Quanterix (QTRX) Risk Analysis

We rely on patent protection as well as trademark, copyright, trade secret and other intellectual property rights protection and contractual restrictions to protect our proprietary technologies, all of which provide limited protection and may not adequately protect our rights or permit us to gain or keep any competitive advantage. If we fail to protect our intellectual property, third parties may be able to compete more effectively against us, we may lose our technological or competitive advantage, or we may incur substantial litigation costs in our attempts to recover or restrict use of our intellectual property. Our currently pending or future patent applications may not result in granted patents, and we cannot predict how long it will take for such patents to be granted. It is possible that, for any of our patents that have granted or that may grant in the future, others will design around our patented technologies. Further, other parties may challenge any patents granted to us and courts or regulatory agencies could hold our patents to be invalid or unenforceable. We may not be successful in defending challenges made against our patents and patent applications. Any successful third-party challenge to our patents could result in the unenforceability or invalidity of such patents, or to such patents being interpreted narrowly or otherwise in a manner adverse to our interests. Our ability to establish or maintain a technological or competitive advantage over our competitors may be diminished because of these uncertainties. For these and other reasons, our intellectual property may not provide us with any competitive advantage. To the extent our intellectual property offers inadequate protection, or is found to be invalid or unenforceable, we would be exposed to a greater risk of direct competition. If our intellectual property does not provide adequate coverage over our products and protection against our competitors' products, our competitive position could be adversely affected, as could our business. In addition to pursuing patents on our technology, we also rely upon trademarks, trade secrets, copyrights and unfair competition laws, as well as license agreements and other contractual provisions, to protect our intellectual property and other proprietary rights. Despite these measures, any of our intellectual property rights could be challenged, invalidated, circumvented or misappropriated. In addition, we take steps to protect our intellectual property and proprietary technology by entering into confidentiality agreements and intellectual property assignment agreements with our employees, consultants, corporate partners and, when needed, our advisors. 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. Moreover, if a party having an agreement with us has an overlapping or conflicting obligation to a third party, our rights in and to certain intellectual property could be undermined. 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 illegally obtained and was using our trade secrets, it would be expensive and time-consuming, the outcome would be unpredictable, and any remedy may be inadequate. In addition, courts outside of the United States may be less willing to protect trade secrets.

Some of the intellectual property rights we own and have in-licensed has been generated through the use of U.S. government funding and are therefore subject to certain federal regulations. For example, some of the issued U.S. patents we own and all of the intellectual property rights licensed to us under our license agreement with Tufts University ("Tufts") have been generated using U.S. government funds. As a result, the U.S. government has certain rights to intellectual property embodied in our current or future products pursuant to the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980. These U.S. government rights in certain inventions developed under a government-funded program include a non-exclusive, non-transferable, irrevocable worldwide license to use inventions for any governmental purpose. In addition, the U.S. government has the right to require us to grant exclusive, partially exclusive, or non-exclusive licenses to any of these inventions to a third party if the government determines that: (i) adequate steps have not been taken to commercialize the invention; (ii) government action is necessary to meet public health or safety needs; or (iii) government action is necessary to meet requirements for public use under federal regulations (also referred to as "march-in rights"). The U.S. government also has the right to take title to these inventions if we fail, or the applicable licensor fails, to disclose the invention to the government, elect title, and file an application to register the intellectual property within specified time limits. In addition, the U.S. government may acquire title to these inventions in any country in which a patent application is not filed within specified time limits. Intellectual property generated under a government funded program is also subject to certain reporting requirements, compliance with which may require us, or the applicable licensor, to expend substantial resources. In addition, the U.S. government requires that any products embodying the subject invention or produced through the use of the subject invention be manufactured substantially in the United States. The manufacturing preference requirement can be waived if the owner of the intellectual property can show that reasonable but unsuccessful efforts have been made to grant licenses on similar terms to potential licensees that would be likely to manufacture substantially in the United States or that under the circumstances domestic manufacture is not commercially feasible. This preference for U.S. manufacturing may limit our ability to license the applicable patent rights on an exclusive basis under certain circumstances.

Our success depends on our ability to develop, manufacture, market and sell our products and perform our services without infringing upon the proprietary rights of third parties. As part of a business strategy to impede our successful commercialization and entry into new markets, competitors have claimed, and may claim in the future, that our products and/or services infringe their intellectual property rights and have suggested, and may suggest in the future, that we enter into license agreements. We believe any such claims made to date are without merit. However, even if such claims are without merit, we could incur substantial costs and divert the attention of our management and technical personnel in defending itself against claims of infringement made by third parties or settling such claims. Any adverse ruling by a court or administrative body, or perception of an adverse ruling, may have a material adverse impact on our ability to conduct our business and our finances. Moreover, third parties making claims against us may be able to obtain injunctive relief against us, which could block our ability to offer one or more products or services and could result in a substantial award of damages against us. In addition, since we sometimes indemnify customers, collaborators or licensees, we may have additional liability in connection with any infringement or alleged infringement of third party intellectual property. Because patent applications can take many years to issue, there may be pending applications, some of which are unknown to us, that may result in issued patents upon which our products or proprietary technologies may infringe. Moreover, we may fail to identify issued patents of relevance or incorrectly conclude that an issued patent is invalid or not infringed by our technology or any of our products. There is a substantial amount of litigation involving patent and other intellectual property rights in our industry. If a third party claims that we or any of our licensors, customers or collaboration partners infringe upon a third party's intellectual property rights, we may have to: - seek to obtain licenses that may not be available on commercially reasonable terms, if at all;- abandon any infringing product or redesign our products or processes to avoid infringement;- pay substantial damages, including, in exceptional cases, treble damages and attorneys' fees;- pay substantial royalties or fees or grant cross-licenses to our technology; or - defend litigation or administrative proceedings that may be costly whether we win or lose, and which could result in a substantial diversion of our financial and management resources.

Competitors may infringe our patents or the patents that we license. In the event of infringement or unauthorized use, we may file one or more infringement lawsuits. Patent litigation can be very costly and time-consuming, and the outcome is uncertain. In addition, if we or any of our partners were to initiate legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent covering one of our products or services, the defendant in such litigation could counterclaim that our patent is invalid and/or unenforceable. In patent litigation, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity and/or unenforceability are commonplace. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. If a defendant were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity and/or unenforceability, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the challenged patent. Such a loss of patent protection could have a material adverse impact on our business.

We depend on information technology and telecommunications systems to operate our business. Our enterprise software systems affect a broad range of business processes and functional areas, including, for example, systems handling human resources, accounting, manufacturing, inventory control, financial controls and reporting, sales administration, and other infrastructure operations. We maintain preventive and detective security controls and seek to enhance such controls by, for example, augmenting the monitoring and alerting functions, network design, and automatic countermeasure operations of our technical systems. We also periodically assess the adequacy of our hardware and systems and are planning to upgrade hardware and systems where appropriate. These information technology and telecommunications systems support a variety of functions, including manufacturing operations, quality control, customer service support, finance, and other general administrative activities. Information technology and telecommunications systems are vulnerable to damage from a variety of sources, including telecommunications, systems or network failures, malicious human acts, and natural disasters. Moreover, despite network security and back-up measures, some of our servers are potentially vulnerable to physical or electronic break-ins, computer viruses, and similar disruptive problems. Despite the precautionary measures we have taken to prevent unanticipated problems that could affect our information technology and telecommunications systems, those measures may be inadequate and failures or significant downtime of our information technology or telecommunications systems or those used by our third-party suppliers could prevent us from operating our business and managing the administrative aspects of our business. Loss of data or a material delay in our access to our data due to a security breach or other interruption could also prevent us from operating our business. Any disruption or loss of information technology or telecommunications systems on which critical aspects of our operations depend could have an adverse effect on our business.

We focused initially on the life sciences research market. This includes offering products for use by laboratories associated with academic and governmental research institutions, as well as pharmaceutical, biotechnology and contract research companies. Accordingly, the majority of our products are labeled as "Research Use Only" ("RUO"). While we focused initially on the life sciences research market and RUO products only, our strategy includes expanding our product line to encompass products that are intended to be used for the diagnosis of disease, including LDTs and in vitro diagnostic ("IVD") devices, either alone or in collaboration with third parties. IVD products are subject to regulation by the FDA, or comparable international agencies, as medical devices including requirements for regulatory clearance or approval of such products before they can be marketed. The process of obtaining regulatory clearances to market a medical device can be costly and time consuming, and we or our collaborators may not be able to obtain these clearances or approvals on a timely basis, if at all. In general, the FDA permits commercial distribution of a new medical device only after the device has received clearance under Section 510(k) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act ("FDCA"), or is the subject of an approved Premarket Approval ("PMA"), unless the device is specifically exempt from those requirements. The FDA will clear marketing of a lower risk medical device through the 510(k) process if the manufacturer demonstrates that the new product is substantially equivalent to a legally marketed predicate device, which can include pre-amendment, 510(k)-exempt, 510(k) cleared products, or PMA-approved products that have subsequently been down-classified. If the FDA determines that the device is not "substantially equivalent" to a predicate device, or if the device is novel, it is automatically classified into Class III, and the device sponsor must then fulfill the much more rigorous premarketing requirements of the PMA approval process, or seek classification of the device through the de novo classification process. The PMA process is more costly, lengthy and uncertain than the 510(k) clearance process. A PMA application must be supported by extensive data, including, but not limited to, technical, preclinical, clinical trial, manufacturing and labeling data, to demonstrate to the FDA's satisfaction the safety and efficacy of the device for our intended use. If any of our products are subject to medical device regulation, we would be subject to a substantial number of additional requirements for medical devices, including establishment registration, device listing, quality system regulations - which cover the design, testing, production, control, quality assurance, labeling, packaging, servicing, sterilization (if required), and storage and shipping of medical devices (among other activities) - product labeling, advertising, recordkeeping, post-market surveillance, post-approval studies, adverse event reporting, and correction and removal (recall) regulations. One or more of the products we may develop using our technology may also require clinical trials in order to generate the data required for a PMA, de novo classification request or 510(k) premarket notification. Complying with these requirements may be time- consuming and expensive. We may be required to expend significant resources to ensure ongoing compliance with the FDA regulations. Failure to comply with these requirements may subject us to a range of enforcement actions, such as warning letters, injunctions, civil monetary penalties, criminal prosecution, recall and/or seizure of products, and revocation of marketing authorization, as well as significant adverse publicity. If we fail to obtain, or experience significant delays in obtaining, regulatory approvals for IVD products, such products may not be able to be launched or successfully commercialized in a timely manner, or at all. LDTs are a subset of IVD tests that are offered as services by Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 ("CLIA")-certified high complexity clinical laboratories and designed, manufactured and used within a single laboratory. In July 2022, we launched an LDT to quantitatively measure p-Tau 181 in plasma as an aid in diagnostic evaluation of Alzheimer's disease, and in January 2023, we launched an LDT to quantitatively measure neurofilament light chain ("NfL") in serum as an aid in the evaluation of individuals for possible neurodegenerative conditions or other causes of neuronal or central nervous system damage. In October 2023, FDA issued a proposed rule regarding LDTs that would make explicit that in vitro diagnostic products are devices under the FDCA, including when the manufacturer is a laboratory. FDA finalized this rule in April 2024. Under the Final Rule, FDA will increase our regulation of LDTs by phasing out our general enforcement discretion approach, and phase in medical device regulation, for most LDTs over a period of four years. However, FDA intends to exercise continued enforcement discretion from certain aspects of medical device regulation for certain types of LDTs. For example, FDA intends to exercise regulatory discretion to not require premarket review or most quality system requirements for "currently marketed" LDTs, which include LDTs that were offered as of May 6, 2024, which is the date the FDA's rule was finalized. Because our LDTs were offered as of May 6, 2024, they may qualify as "currently marketed" LDTs, which means they would not be subject to premarket review or certain quality system requirements, although compliance with other aspects of medical device regulation would apply. Certain groups have challenged the legality of FDA's Final Rule regarding LDTs, asserting (among other things) that the rule exceeds FDA's statutory authority to regulate medical devices. That lawsuit is pending, with a decision from the District Court expected sometime in 2025. It is also possible that the federal government will modify, delay, or revoke the Final Rule. If the Final Rule is not modified, delayed, revoked, or invalidated when the requirements of the rule go into effect, the rule will result in an increased regulatory burden, including additional costs and delays in introducing new tests. FDA's rule could also have impacts on our business more broadly, given that many of our customers would be subject to additional regulation and delays, which could potentially affect the development of new diagnostics that incorporate our instruments or consumables. This also may increase costs and regulatory burdens on laboratories that develop LDTs, thereby reducing the financial incentive for laboratories to develop new LDTs or invest in instruments, which could reduce demand for our instruments and our other products. Foreign jurisdictions have laws and regulations similar to those described above, which may adversely affect our ability to market our products as planned in such countries. The number and scope of these requirements are increasing. As in the United States, the cost and time required to comply with regulatory requirements may be substantial, and there is no guarantee that we will obtain the necessary authorization(s) required to make our products commercially viable. In addition, the imposition of foreign requirements may also have a material adverse effect on the commercial viability of our operations.

The Merger is subject to a number of conditions to closing. No assurance can be given that the required stockholder approvals can be obtained or that the required conditions to closing will be satisfied, and, if all required approvals are obtained and the required conditions are satisfied, no assurance can be given as to the terms, conditions and timing of such approvals. Any delay in completing the Merger could cause the Combined Company not to realize, or to be delayed in realizing, some or all of the benefits that we expect to achieve if the Merger is successfully completed within our expected time frame. Additionally, any delays in receipt of required regulatory approvals or satisfaction of the closing conditions will increase the length of time that we are subject to certain restrictive covenants under the Merger Agreement during the pendency of the Merger and increases the risk of disruptions to our operations and business relationships and the impediments to our ability to pursue certain business opportunities or strategic initiatives, which may in turn cause the Combined Company to not realize some or all of the expected benefits of the Merger or adversely impact our future financial and strategic conditions on a standalone basis if the required approvals and conditions to closing are not obtained or satisfied.

The ability of us, our customers or our collaborators to commercialize diagnostic tests based on our technology, including LDTs that we have launched or may launch in the future, will depend in part on the extent to which coverage and reimbursement for these tests will be available from government health care programs, private health insurers and other third-party payors. In the United States, the principal decisions about reimbursement for new technologies are often made by the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services ("CMS"). Private payors often follow CMS's reimbursement policies to a substantial degree. It is difficult to predict what CMS will decide with respect to reimbursement. However, a significant trend in the U.S. healthcare industry and elsewhere is cost containment. Government authorities and third-party payors have attempted to control costs by limiting coverage and the amount of payments for particular products and procedures. We cannot be sure that coverage will be available for any diagnostic tests based on our technology, and, if coverage is available, the level of reimbursement. Payor coverage and reimbursement decisions may impact the demand for those tests. If coverage is not available or the reimbursement amount is inadequate, any tests for which marketing authorization is received may not be able to be successfully commercialized.

From time to time, legislation is drafted and introduced in Congress that could significantly change the statutory provisions governing the regulatory approval, manufacture and marketing of regulated products or the reimbursement thereof. For example, in December 2022, Congress enacted the Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act of 2022 ("FDORA"). FDORA reauthorized the FDA to collect device user fees and contained substantive amendments to the device provisions of the FDCA, including imposing new cybersecurity and clinical trial requirements for devices. Congress has also considered, but not yet passed, legislation to impose a new FDA regulatory framework for all diagnostics, including IVD devices and LDTs. Any new regulations or revisions or reinterpretations of existing regulations may impose additional costs or lengthen review times of future products. In addition, FDA regulations and guidance are often revised or reinterpreted by the agency in ways that may significantly affect our business and our products. It is impossible to predict whether legislative changes will be enacted or FDA regulations, guidance or interpretations changed, and what the impact of such changes, if any, may be. Any change in the laws or regulations that govern the clearance and approval processes relating to our current and future products could make it more difficult and costly to obtain clearance or approval for new products, or to produce, market and distribute existing products. Significant delays in receiving clearance or approval, or the failure to receive clearance or approval for our new products would have an adverse effect on our ability to expand our business. In addition, in the E.U. new regulations recently entered into force that result in greater regulation of medical devices and IVDs. The new IVD regulation (the "IVD Regulation") is significantly different from European directive for IVD medical devices (the "IVD Directive") that it replaces in that it ensures that the new requirements apply uniformly and on the same schedule across the member states, includes a risk-based classification system and increases the requirements for conformity assessment. The CE registration for UmanDiagnostics AB's ("Uman's") NfL enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay ("ELISA") kit for cerebral spinal fluid was approved in March 2014 under the IVD Directive. Under the IVD Directive the assay is classified as a general IVD product, and required self-certification with no involvement of a notified body/authority. The IVD Regulation introduces a new classification system for IVDs and assessment by a notified body is required for class B, C and D products. Uman's NfL ELISA kit for cerebrospinal fluid ("CSF") is classified as a class B product and must fully comply with (and have a CE mark issued under) the IVD Regulation by May 2027 (subject to extension of the transitional periods in the IVD Regulation). The new requirements include an ISO 13485 certification of the quality system (which Uman received in July 2018) and increased technical evidence and follow-up of performance of the specific product (e.g. clinical evidence and post-market activities). The work to evaluate and to meet the new technical requirements is on-going. Our failure to continue to comply with applicable foreign regulatory requirements, including those administered by authorities of the European Economic Area ("EEA") countries, could result in enforcement actions against us, including refusal, suspension or withdrawal of our CE Certificates of Conformity by our notified body, which could impair our ability to market products in the EEA in the future.

We have established distribution agreements for our Simoa instruments and related consumable products with distributors in certain foreign countries, including Australia, Brazil, China, the Czech Republic, India, Hong Kong, Israel, Japan, New Zealand, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Taiwan and the UAE. We intend to continue to grow our business internationally, and to do so we must attract additional distributors and retain existing distributors to maximize the commercial opportunity for our products. There is no guarantee that we will be successful in attracting or retaining desirable sales and distribution partners or that we will be able to enter into such arrangements on favorable terms. Distributors may not commit the necessary resources to market and sell our products to the level of our expectations or may choose to favor marketing the products of our competitors. If current or future distributors do not perform adequately, or if we are unable to enter into effective arrangements with distributors in particular geographic areas, we may not realize long-term international revenue growth. In addition, if our distributors fail to comply with applicable laws and ethical standards, including anti-bribery laws, this could damage our reputation and could have a significant adverse effect on our business and our revenues.

Our success depends on our ability to develop and market products that are recognized and accepted by our customers and potential customers as reliable, enabling and cost-effective. Continued market acceptance of our Simoa technology platform and products and other platforms and products we may develop in the future, such as Simoa ONE, will depend on many factors, including our ability to convince potential customers that our technology is an attractive alternative to other available technologies. If we are unable to continue to motivate customers to use Simoa technology or other technologies we may develop, adoption of our technology may be slowed and our ability to retain and grow our customer base and increase our revenue would be adversely affected.

Neurology has been one of our primary focus areas for commercialization of our Simoa technology and the services that we provide to our customers. Sales from neurological-related biomarkers have become an increasingly important part of our business. There can be no assurance that we will continue to derive meaningful revenues from the sale of our neurological products, from services related to neurodegenerative conditions or from sales of instruments driven by customers desiring access to our technology for work relating to neurological conditions. The adoption by our customers of competitive technologies for detecting biomarkers of neurodegenerative conditions could negatively impact our revenues and have a material adverse effect on our business.

We do not have the ability to independently conduct clinical trials or other studies that may be required to obtain FDA and other regulatory clearance or approval for future diagnostic products. Accordingly, we expect that we would rely on third parties, such as clinical investigators, CROs, consultants, and collaborators to conduct such studies if needed. For example, we are currently working with the Alzheimer's Drug Discovery Foundation and the Global Alzheimer's Platform Foundation on prospective clinical trials for our assays. Our reliance on these third parties for clinical and other development activities would reduce our control over these activities. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or regulatory obligations or meet expected deadlines, if the third parties need to be replaced or if the quality or accuracy of the data they obtain is compromised, we may not be able to obtain regulatory clearance or approval.