides advantages over other alternative technologies;- the rate of adoption of our products by academic institutions, laboratories, biopharmaceutical companies and others;- the prices we charge for our products;- our ability to develop new products and workflows and solutions for customers;- if competitors develop and commercialize products that perform similar functions as our products; and - the impact of our investments in product innovation and commercial growth. We may not be successful in addressing each of these criteria or other criteria that might affect the market acceptance of Platinum and any other products we commercialize. If we are unsuccessful in achieving and maintaining market acceptance of our products, our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows will be adversely affected.