Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

_________________

FORM 10-K

_________________

☒ ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2023.

or

☐ TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from                    to                       

Commission File Number: 001-41358

ACLARION, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code (833) 275-2266

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.    Yes  ☐    No  ☒

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.    Yes  ☐    No  ☒

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.    Yes  ☐    No  ☒

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit such files).    Yes  ☒    No  ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, a smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer”, “smaller reporting company”, and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed a report on and attestation to its management’s assessment of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting under Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (15 U.S.C. 7262(b)) by the registered public accounting firm that prepared or issued its audit report. ☐

If securities are registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act, indicate by check mark whether the financial statements of the registrant included in the filing reflect the correction of an error to previously issued financial statements. ☒

Indicate by check mark whether any of those error corrections are restatements that required a recovery analysis of incentive-based compensation received by any of the registrant’s executive officers during the relevant recovery period pursuant to §240.10D-1(b). ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act).     Yes  ☐    No  ☒

As of June 30, 2023, the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter, the aggregate market value of the registrant’s common stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant was approximately $4,672,826 based on a closing price of $0.69 per share as quoted by the Nasdaq Capital Market as of such date. In determining the market value of non-affiliate common stock, shares of the registrant’s common stock beneficially owned by officers, directors and affiliates have been excluded. This determination of affiliate status is not necessarily a conclusive determination for other purposes.

As of March 28, 2024, 7,153,500 shares of the registrant’s common stock, $0.0001 par value per share, were outstanding.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SPECIAL NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Annual Report on Form 10-K, or Annual Report, contains forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. We make such forward-looking statements pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and other federal securities laws. All statements other than statements of historical facts contained in this Annual Report are forward-looking statements. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by terminology such as “may”, “will”, “should”, “expects”, “intends”, “plans”, “anticipates”, “believes”, “estimates”, “predicts”, “potential”, “continue” or the negative of these terms or other comparable terminology.

Forward-looking statements are neither historical facts nor assurances of future performance, and are based only on our current beliefs, expectations and assumptions regarding the future of our business, future plans and strategies, projections, anticipated events and trends, the economy and other future conditions. Because forward-looking statements relate to the future, they are subject to inherent uncertainties, risks and changes in circumstances that are difficult to predict and many of which are outside of our control. Therefore, you should not rely on any of these forward-looking statements. Important factors that could cause our actual results and financial condition to differ materially from those indicated in the forward-looking statements include, among others, those set forth below in Part I, Item 1A, “Risk Factors” of this Annual Report.

These forward-looking statements speak only as of the date of this Form 10-K and are subject to business and economic risks. We do not undertake any obligation to update or revise the forward-looking statements to reflect events that occur or circumstances that exist after the date on which such statements were made, except to the extent required by law.

MARKET AND INDUSTRY DATA

Certain of the market data and other statistical information contained in this Annual Report, such as the size, growth and share of the services industry, are based on information from independent industry organizations and other third-party sources, industry publications, surveys and forecasts. The size of the market information referenced in this Annual Report is based on articles published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (“JAMA”). Some market data and statistical information contained in this Annual Report are also based on our management’s estimates and calculations, which we derived from our review and interpretation of the independent sources, our internal market and brand research and our knowledge of the industries in which we operate. While we believe that each of these studies and publications is reliable, neither we nor the underwriters have independently verified market or industry data from third-party sources and the Company is responsible for such disclosure. We also believe our internal company research is reliable and the definitions of our market and industry are appropriate, though neither this research nor these definitions have been verified by any independent source. Information that is based on estimates, forecasts, projections or similar methodologies is inherently subject to uncertainties, and actual events or circumstances may differ materially from events and circumstances that are assumed in this information.

Although we are not aware of any misstatements regarding the industry data that we present in this prospectus, our estimates involve risks and uncertainties and are subject to change based on various factors, including those discussed under “Risk Factors,” “Forward-Looking Statements,” and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” in this Annual Report.

Our company name was changed from “Nocimed, Inc.”, to “Aclarion, Inc.” on December 3, 2021. NOCIMED® -, NOCISCAN® -, NOCIGRAM®, NOCISCORE®™ -, NOCICALC™ - MRS NOCI+™ - NOCI-™ -, NOCImild™ -NOCIWEB™ - SI-SCORE™, VIRTUAL DISCOGRAM™ - and the Nocimed logo are our trademarks. All other service marks, trademarks and trade names appearing in this Annual Report are the property of their respective owners. We do not intend our use or display of other companies’ trade names, trademarks or service marks to imply a relationship with, or endorsement or sponsorship of us by, these other companies. Solely for convenience, trademarks and tradenames referred to in this prospectus may appear without the ® or ™ symbols, but such references are not intended to indicate in any way that we will not assert, to the fullest extent under applicable law, our rights, or that the applicable owner will not assert its rights, to these trademarks and tradenames. Unless the context otherwise requires, we use the terms “Nocimed,” “Company,” “we,” “us” and “our” in this prospectus to refer to Aclarion, Inc.

GLOSSARY

Unless otherwise indicated or the context otherwise requires, references in this Annual Report to the term:

“AI” means Artificial Intelligence. 

“Category I Codes” means numeric codes that identify a procedure or service that is approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), performed by healthcare professionals nationwide, and is proven and documented.

“Category III Codes” are CPT Category III codes that are a set of temporary codes assigned to emerging technologies, services, and procedures.

“CE mark” is an administrative marking with which a manufacturer or importer affirms its products are in conformity with European health, safety, and environmental protection standards for products sold within the European Economic Area (EEA).

"Covered Entity” is a health care provider or other person or entity who acquires and transmits private health information of patients, as covered under HIPAA and GDPR regulations (see e.g. 45 CFR §160.103).

“CPT” means “Current Procedural Terminology”, and refers to a medical code set created and maintained by the American Medical Association (“AMA”) and used by providers of healthcare services to bill insurance companies for their work. All new medical devices and services are required to secure CPT codes to receive payment from government and private commercial payers.

“CT-Scan” means a computerized tomography (CT) scan combines a series of X-ray images taken from different angles around the body and uses computer processing to create cross-sectional images (slices) of the bones, blood vessels and soft tissues inside the body. CT scan images provide more-detailed information than plain X-rays do.

“Cures Act” means the 21^st Century Cures Act, signed into law on December 13, 2016, as Public Law No: 114-255.

“Disc” means an intervertebral disc which is made of a gel-like material (nucleus pulposus) surrounded by a thick fibrous ring (annulus fibrosus) is situated between the vertebral bodies of the spine.

“DLBP” means Discogenic Low Back Pain

“DOC” means “Declaration of Conformity,” a document signed by us that declares that we have self-complied with applicable regulations for self-certifying our CE Marking for our products.

“Fusion” means “Spinal Fusion” which is surgery to permanently connect two or more vertebrae in the spine, eliminating motion between them.

"GDPR” means the General Data Protection Regulation in the EU, originally effective May 25, 2018 and implemented in all local privacy laws across the EU and EEA region, to protect a patient’s personally identifiable information (PII) and regulate how it must be collected, stored, and used by others, and in certain situations applies concurrently with HIPAA requirements with respect to PII that is PHI for persons located in the EU and received by companies or other persons or entities in the US.

“IRB” means Institutional Review Board, which is typically an appointed board for reviewing and approving investigational clinical trials.

“Indications for Use” means the limited scope of the intended uses and related medical indications for appropriately using our products.

“LBP” means Lower Back Pain.

“Labeling” means the scope of intended “Indications for Use” that is identified with the commercial sale and use of our products.

“Lumbar Spine” means the five (5) lower vertebrae, L-1 to L-5.

“MR” means Magnetic Resonance.

“MRI” means Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

“MRS” means Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy and is a type of pulse sequence used by MR scanners that, unlike MRI pulse sequences which generate images of tissue structures, generates a ‘spectrum’ with various peaks that represent different chemicals in the body tissue being examined, and which allows for the quantitative measurement of the relative amounts of those chemicals in the examined tissues.

“Notified Body” means an organization designated by an EU country to assess the conformity of certain products before being placed on the market, as is required for certain medical products.

“NIH” means the United States National Institutes of Health.

“PD TEST” means a Provocation Discogram test which is a diagnostic test meant to confirm or exclude the intervertebral disc(s) as a source of back pain. This technique involves puncture of the disc with a fine-gauge needle under fluoroscopic guidance and pressurization of the disc via the injection of contrast media.

“PMA” means Premarket Approval by the FDA.

"QMS” means Quality Management System, which is a formalized system that documents processes, procedures, and responsibilities for achieving quality policies and objectives, in particular to meet customer and regulatory requirements.

“DICOM” means an acronym for digital image communication, typically referring to standardized data architecture formats for managing, storing, and communicating or transferring MRI images and other associated data.

“Disc” means intervertebral disc that is located between two vertebral body bones of the spine, where it is bordered by superior and inferior disc end-plate structures, and comprises an inner disc nucleus between the two end-plates and that is a circumferentially surrounded by, and normally contained by, and outer disc annulus that is normally a fibrous collagen-based connective tissue structure.

“Spectroscopy” means the science of deriving and evaluating a multi-peak spectrum for a material and in which different molecular bonds representing different components of the material are represented by unique respective peaks at particular locations along the spectra, and with the different peaks typically reflecting different resonant frequencies of the different components when subjected to a pulsed magnetic field; and in our current product, relates to producing and evaluating spectra for the different chemical constituents of disc tissue as derived from MR pulse sequences applied to those tissues for that chemical analysis.

PART I

Overview

Aclarion is a healthcare technology company that leverages Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy (“MRS”), and proprietary biomarkers to optimize clinical treatments. Aclarion’s technology addresses the $134.5B U.S. low back and neck pain market, which according to a 2020 JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association) article is now the most costly healthcare condition in the United States. The Company is currently utilizing Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) to assist in quality control processes that flag spectroscopy data indicative of a poor MRS study. The use of AI in this application is early in its development cycle and is expected to evolve with further research and development. The Company is capturing in databases both the raw spectroscopy data and the post-processed spectral data from every Nociscan completed in order to utilize this data as future training data to teach a machine learning algorithms to associate MRS data with clinical outcomes. The use of AI in this application is aspirational and we intend this type of AI research and development to be an ongoing process applied not only to the various treatment paths associated with back pain, such as conservative therapies, regenerative and cell therapies and surgical intervention, but also to potentially expand into other clinical explorations involving the diagnosis of brain, breast and prostate tumors.

The Company, which has limited sales to date, is addressing the chronic low back pain market by initially focusing on improving the outcomes of surgical interventions to treat chronic discogenic low back pain. In this initial application, Aclarion technology is intended to assist surgeons in determining the optimal surgical procedure for a patient undergoing surgery for pain isolated to their lumbar spine (the “lumbar spine” is comprised of the five (5) lower vertebrae, L-1 to L-5). Through clinical studies we intend to extend the application of our technology beyond surgical decisioning to help with managing large segments of low back pain patients from the point of initial MRI through to episode resolution. We believe this will expand the use of our technology to supporting treatment decisions for chronic low back pain patients undergoing conservative therapies such as physical therapy or biologic and cell therapies aimed at regenerating the lumbar discs. We plan to expand the application of our technology beyond the lumbar spine to address neck pain populations in addition to low back pain populations. To expand the application of our technology for use in neck pain populations, we will need to overcome technical changes associated with securing adequate MRS data from the cervical disc, which is significantly smaller than the lumbar disc, and there can be no assurance the Company will be able to overcome these challenges.

The core technology Aclarion employs is MR Spectroscopy. The patient experience when undergoing an MRS exam is exactly like that of a standard MRI, with the exception of an additional 3-5 minutes for each disc undergoing a spectroscopy exam. Whereas a standard MRI produces a signal that is converted into anatomical images, an MRS produces a signal that is converted into a waveform that identifies the chemical composition of tissues. Just like with standard MRIs, the data from spectroscopy is useless without technologies that can process the data. Aclarion has developed proprietary signal processing software that transforms spectroscopy data into clear biomarkers. These biomarkers, which are exclusively licensed from the Regents of University of California, San Francisco (“UCSF”), are the key data inputs for our proprietary algorithms that, when applied, determine if an intervertebral disc is consistent with pain. Our patent portfolio includes 22 U.S. Patents, 17 Foreign Patents, 6 pending U.S. patent applications, and 7 pending Foreign patent applications, including patents and patent applications exclusively licensed from Regents of the University of California.

We believe one of the biggest issues driving the cost of treating low back and neck pain patients to the top of the list for healthcare spending is that there is no objective, cost effective and noninvasive diagnostics to reliably identify the source of a patient’s pain. We believe the poor surgical outcomes for chronic DLBP are largely due to difficulties in reliably and accurately diagnosing the specific spinal discs that are causing pain. The current primary diagnostic standard is the MRI, which is useful for showing abnormal structures and tissue dehydration, but, we believe, cannot reliably identify specific discs that are causing pain. To diagnose specific discs that are causing pain, a needle-based Provocation Discogram test (“PD Test”) has been developed. PD Tests have been shown to be highly accurate when performed properly. However, a PD Test is invasive, subjective, and unpleasant for the patient as the patient needs to be awake in order to tell the physician if the pain the physician is purposefully causing in the disc is the same as the pain the patient feels when they are experiencing a back pain episode. In addition, recent evidence has shown that the action of inserting a needle into a normal disc during a discogram procedure leads to an increased rate of degeneration in these previously normal discs. Based on the limitations and concerns of the PD Test, we believe there is a significant need for an objective, accurate, personalized, and noninvasive diagnostic test that can reliably determine if an individual disc is a pain generator. By providing physicians information about whether a disc has the chemical and structural makeup consistent with pain or not, we believe the treatment plan for each patient will lead to more efficient and targeted care that, will in turn, result in lower costs and healthier patient outcomes.

Aclarion has taken the first steps to demonstrate the potential use of our technology in helping to improve the outcome of surgical intervention for discogenic low back pain patients by publishing a clinical study in the European Spine Journal in April 2019. The study illustrated that when all discs identified as consistent with pain by our technology were included in a surgical treatment, 97% of the patients met the criteria for “clinical improvement”. This compared to only 54% of patients meeting the criteria for clinical improvement if a disc that our technology identified as consistent with pain, was not included in the surgical treatment.

In April 2023, Aclarion advanced the evidence of our technology with a peer-reviewed journal article detailing the Gornet 2-year outcomes published in the European Spine Journal. The 2-year outcomes were durable with 1-year outcomes previously published in 2019. At 2-years follow-up, 85% of patients improved when disc(s) identified as consistent with pain by our technology were included in a surgical treatment, compared to only 63% of patients when disc(s) identified as consistent with pain were not treated or disc(s) identified as consistent without pain were treated.

The results of the 2019 published study led the CPT committee to approve four Category III codes for our technology in January 2021. The NIH also included our technology as one of the handful of technologies selected to participate in their $150 million Back Pain Consortium (BACPAC) Research Program, an NIH translational, patient-centered effort to address the need for effective and personalized therapies for chronic low back pain. In 2022, the NIH subsequently selected our technology to be included in their prospective randomized follow-on study that resulted from BACPAC. This new study is called Biomarkers for the Evaluation of Spinal Treatments (BEST) and is designed to evaluate several technologies that provide data about a patient to see if these technologies can identify subgroups of chronic LBP patients that do better with one of four treatments being evaluated in the study.

Evolving science coupled with the understanding of degenerative painful discs has suggested that lumbar discs may become painful due to certain chemical changes, which changes cannot be identified using standard lumbar MRI imaging. However, an application of MRI scanners called Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy has been developed by manufacturers of MRI equipment. MRSs are different than MRIs. An MRI generates images of body structures, while an MRS analyzes the relative amounts of various chemicals in body tissues.

Aclarion has developed a software application called NOCISCAN® which uses the existing MRS capabilities of many commercially available scanners to non-invasively analyze the chemical makeup of intervertebral discs in the spine. The software post-processes the MRS exam data and detects the presence of chemical biomarkers that we, in conjunction with spine researchers at UCSF, have demonstrated to be associated with degenerative pain and structural integrity of the lumbar discs. After processing the MRS exam data, we send the ordering clinician a report that details how to interpret the results of the MRS exam. We believe these results help clinicians make quicker and more informed decisions about which lumbar discs are painful, and which are not. We believe the ordering clinician can use this information to determine the optimal treatment plan for an individual patient.

Because we believe that spectroscopy is not widely used for any clinical purposes today, there are practical limitations to the market opportunity that must be addressed. We believe the two biggest limitations may be the lack of deployment of spectroscopy software across the installed base of existing MRIs worldwide, and the fact that only certain MR scanner models are compatible with our technology. For compatible MRI sites that do not currently have spectroscopy software installed, the onetime cost of the software ranges from $25,000 to $50,000. Currently, our NOCISCAN platform is only compatible with certain MR scanner models provided by SIEMENS, of which there are an estimated 1,500 in the United States, and 4,320 worldwide. We plan to collaborate with other MRI scanner vendors, as well as SIEMENS, to establish compatibility with their respective scanners and MRS capabilities for use with our products. That may allow us to include discounted pricing on spectroscopy software for MRI sites interested in providing DLBP patients with the NOCISCAN offering.

The first application of Aclarion’s technology is focused on improving surgical decision making when surgical intervention is being contemplated for patients with low back pain. The Company’s first commercial product, which we have named “NOCISCAN”, utilizes our proprietary biomarkers and algorithms to provide surgeons with information about which intervertebral discs are determined to be consistent with generating pain, and which are not. We believe that surgeons can use this information to better plan their surgical treatments and improve outcomes in their patients. In a clinical study published in the European Spine Journal in April 2019 it was shown that in patients where all discs identified as painful by NOCISCAN were included in the surgical treatment that 97% of those patients met the criteria for significant clinical improvement. This compared to only 54% of surgical patients meeting the criteria for significant clinical improvement when discs identified as painful by NOCISCAN were omitted from the surgical treatment, or discs identified as not painful by NOCISCAN were included in the treatment. Some authors of this study had a financial relationship with Aclarion, who sponsored the study.

In April 2023, Aclarion advanced the evidence of our technology with a peer-reviewed journal article detailing the Gornet 2-year outcomes published in the European Spine Journal. The 2-year outcomes were durable with 1-year outcomes previously published in 2019. At 2-years follow-up, 85% of patients improved when disc(s) identified as consistent with pain by our technology were included in a surgical treatment, compared to only 63% of patients when disc(s) identified as consistent with pain were not treated or disc(s) identified as consistent without pain were treated.

Based on the results of this clinical study, the Company believes that use of NOCISCAN could become the standard protocol for assisting in the treatment plan of patients with low back pain undergoing surgical intervention. Utilizing the results of our European Spine Journal Study, we applied to the American Medical Association for CPT codes to begin the process of securing insurance coverage to pay for NOCISCAN. On January 1, 2021, Category III CPT codes became effective. The Company is now executing its plan to commercialize NOCISCAN. See “Reimbursement” below.

The core technology underlying NOCISCAN is the use of MR spectroscopy to identify the chemical makeup of intervertebral discs with a focus on identifying specific proprietary biomarkers known to be correlated to pain and to the structural degradation of discs. We believe this technology, in combination with advanced machine learning and AI platforms, has the potential to not only become included in the standard of care for patients undergoing surgical intervention for low back pain, but to become a core data input for optimally managing entire segments of patients suffering from low back and neck pain.

Industry Overview

Low Back Pain

According to the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017, low back pain (LBP) is among the top three causes for years lived with disability. A 2020 JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association) article established the cost of low back and neck pain at $134.5B in the U.S, making it the most costly healthcare condition in the United States, surpassing cardiac disease, diabetes and cancer.

Low back pain (LBP) can be caused by many different problems and abnormalities along and around the spine, other than DLBP, including conditions such as spondylolisthesis or instability of the vertebral bodies, vertebral body fractures, facet pathologies, central canal and foraminal stenosis, disc herniations, pars fracture, congenital abnormalities and tumors. Many of the causes of low back pain are readily detected by standard MRI imaging of the spine, which reveals clear structural abnormalities, i.e., fractures and tumors. However, in many cases the source of the pain is not clear. As a result, the success rates of surgical care for LBP ranges from 41 to 57%, with 5-16% early complication and reoperation rates also reported.

We believe that poor surgical outcomes for discogenic LBP are largely due to difficulties in reliably and accurately diagnosing the specific spinal discs that are causing pain. The current primary diagnostic standard, lumbar MRI, is useful for showing abnormal structures and tissue dehydration, but, we believe, cannot reliably identify specific discs that are causing pain. To diagnose specific discs that are causing pain, a needle-based Provocation Discogram test (“PD Test”) has been developed. A PD Test has been shown to be highly accurate when performed properly. However, a PD Test is invasive, subjective and unpleasant for the patient, as the patient is required to be awake in order to tell the physician if the pain the physician is purposefully causing in the disc is the same as the pain the patient feels when they are experiencing a back pain episode. In addition, recent evidence has shown that the action of inserting a needle into a normal disc during PD Test, leads to an increased rate of degeneration in these previously normal discs.

Due to the current lack of uniform acceptance of a diagnostic platform to safely and reliably diagnose the specific discs that cause DLBP, patients with DLBP are faced with the options of surgical intervention with a risk of a poor surgical outcomes, or, non-surgical treatment with powerful pain killing drugs, such as opiates and synthetic opiates. Those patients who choose surgery and have a poor surgical outcome with no surgical alternatives will be faced with the possibility of enduring disabling, intractable pain, and often extended dangerous pain medication use.

Diagnostic Imaging

Diagnostic imaging involves the use of non-invasive procedures to generate representations of internal anatomy and function that can be recorded on film or digitized for display on a video monitor. Diagnostic imaging procedures facilitate the early diagnosis and treatment of diseases and disorders and may reduce unnecessary invasive procedures, often minimizing the cost and amount of care for patients. Diagnostic imaging procedures include MRI, CT, PET, nuclear medicine, ultrasound, mammography, X-ray and fluoroscopy.

While X-ray remains the most commonly performed diagnostic imaging procedure, one of the fastest growing procedures is the MRI. The number of MRI scans performed annually in the United States continues to grow due to its wider acceptance by physicians and third party payers, an increasing number of applications for their use and a general increase in demand due to the aging population. MRI has long been a widely accepted diagnostic standard of care for spine and low back pain, including discogenic low back pain patients, which is the target medical condition for our diagnostic products.

Diagnostic Imaging Settings

Diagnostic imaging services are typically provided in one of the following settings:

Fixed-site, freestanding outpatient diagnostic facilities

These facilities range from single-modality to multi-modality facilities and are generally not owned by hospitals or clinics. These facilities depend upon physician referrals for their patients and generally (although not always) do not maintain dedicated, contractual relationships with hospitals or clinics. In fact, these facilities may compete with hospitals or clinics that have their own imaging systems to provide services to patients. These facilities bill third-party payers, such as managed care organizations, insurance companies, Medicare or Medicaid, and workers’ compensation providers.

Hospitals

Many hospitals provide both inpatient and outpatient diagnostic imaging services, typically on site or at a dedicated center located on or nearby the hospital campus. These can be owned and operated by the hospital and provide imaging services to inpatients as ordered or outpatients through physician referrals. The hospital normally bills third-party payors such as managed care organizations, insurance companies, Medicare or Medicaid, and workers’ compensation providers. We have entered into joint ventures with certain hospitals both provide and manage their diagnostic imaging services, allowing them to leverage our industry expertise.

Mobile Imaging

While many hospitals own or lease their own equipment, certain hospitals provide diagnostic imaging services by contracting with providers of mobile imaging services. Using specially designed trailers, mobile imaging service providers transport imaging equipment and provide services to hospitals and clinics on a part-time or full-time basis, thus allowing small to mid-size hospitals and clinics that do not have the patient demand to justify fixed on-site access to advanced diagnostic imaging technology. Diagnostic imaging providers contract directly with the hospital or clinic and are typically reimbursed directly by them. We do not provide mobile imaging services. The cloud-based software products and services we do provide, however, are compatible for use for post-processing data that may be acquired by certain MR scanners that are deployed in a mobile imaging setting and model.

Company History

Aclarion’s technology was originally invented, and initially tested, via successful proof of concept by Aclarion co-Founder and head of our Scientific Advisory Board, Jeffrey Lotz, PhD, at the University of California San Francisco (“UCSF”). Early research, which was published in a major peer-reviewed journal in 2005, was premised upon a growing suspicion and interest that discs may become painful due to chemical changes, in particular elevated acidity related to hypoxia, that are not tested using a standard MRI. With that theory in mind, Dr. Lotz’s initial study looked to identify chemical biomarkers for painful discs using MRS, which applies a pulsed magnetic field to tissues in order to vibrate the different chemicals in that tissue and generate a spectrum that allows for measuring those different chemicals based on their different peaks along that spectrum. NMR equipment was used to conduct MRS chemical analysis of painful discs that were surgically removed for DLBP fusion surgery versus normal, non-painful discs that were surgically removed from spinal deformity (i.e. scoliosis) patients for lumbar spine reconstruction. Those ex vivo 11T MRS spectral measurement results showed that all (n=9) of the painful discs were distinguished from all of the non-painful discs based on the highly repeatable (100%) differences in their ratios between lactic acid, a painful chemical resulting from hypoxia, and proteoglycan, a structural chemical of the disc that holds water for hydration. It was observed that with degenerative painful discs, proteoglycan reduces with the degeneration, and lactic acid elevates with the pain. Hence, the MRS-based test and identifiable structural and degenerative pain biomarkers were able to be identified.

This work became the subject of the first patent granted to the Regents of the University of California and exclusively licensed to Aclarion. Thereafter, a strategic collaboration with SIEMENS, a major MRI equipment manufacturer, was initiated and a clinical study, the Gornet Study, involving 73 surgical patients was published in the European Spine Journal, a major peer-reviewed publication (See “Clinical Evidence” below). Our NOCICALC and NOCOGRAM products were subsequently registered with the FDA, CE marked and launched in the US, EU, and UK markets through a customer pay model since insurance codes were not yet in existence.

License Agreement with the Regents of the University of California

On January 8, 2008, the Company entered into an Exclusive License Agreement which was amended and restated on December 9, 2014, (the “License Agreement”) with the Regents of the University of California, and was further amended on March 31, 2017. The License Agreement encompassed certain intellectual property and patents covering inventions generally characterized as systems, materials, and methods to localize and evaluate pain and degenerative properties of tissue, molecular markers that differentiate painful from non-painful discs; and MR Spectroscopy System and Method for diagnosing painful and non-painful intervertebral discs.

Pursuant to the License Agreement, the Company obtained a worldwide, exclusive license to intellectual property including certain patent rights related to the patents and technology which the Company utilizes. Under the License Agreement, we agreed to pay a royalty fee of 4% (subject to reduction to a minimum of 2% of net sales, in the event the Company pays a royalty on revenues to a third party) of net sales of the licensed products or technology and 10% of gross revenues we may receive from possible sub-licensees, affiliates or joint venture partners. Additionally, we agreed to pay a minimum annual royalty fee of $50,000, accountable against actual earned royalties, plus other costs and expenses related to the prosecution of existing or future patents related to the technology, and certain additional one-time fees that were contingent upon the occurrence of certain defined milestones.

The License Agreement also provides that for so long as we pay patent prosecution costs, the Regents of the University of California will diligently prosecute and maintain the United States and foreign patents comprising the Patent Rights using counsel of its choice, and the UC Regents' counsel will take instructions only from The Regents of the University of California.

Upon completion of our April 2022 IPO, we were required to pay the Regents of the University of California a contingent one-time “Indexed Milestone Payment” of an amount of cash determined by multiplying the amount of shares outstanding at such time the Company raises $1 million in capital, by 3% and then multiplying the 3% number by the IPO price. On May 2, 2022, we paid the amount of $123,828 to satisfy the Indexed Milestone Payment obligation included within the license agreement.

The Regents of the University of California has the right to terminate the License Agreement upon advanced notice in the event of a default by us. The License Agreement will expire upon the expiration or abandonment of the last of the licensed patents. The patents subject to the License Agreement expire between 2025 and 2029.

We rely on this license, as well as other aspects of our own patented technology and intellectual property, in order to be able to use and sell various proprietary technologies that are material to our business, as well as technologies which we intend to use in our future commercial activities. Our rights to use these licensed technologies and the inventions claimed in the licensed patents, are subject to the continuation of, and our compliance with the terms of the license. The loss of this license would materially negatively affect our ability to pursue our business objectives and result in material harm to our business operations.

Transactions with NuVasive, Inc.

In 2015, NuVasive, Inc. (“NuVasive”) purchased approximately $2.0 million of the Company’s Series B preferred shares. NuVasive and the Company also entered into a marketing agreement pursuant to which NuVasive would be the exclusive, other than the Company, marketing provider for the Company’s technology and NuVasive would receive a commission (the “Commission”) of all sales of the technology made by NuVasive. In conjunction with the marketing agreement, the Company entered into a Right of First Offer (“ROFO”) Agreement pursuant to which the Company agreed that in the event that the Company determined to enter into a sale event (defined to include a sale of 50% or more of the Company’s outstanding voting securities, a sale of substantially all of the Company’s assets, or a sale or exclusive license of substantially all of the Company’s intellectual property) NuVasive would have the right to receive notice (“ROFO Notice”), and NuVasive would have a 60-day period to determine whether it wanted to acquire the Company on terms set forth in the ROFO Notice. The ROFO obligations will expire 42 months after the FDA issues its first regulatory clearance of a Company product or service. The ROFO obligations do not apply to any proposed sale event in which the acquisition price is $40 million or more.

In February 2020, NuVasive agreed to purchase $308,720 of convertible notes, convertible into Series B-1 preferred shares and in connection with such purchase, was issued a warrant to purchase 171,511 shares of common stock at an exercise price of $.18 per share.

In February 2020, NuVasive and the Company also entered into an amended and restated commission agreement (the “Commission Agreement”), pursuant to which the Company agreed to pay NuVasive a commission of 6% of certain revenues of the Company related to Aclarion’s Nociscan technology through December 31, 2023, and issued to NuVasive the right to receive the Company’s preferred shares subject to the terms of a $2 million “SAFE” (Simple Agreement for Future Equity). The SAFE provided that NuVasive would receive $2 million of capital stock if the Company would raise a minimum of $10.0 million of new capital on or before December 31, 2020, which was later extended to June 30, 2021. If the $10.0 million was not raised, the Company would issue to NuVasive 1,584,660 Series B-2 preferred shares. The $10.0 million was not raised and the Company issued 1,584,660 Series B-2 preferred shares to NuVasive in December 2021. In connection with the Commission Agreement, NuVasive agreed that: (i) NuVasive would cease to market the Company’s technology, (ii) NuVasive would reduce their Commission to 6%, and (iii) Commissions to NuVasive would terminate on December 31, 2023. In December 2021, NuVasive’s convertible notes were converted into Series B-3 preferred shares.

Products and Solutions

Aclarion has developed a software application called NOCISCAN®. The product uses the existing MRS capabilities of many commercially available scanners to non-invasively analyze the chemical makeup of intervertebral discs in the spine. The software post-processes the MRS exam data and detects the presence of chemical biomarkers that Aclarion, in conjunction with spine researchers at UCSF, have demonstrated to be associated with degenerative pain and structural integrity of the lumbar discs. After processing the MRS exam data, Aclarion sends the ordering clinician a report that details how to interpret the results of the MRS exam. We believe these results help clinicians make faster and more informed decisions about which lumbar discs are painful, and which are not. We believe the ordering clinician can then use this information to determine the optimal treatment plan for an individual patient.

NOCISCAN is entirely non-invasive and only briefly extends an otherwise standard MRI exam. The MRI scan is the most frequently used type of pulse sequence for operating Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) scanners. It uses a powerful magnet to apply a pulsed magnetic field to a patient, sensors to detect radio waves that emanate from the resonant vibrations of different chemicals in the body in response to that pulsed magnetic field and a computer to create detailed images of tissue structures in the patient based on those detected chemical signals. Because water and fat are the most prevalent chemicals in the body, standard MRI images are typically based on the different levels of water and fat between different tissues. MRS, however, is another type of pulse sequence that uses NMR scanners in a similar way as an MRI, but instead of using the chemical resonances to create an image, MRS creates a spectrum for a tissue with different peaks that represent many different chemicals, in addition to water and fat, in that tissue. The relative amounts of those chemicals can be calculated by measuring their respective spectral peaks. While MRS has been used previously for diagnosing certain cancers (e.g. brain, breast, prostate) by measuring unique chemical biomarkers for tumors, NOCISCAN uses MRS for measuring the relative levels of degenerative pain and structural integrity biomarkers in discs. The relative levels of degenerative pain and structural integrity biomarkers are derived through the use of proprietary post processing technologies.

The platform used to conduct a NOCISCAN involves: (i) an MRS exam of an intervertebral disc performed according to a proprietary protocol, (ii) a data transfer portal to securely transfer data from the MRS exam to Aclarion’s cloud based post-processer technology, (iii) post-processor technology that identifies biomarker peaks and leverages calculation tables that evaluate a number of ratios of biomarker peaks, where pain biomarkers are in the numerator and structural biomarkers are in the denominator, and (iv) a final diagnostic report called a Nocigram that identifies discs as painful or not.

(a)    NOCISCAN MRS Exam Protocol: We have developed a custom software protocol and technique for using commercially available MRS pulse sequences in scanning intervertebral discs which extends the time of a standard lumbar MRI exam by an average of about 30 minutes for 5 lumbar discs. The custom protocol is a proprietary series of settings and instructions for MRS to conduct the NOCISCAN exam to obtain optimal and reliable MRS data. This protocol is not a product sold by the Company. The software protocol was created by Aclarion for insertion within a pre-existing software file format and is downloaded onto the MRS by the MRS owner, for use within the MRS’s operating system environment. Currently, our software protocol is compatible with only certain MRS models and operating systems available from SIEMENS, as those SIEMENS models specifically provide for user-defined customizations available for running our custom pulse sequences on SIEMENS MRS equipment.

(b)     Data Transfer: Data is routinely transferred from MR scanners to externally hosted cloud post-processors in many settings and applications, with an existing market of products and protocols for doing so. Aclarion provides MR imaging providers two options for data transfer: (1) a licensed proprietary imaging data transfer platform provided by AMBRA® Healthcare, and (2) NOCIWEB®, a custom developed web-interface developed and offered by Aclarion.

(c)     The NOCISCAN Post-Processor Suite: This comprises the products that Aclarion currently markets and sells. The post-processor technology requires MRS exam data acquired only according to Aclarion’s proprietary MRS exam protocols described in (a) above. The NOCISCAN Post-Processor Suite comprises of two software products that interact with each other:

Advantages over current technology and procedures

NOCISCAN provides new information to help doctors better diagnose which intervertebral discs may contribute to patients back pain and thereby assist in treatment planning and potentially improve patient outcomes.

More specifically, current standards of care for the diagnostic workup of LBP include lumbar X-Ray and MRI and less prevalently, needle-based provocative discography testing (PD Tests). While lumbar X-Ray and MRI can show various pathologic structural abnormalities and degeneration and can be helpful for diagnosing certain non-discogenic sources of pain, these techniques are unreliable for identifying painful discs in LBP patients. The PD TEST is another test that typically follows MRI for the purpose of identifying painful discs. PD Tests have been shown to be highly accurate when performed properly, however, a PD Test is invasive, subjective and unpleasant for the patient as the patient needs to be awake in order to tell the physician if the pain the physician is purposefully causing in the disc is the same as the pain the patient feels when they are experiencing a back pain episode. In addition, recent evidence has shown that the action of inserting a needle into a normal disc during a discogram procedure leads to an increased rate of degeneration in these previously normal discs. We believe NOCISCAN advantages include: (a) enhancing the ability and value of otherwise standard lumbar MRI exams to, for the first time, reliably identify chemically painful discs causing DLBP; and (b) providing a “Virtual Discogram™” as an entirely non-invasive, objectively quantitative, pain-free, non-significant risk, and more widely adoptable alternative to needle-based PD exams (which share none of those advantages).

More specifically, NOCISCAN offers many specific advantages to the marketplace, from a diagnostic point of view, including:

NOCISCAN incorporates many patented technologies and features that we believe provide several technical advantages to the MRS field in general. Prior applications of MRS, e.g. for brain, prostate, or breast cancer diagnosis encountered technical challenges related to acquiring reliably robust spectra for making accurate quantitative chemical measurements. These technical challenges resulted in poor sensitivity and specificity for prior MRS products addressing clinical applications. The novel features and advantages provided in the NOCISCAN platform are designed to address the technical and diagnostic challenges of MRS in the past. Accordingly, we believe Aclarion improvements do not only propose benefits for disc MRS, but potentially for other MRS applications more broadly. Improvements in processing raw MRS data incorporated in Aclarion IP are summarized below:

Clinical Evidence

We have pursued a clinical study (the “Gornet Study”) to demonstrate the benefits of our technology to surgeons, imaging centers, third party payers, and patients. Without strong clinical data in support of our technology to improve clinical outcomes, the opportunity to secure new reimbursement codes and change existing treatment pathways would be limited.

In a clinical study sponsored by us, and authored by, among others, a spine surgeon who has a financial interest in the Company. and published in the European Spine Journal in April 2019, it was shown that 97% of the treated patients met the criteria for significant clinical improvement, where all discs identified as painful by NOCISCAN were included in the surgical treatment. This compared to 54% of surgical patients achieving clinically significant improvement when discs identified as painful by NOCISCAN were omitted from the surgical treatment, or discs identified as not painful by NOCISCAN were included in the treatment. Some authors of this study had a financial relationship with Aclarion, who sponsored the study.

This clinical study included 139 chronic low back pain patients who collectively underwent a NOCISCAN exam across 623 lumbar discs. Seventy-three patients underwent surgical intervention, consisting of fusion or disc replacement, and reached six months follow up. Clinical improvement post surgically was evaluated using the industry standard Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and the Visual Analog Scale (VAS). ODI evaluates patient disability on a scale of 1-100 with a higher score indicating less impairment. VAS evaluates subjective pain on a scale of 1-10 with a lower score indicating less pain. Significant clinical improvement in the study was defined as a 15-point improvement in ODI and a 2-point improvement in VAS. NOCISCAN data was not used in surgical decision making.

Post-operatively, patients were separated into various groups for analysis. One group consisted of patients where the surgical intervention included every disc that was identified by NOCISCAN as painful. This group consisted of 36 patients with 26 undergoing a one-level surgical procedure and 10 undergoing a two-level surgical procedure. 97% (35 of 36) of the patients in this category met the criteria for significant clinical improvement. The one failure in this group did meet the VAS requirement and missed the ODI cutoff of 15 by only one point.

In another group consisting of 13 patients, a disc identified as painful by NOCISCAN was not included in the surgical intervention. In this group only 54% (7 of 13) of patients met the criteria for clinically significant improvement.

In April 2023, Aclarion advanced the evidence of our technology with a peer-reviewed journal article detailing the Gornet 2-year outcomes published in the European Spine Journal. The 2-year outcomes were durable with 1-year outcomes previously published in 2019. At 2-years follow-up, 85% of patients improved when disc(s) identified as consistent with pain by our technology were included in a surgical treatment, compared to only 63% of patients when disc(s) identified as consistent with pain were not treated or disc(s) identified as consistent without pain were treated.

We believe the results of this study indicates that using NOCISCAN data to help determine the appropriate level for surgical intervention will significantly improve the outcomes for patients undergoing spine surgery for back pain. However, the Gornet Study was a single (relatively small) clinical study at a single clinical center sponsored by us, and authored by, among others, a spine surgeon who has a financial interest in the Company, and there can be no assurance that the results of such study accurately support our conclusions related to the market opportunity of our products.

Market Opportunity

The current NOCISCAN product addresses the $10B that is spent in the U.S. on spine fusion procedures annually. Our early clinical evidence points to a marked improvement in surgical outcomes when discs identified as painful by our technology are included in the surgical treatment. We believe this market is actionable now and a significant portion of the proceeds of our IPO will be directed towards commercializing this market opportunity.

As we continue our commercialization efforts, we plan to track patients through clinical registries in order to build on our early clinical evidence. We expect to use these registries to track NOCISCAN patients regardless of what treatment path they may follow. Through the date of this prospectus, NOCISCAN has only been evaluated in formal clinical studies for patients primarily undergoing surgical interventions for fusion or disc replacement. The Company plans on expanding clinical registries to capture patients undergoing surgical interventions for back pain that include all surgical interventions, not just fusion and disc replacement procedures. If we are able to correlate specific MRS findings to improved surgical outcomes for all spine surgeries, we believe this would expand the size of our market opportunity in the U.S. from what we believe is $10B, to an estimated $40B, inclusive of pre-surgical conservative therapy costs. However, there can be no assurance that we will be successful in marketing our products, regardless of the size of the estimated market.

Our ultimate objective for NOCISCAN is to address the entire low back and neck pain market which at $134.5B annually represents the largest amount of healthcare dollars spent to treat any disease. To address this market, our current algorithms will need to expand to include advanced machine learning techniques that incorporate multiple data inputs besides the chemical composition of discs. These additional inputs will all need to be correlated to clinical outcomes for treatments ranging from physical therapy to regenerative therapies, and surgical interventions. To further this process, we have been selected as a participant in a $150M NIH funded study (the NIH BACPAC Initiative”) focused on evaluating the most promising data inputs for predicting the optimal treatment path for back pain patients and in the NIH’s follow on BEST study to evaluate the clinical efficacy of using these data inputs for improving clinical results.

In addition to participation in external studies such as the NIH BACPAC and BEST initiatives, we expect to create our own internal data by adding patients undergoing conservative and regenerative treatment plans to our clinical registries correlating NOCISCAN results to outcomes in order to utilize AI to associate spectroscopy signals with the optimal treatment pathway. If we are successful in demonstrating the clinical effectiveness of these associations, we intend to expand our market opportunity to the management of entire segments of low back and neck pain patients, thereby, we believe, increasing the size of our addressable market. However, there can be no assurance that we will be successful in marketing our products, regardless of the size of the estimated market.

Although we believe that we are addressing a large U.S. and European market, there are practical limitations to the market opportunity that must be overcome by us. We believe the two biggest limitations are the lack of deployment of spectroscopy software across the install base of existing MRI’s worldwide and the fact that only certain MR scanner models are compatible with our technology. For compatible MRI machines, that do not have spectroscopy hardware and software installed, the onetime cost of the hardware and software ranges from $25,000 to $50,000. Currently, our NOCISCAN platform is only compatible with certain MR scanner models provided by SIEMENS, of which there are an estimated 1,500 in the United States, and 4,320 worldwide. We plan to collaborate with other MRI scanner vendors to establish compatibility of their respective scanners and MRS capabilities for use with our products, to include discounted pricing on spectroscopy software for MRI sites interested in providing DLBP patients with the NOCISCAN offering.

Plan of Operation and Growth Strategies

Our primary near-term growth strategy is to secure payer contracts to cover our Category III CPT codes. We believe that with favorable payer coverage decisions comes the opportunity to more efficiently market to spine surgeons and imaging centers to adopt our technology.

The Company is currently generating the vast majority of its revenue directly from patients paying out of pocket. With the introduction of Category III CPT codes and the proceeds of our IPO, the Company is transitioning to full commercial operations.

In order to effectively commercialize, the initial plan is to gain the support of up to 10 leading spine surgeons who believe Nociscan technology will help them with surgical decisioning in their practices. The Company has announced 7 of the 10 KOL surgeons to date and has verbal commitments to fill the remaining three KOL targets. Key Opinion Leader (KOL) surgeons are leaders in their field and will be assisting the Company in generating important clinical data in support of Nociscan and using that data to help the Company in discussions with payers to secure positive payment decisions for our Category III CPT codes.

Based primarily on our KOL surgeons and the strength of physician engagement in markets, the Company is prioritizing the following markets:

Once a positive local payment decision is secured in a geographical area, we intend to place a market manager and a team of business development professionals into each market to focus on expanding physician support and securing favorable coverage decisions from additional payers in the market. The objective in each market is to expand the provider network to include additional imaging centers and surgeons so there is increasing geographical coverage. We believe increasing our footprint in each market will grow volume and revenue through increased pressure on payers to expand positive coverage decisions across all of the varied plans associated with each payer.

We believe the following strategies will contribute to growth in the prescription and use of NOCISCAN.

Strategic Relationships

Siemens

The NOCISCAN product suite is currently compatible for use only with certain MR scanner models and configurations provided by SIEMENS. We are not subject to any exclusivity agreement or obligations with SIEMENS, nor do we have any fee sharing, royalty, or other exchange of moneys or payments between us and Siemens. The nexus for our focused relationship with Siemens resulted from our determination that Siemens scanner models were optimally positioned to support our product. We have had a collaborative relationship with Siemens since 2011.

On May 2, 2012, following a prior period of informal collaboration, we entered a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) with SIEMENS, under which SIEMENS agreed to support Aclarion’s research and development of what later became the NOCISCAN product suite for compatible use with SIEMENS scanners. The MOU included the development of certain custom features and technical support that SIEMENS would make available to support the development effort by Aclarion. The relationship was non-exclusive. The MOU was replaced by a Strategic Collaboration Agreement for Phased Commercialization of the SIEMENS-compatible NOCISCAN Product of Aclarion, Inc. (the “SIEMENS Agreement”) that we entered into with SIEMENS Healthcare GmbH on December 31, 2017. This agreement comprised a collaboration to identify, onboard and provide technical support for the SIEMENS-compatible NOCISCAN platform with early commercial users in the European Union, including a free trial period for those initial commercial users to activate and use the SIEMENS SVS pulse sequence option package that is required to be purchased by our customers in order to perform disc MRS according to the specifications for compatible use with our products. The SIEMENS Agreement also provided for plans for global joint marketing, potential business model/fee agreement and a potential integration of the NOCISCAN product suite into the SIEMENS Next Generation Frontier App Store model. While these plans have not yet been realized, the agreement still remains in effect through automatic extensions and we are in on-going dialogue and negotiations toward some, or possibly all, of these objectives. The Siemens Agreement is terminable.at any time by either party if such party is of the opinion that the goals of the Collaborative Agreement cannot be achieved for technical, economic and/or clinical reasons. If Siemens were to terminate its relationship with the Company, it would have a material adverse effect on our business. Further, there can be no assurance that there will be any joint marketing or that future financial arrangements between us and SIEMENs will be established, and even if established, that such agreements will be successful or profitable.

RadNet

Two of the Company’s imaging centers that are fully operational to perform NOCISCAN’s are owned by RadNet, Inc., (“RadNet”) a leading provider of outpatient imaging centers in the United States. RadNet currently own 353 outpatient imaging centers across seven states. Larry Tannenbaum is one of our former board members and leads the radiology section of our Medical Advisory Board. The New York/New Jersey area is one of our top targets for early commercialization post IPO and we expect to leverage RadNet’s extensive relationship with commercial payers to secure introductions that we believe will lead to early coverage decisions from payers in support of our growth plans. Although we have ambitions to grow the RadNet relationship, the current arrangement is limited to the flow of revenue between Aclarion and RadNet for the performance of an MRS exam by RadNet and the subsequent generation of a Nociscan report by Aclarion.

Alphatec

On January 8, 2024, we announced that we had executed a strategic partnership agreement solidifying our previously signed non-binding letter of intent with ATEC Spine, Inc., the wholly owned operating subsidiary of Alphatec Holdings, Inc. (“ATEC”). ATEC is a medical device company dedicated to revolutionizing the approach to spine surgery through clinical distinction.

The agreement contemplates a multi-step strategic partnership. Under the agreement, ATEC and Aclarion will work together to identify Key Opinion Leader (KOL) surgeons to evaluate our Nociscan technology. Feedback from these surgeons will inform clinical evaluations designed to assess the utility of Nociscan in conjunction with EOS imaging, the foundation of ATEC’s AlphaInformatiX platform. Assuming positive synergies, ATEC and Aclarion will co-market Nociscan in targeted markets. In exchange for select access to ATEC’s surgeon network for the evaluation and advancement of Nociscan, Aclarion will provide ATEC with certain exclusive distribution rights to include Nociscan as part of an integrated procedural solution.

Reimbursement

Current Procedural Terminology or “CPT” codes are developed by the American Medical Association (“AMA”) to describe a wide range of health care services provided by physicians, hospitals and other health care professionals. These codes are utilized to communicate with: other physicians, hospitals, and insurers for claims processing. There are three categories of CPT Codes: Category I, Category II, and Category III (also often referred to interchangeably as “Levels”):

Our NOCISCAN product suite was initially commercialized without existing CPT codes or other pathways for seeking reimbursement coverage from third party payers. Accordingly, to date, the commercial uses of our products have been principally paid for directly by patients or their spine surgery care provider. The first third party payer reimbursement occurred in May 2021 via the payment of a Workman’s Compensation claim in Colorado.

Effective January 1, 2021, a previously retired Category I CPT Code 76390 for MR Spectroscopy was reinstated and reactivated by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”). This resulted from our own direct efforts with CMS in hopes of achieving this result. In addition, also effective January 1, 2021, the AMA approved four new Category III CPT Codes for performing MRS exams specifically on intervertebral discs. More specifically, these codes were assigned respectively to: (i) determine and localize discogenic pain via SVS (0609T), (ii) transmit the MRS derived biomarker data for software analysis (0610T), (iii) post-process the biomarker data for algorithmic analysis to determine relative chemical differences between discs (0611T), and (iv) interpret and report those results. Ambulatory Payment Classification (“APC”) pricing assignments were also made by CMS for three of these Level 1 T-codes, while the fourth (0612T) was not priced and left for us, or interpreting doctors, to negotiate payment pricing amounts with Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs) and third-party payers. The creation, activation, and APC pricing assignment of these four new Level 3 codes was also the result of our Company directly pursuing and negotiating with the AMA toward these interim objectives. We intend to further explore APC assignments such as a New Technology APC to ensure our NOCISCAN product suite is assigned an APC that is appropriate in terms of clinical characteristics and resource costs.

The table below further explains these four new Level III CPT Codes:

Due to a lack of operating capital, we have not yet begun to seek reimbursement coverage or promote or suggest our customers use these codes. However, we plan to use the proceeds of our public offering to hire the personnel and expend our financial resources do so. The Category III Codes become more valuable and useful upon being converted into Level I, when widespread reimbursement coverage is expected to be achievable. We plan to support conversion of codes from Category III to Category I by advancing multiple clinical studies and related peer-reviewed clinical publications intended to further support improved patient outcomes (such as success rates following DLBP surgeries), and various economic advantages to be achieved by incorporating the use of our NOCISCAN platform into the DLBP patient’s healthcare journey. However, there can be no assurance that the Category III codes will be converted and replaced with corresponding Level I Codes, and if there is a delay in the conversion of the Codes to Level 1 or there is ultimately no conversion of Codes to Level I, our business will be materially adversely affected. Further, even if the Codes are converted to Level 1, there can be no assurance that we will be successful in increasing the use of our technology by patients and health care professionals.

Intellectual Property - Licenses, Patents and Trademarks

We rely on a combination of licenses, patents, trade secrets, copyrights and trademarks, as well as contractual protections to establish and protect our intellectual property rights. Our success depends in part on our ability to obtain and maintain intellectual property protection for our technology. We seek to protect our technology and any potential future technology related to our NOCISCAN platform through a variety of methods, including seeking and maintaining patents intended to cover current and future technology, their methods of use and processes, and any other inventions that are commercially important to the development of our business. We seek to obtain domestic and foreign patent protection which includes, in addition to filing and prosecuting patent applications in the United States, typically filing counterpart patent applications in additional countries where we believe such foreign filing is likely to be beneficial, including Europe, Australia, Canada, China, Japan, India and South Africa.

On December 9, 2014, the Company entered into an amended and restated exclusive license agreement (the “License Agreement”) with the Regents of the University of California for certain inventions, generally characterized as systems, materials, and methods to localize and evaluate pain and degenerative properties of tissue, molecular markers that differentiate painful from non-painful discs; and MR Spectroscopy System and Method for diagnosing painful and non-painful intervertebral discs (collectively the “Invention”).

Pursuant to the License Agreement, the Company obtained a royalty-bearing, worldwide, exclusive license to the Invention, including certain patent rights related to the patents and technology the Company uses. Under the agreement, we agreed to pay a royalty of 4% of net sales of the licensed products. Additionally, we agreed to pay a minimum annual royalty fee starting on the third anniversary of the effective date of the agreement, which escalates each anniversary and is currently $50,000. UCSF has the right to terminate the agreement upon advanced notice in the event of a default by us. The agreement will expire upon the expiration or abandonment of the last of the licensed patents. The U.S. patents subject to the agreement expire between 2026 and 2029, without considering any possible patent term adjustment or extensions and assuming payment of all appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity, or other governmental fees.

As of December 31, 2023, our intellectual property portfolio has 22 issued patent and 6 pending patent applications in the U.S., and 17 patent grants and 7 pending patent applications outside the United States. The overall patent portfolio includes patents and patent applications that are (i) assigned exclusively to the Company, (ii) assigned exclusively to the Regents of the University of California but exclusively licensed to the Company, and (iii) assigned to both the Company and the Regents of the University of California (also exclusively licensed to the Company). Many of these patents relate to, inventions involved in, the Company’s first product, the NOCISCAN product suite for post-processing disc MRS exam data. Others relate to potential enhancements of the NOCISCAN disc MRS exam (as conducted at the MR scanner) and also other alternative diagnostic approaches (e.g. molecular imaging and gene expression testing). Our portfolio of patents and patent applications, if issued, are expected to expire between January 30, 2026 and June 16, 2037 in the U.S., in each case without considering any possible patent term adjustments or extensions and assuming payment of all appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity, or other governmental fees.

Our intellectual property portfolio includes four patent families (each reflecting multiple families, if based on different original applications), that relate to our NOCISCAN technology and/or to other potential future pipeline products.

The first patent family is directed to inventions for signal processing techniques to include leveraging artificial intelligence technologies for improving the quality, reliability, and accuracy of MRS-based chemical biomarker measurements and related diagnostic interpretations. Many of these patented inventions are included in our NOCICALC product under the NOCISCAN Suite and cover uses specifically for disc MRS, and for MRS in any other tissues. This first family includes 8 issued patents and 1 pending patent application assigned to the Company in the US, and 3 issued patents and 1 pending patent application outside the U.S. (Europe and Australia). All of these are assigned to the Company. The U.S. granted patents and pending patent applications, if issued, are expected to expire between October 14, 2029 and March 15, 2033, without considering any possible patent term adjustment or extensions and assuming payment of all appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity, or other governmental fees.

The second patent family relates to inventions for novel diagnostic systems and methods for providing diagnostically useful information based on MRS-based chemical biomarkers. Many of these patented inventions are incorporated in our NOCIGRAM product and related diagnostic report under the NOCISCAN Suite and relate to uses specifically for discogenic pain, conditions related to discs more generally, and more broadly any degenerative pain-related diagnosis in any tissue. This family includes patents relating to diagnosing degenerative painful discs (and other tissues) using the primary degenerative pain biomarkers evaluated by our NOCIGRAM product. The second patent family includes 6 issued patents and 3 pending patent applications in the US, and 9 patent grants and 6 pending patent applications outside the U.S. (Europe, Australia, Canada, China, Japan, India, South Africa). These are either assigned to the Regents of the University of California or assigned to both the Regents of the University of California and the Company, in all cases with the UC’s rights exclusively licensed to the Company. The U.S. granted patents and pending patent applications, if issued, are expected to expire between January 30, 2026 and June 16, 2037, without considering any possible patent term adjustment or extensions and assuming payment of all appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity, or other governmental fees.

Our third patent family relates to inventions that enhance the efficiency and reliability of certain aspects related to conducting MRS exams at the MR scanner. This includes enhancing the efficiency and quality of NOCISCAN disc MRS exams and other applications of MRS in general. These patented inventions are not currently incorporated into our commercial products but are in the research and development phase for potential pipeline products. This third patent family includes 3 issued US patents that are expected to expire on November 23, 2031, without considering any possible patent term adjustment or extensions and assuming payment of all appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity, or other governmental fees. These patents are all assigned to the Company. This patent family also includes a pending U.S. patent application that relates to the use of Artificial Intelligence for enhancing MRS exams, which is in the research and development phase for potential pipeline products.

Our fourth patent family relates to inventions for other novel diagnostic systems and methods that represent potential future pipeline products, or otherwise provide potential exclusionary rights against related potential competitive threats. This includes patents related to discogenic pain diagnosis using molecular imaging and/or gene expression testing. The fourth patent family includes 4 issued patents and 1 pending patent application in the US, and 5 patent grants outside the U.S. (Europe, Canada, China). These patents are assigned to the Regents of the University of California and exclusively licensed to the Company (and in certain aspects, co-exclusively licensed under which the Company has exclusive rights to diagnostic aspects and another third-party licensee has limited exclusive rights to only certain treatment aspects). The U.S. granted patents and pending patent applications, if issued, are expected to expire between September 21, 2026 and May 29, 2029, without considering any possible patent term adjustment or extensions and assuming payment of all appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity, or other governmental fees.

We cannot be sure that patents will be granted with respect to any of our pending patent applications or with respect to any patent applications we may own or license in the future. We cannot be sure that any of our existing patents or any patents we may own or license in the future will be useful in protecting our technology. Please see “Risk Factors — Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property” for additional information on the risks associated with our intellectual property strategy and portfolio.

We continually assess and refine our intellectual property strategies to fortify our position. We file additional patent applications when our intellectual property strategy warrants such filings. We intend to pursue additional intellectual property protection to the extent that we believe it would be beneficial and cost-effective. Our ability to stop third parties from making, using, selling, offering to sell, importing or otherwise commercializing any of our patented inventions, either directly or indirectly, will depend in part on our success in obtaining, defending and enforcing patent claims that relate to our technology, inventions, and improvements. With respect to our intellectual property, we cannot provide any assurance that any of our current or future patent applications will result in the issuance of patents in any particular jurisdiction, or that any of our current or future issued patents will effectively protect any of our tests or technology from infringement or prevent others from commercializing infringing tests or technology. Even if our pending patent applications are granted as issued patents, those patents may be challenged, circumvented or invalidated by third parties. Consequently, we may not obtain or maintain adequate patent protection for any of our tests or technology.

In addition to our reliance on patent protection for our inventions and technology, we also rely on trade secrets, know-how, confidentiality agreements and continuing technological innovation to develop and maintain our competitive position. For example, some elements of our analytics techniques and processes, computational-biological algorithms and related processes and software are based on unpatented trade secrets and know-how that are not publicly disclosed. Although we take steps to protect our proprietary information and trade secrets, including through contractual means with our employees, advisors and consultants, these agreements may be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies for any breach. In addition, third parties may independently develop substantially equivalent proprietary information and techniques or otherwise gain access to our trade secrets or disclose our technology. As a result, we may not be able to meaningfully protect our trade secrets. For further discussion of the risks relating to intellectual property, see the section titled “Risk factors — Risks Related to our Intellectual Property.”

The Company holds the following trademarks for its previous corporate brand name as well as for its key products and brands (“®” designates registered trademark, “™” designates unregistered trademark under common law protection):

NOCIMED®Corporate brand name

NOCISCAN® - Primary data acquisition exam (procedure) and software-based post-processing suite (product)

NOCIGRAM® - Post-processed report, one of two products in the NOCISCAN product suite

NOCISCORE® - Feature of NOCIGRAM Report

NOCICALC™ - MRS spectral processor and biomarker calculator, one of two products in the NOCISCAN suite

NOCI+™ - Feature of NOCIGRAM Report

NOCI-™ - Feature of NOCIGRAM Report

NOCImild™ - Feature of NOCIGRAM Report

NOCIWEB™ - Web-hosted user interface

SI-SCORE™ - Feature of NOCIGRAM Report

VIRTUAL DISCOGRAM™ - Additional name associated with NOCIGRAM

With respect to involved meanings, the recurrent prefix term “NOCI” among these marks is derived from Latin origins for “pain” (e.g. nerves that report pain are called “nociceptors”)

Research and Development

Research and Development (“R&D”) activities at Aclarion primarily explore the use of AI, our post-processing technologies and clinical registry data to expand the use of our technology.

The Company is researching the application of AI and machine learning platforms to analyze both the raw spectroscopy data and the post-processed signal to evaluate whether AI platforms can more efficiently and more effectively associate MRS data with clinical outcomes. We expect this type of AI research and development to be an ongoing process applied not only to the various treatment paths associated with back pain, i.e., conservative therapies, regenerative and cell therapies and surgical intervention, but to potentially expand into other clinical explorations involving the diagnosis of brain, breast and prostate tumors.

Clinical research at Aclarion includes the building of clinical registries that provide the data inputs required to train the AI models to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of our technology for surgical decisioning as well as extend the use of our technology for potentially optimizing the treatment of neck and low back pain through other interventions.

Clinical registries track the MRS results for each disc being evaluated and correlates the MRS signature of the disc to patient specific data such as MRI imaging, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Visual Analog Scores (VAS). These methods are proven tools to assess low back pain, clinical treatments performed and to identify conservative therapies such as physical therapy and chiropractic intervention, regenerative and cell therapies or surgical interventions. By tracking specific treatments applied to each patient over time and correlating the effectiveness of those treatments to the MRS data of each disc, we expect to create a large repository of clinical data that can be used to train advanced machine learning algorithms that correlate MRS signatures from specific discs to improved outcomes from conservative and regenerative therapies.

Government Regulation

United States FDA.

In the United States, the FDA has broad regulatory powers with respect to pre-clinical and clinical testing of new medical devices and the designing, manufacturing, labeling, storage, record keeping, marketing, advertising, promotion, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting and import and export of medical devices. Unless an exemption applies, federal law and FDA regulations require that all new or significantly modified medical devices introduced into the market be preceded either by a pre-market notification clearance order under section 510(k) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), or an approved Denovo or pre-market approval (PMA) application. Under the FDCA, medical devices are classified into one of three classes—Class I, Class II or Class III—depending on the degree of risk associated with each medical device and the extent of control needed to provide reasonable assurances with respect to safety and effectiveness. Class I devices are those for which safety and effectiveness can be reasonably assured by adherence to a set of regulations, referred to as General Controls, which require compliance with the applicable portions of the FDA’s Quality System Regulation (QSR) facility registration and product listing, reporting of adverse events and malfunctions and appropriate, truthful and non-misleading labeling, advertising and promotional materials. Some Class I devices, also called Class I reserved devices, also require premarket clearance by the FDA through the 510(k) premarket notification process described below. Most Class I products are exempt from the premarket notification requirements, and subject only to registration requirements (which the FDA does not typically review, thus determined and submitted solely by the applicant product owner).

Class II devices are those that are subject to the General Controls, as well as Special Controls as deemed necessary by the FDA, which can include performance standards, guidelines and post-market surveillance. Most Class II devices are subject to premarket review and clearance by the FDA. Premarket review and clearance by the FDA for Class II devices is accomplished through the 510(k) premarket notification process. Under the 510(k) process, the manufacturer must submit to the FDA a premarket notification, demonstrating that the product for which clearance has been sought is substantially equivalent to a previously cleared 510(k) device or a device that was in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976 for which the FDA had not yet called for the submission of pre-market approval applications. To be substantially equivalent, the proposed device must have the same intended use as the predicate device, and either have the same technological characteristics as the predicate device or have different technological characteristics and not raise different questions of safety or effectiveness than the predicate device. Clinical data is sometimes required to support substantial equivalence.

After a 510(k) notice is submitted, the FDA determines whether to accept it for substantive review. If it lacks necessary information for substantive review, the FDA will refuse to accept the 510(k) notification. If it is accepted for filing, the FDA begins a substantive review. By statute, the FDA is required to complete its review of, and clear or deny, a 510(k) notification within 90 days of receiving the 510(k) notification. As a practical matter, clearance often takes longer, and clearance is never assured. Although many 510(k) premarket notifications are cleared without clinical data, the FDA may require further information, including clinical data, to make a determination regarding substantial equivalence, which may significantly prolong the review process. If the FDA agrees that the device is substantially equivalent, it will grant clearance to commercially market the device.

After a device receives 510(k) clearance, any modification that could significantly affect its safety or effectiveness, or that would constitute a new or major change in its intended use, will require a new 510(k) clearance or, depending on the modification, could require a De Novo or PMA application. The FDA requires each manufacturer to make this determination initially, but the FDA can review any such decision and can disagree with a manufacturer’s determination. If the FDA disagrees with a manufacturer’s determination regarding whether a new premarket submission is required for the modification of an existing device, the FDA can require the manufacturer to cease marketing and/or recall the modified device until 510(k) clearance or approval of a De Novo or PMA application is obtained. If the FDA requires us to seek 510(k) clearance or approval of a De Novo or PMA application for any modifications to a previously cleared product, we may be required to cease marketing or recall the modified device until we obtain this clearance or approval. In addition, in these circumstances, we may be subject to significant regulatory fines or penalties for failure to submit the requisite PMA application(s). In addition, the FDA is currently evaluating the 510(k) process and may make substantial changes to industry requirements.

Class III devices include devices deemed by the FDA to pose the greatest risk such as life-supporting or life-sustaining devices, or implantable devices, in addition to those deemed not substantially equivalent following the 510(k) process. The safety and effectiveness of Class III devices cannot be reasonably assured solely by the General Controls and Special Controls described above. Therefore, these devices are subject to the PMA application process, which is generally more costly and time consuming than the 510(k) process.

In the event a device might be considered Class III due to lack of an equivalent predicate device, but which does not pose a significant risk to patients, it may be ‘down-classified’ to a relatively newer De Novo pathway for pre-market notification review and approval, which typically involves burdens and review cycle times between what are typical for 510(k) and PMA pathways. In addition to the above classifications and related FDA regulatory pathways in the United States, certain technologies that were previously considered medical devices have recently been reclassified and not considered a medical device, and thus not regulated by the FDA. On December 13, 2016 the 21^st Century Cures Act (“Cures Act”) was signed into law (Public Law 114-255, 130 STAT. 1033), and was designed to help accelerate medical product development and bring new innovations and advances to patients who need them faster and more efficiently. Section 3060 of the Cures Act was created as an amendment to section 520 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), which addressed how medical devices are defined. This outlined software functions that would be exempt from FDA regulation, such as those used for administrative purposes, encouraging a healthy lifestyle, electronic health records, clinical laboratory test results and related information, and clinical decision tools.

In the United States, the NOCISCAN product suite is only partially regulated as a medical device by the FDA. The NOCICALC product is considered a Class I “exempt” medical device and is registered as such with the FDA under product Classification “Calculator/Data Processing Module, for Clinical Use,” Product Code “JQP,” Regulation Number 862.2100, and Registration Number 3015426626.

The process to determine whether a product can be considered a Class I “exempt” medical device consists of self-determining whether the product is adequately described by one of the existing categories classified by the FDA. In conjunction with our regulatory consultants, we determined that the product Classification “Calculator/Data Processing Module, for Clinical Use,” adequately described our NOCICALC product.

In contrast, we believe the NOCIGRAM product is considered Clinical Decision Support software (CDS) under the 21^st Century Cures Act and not a medical device. As such, we believe NOCIGRAM is not regulated by the FDA. Our conclusion that NOCISCAN would be considered Clinical Decision Support software (“CDS”), which under the 21st Century Cures Act’ is not a device and therefore exempted from medical device regulation,” is based upon the following analysis:

Under the Cures Act provision, a software product is not considered a device if it meets the following four elements:

Since December 13, 2016, the FDA has issued draft guidance which provides further insight into the interpretation of the above four elements. The draft guidance, entitled “Clinical and Patient Decision Support Software” (Dec. 2017) (“Draft Guidance”), reviews section 520(o)(l)(E) of the FDC Act and provides additional clarity on each element.

With respect to the last element listed above, the Draft Guidance elaborates on what is meant by allowing health professionals to "independently" review the basis for recommendations such that the CDS software is not intended to be "primarily" relied upon in a diagnosis or treatment decision. To that end, according to the Draft Guidance, the user must be told: "(I) The purpose or intended use of the software function; (2) The intended user (e.g., ultrasound technicians, vascular surgeons); (3) The inputs used to generate the recommendation (e.g., patient age and gender); and (4) The rationale or support for the recommendation.

As described above, FDA will not regulate software that meets the four requirements in the Cures Act as a medical device. Although there are some ambiguities as to the meaning of the relevant statutory terms, we believe NOCIGRAM meets all four of these requirements.

First, the NOCIGRAM is not intended to acquire, process, or analyze a medical image or a signal from an in vitro diagnostic device or a pattern or signal from a signal acquisition system. Rather, it receives information from the NOCICALC, which separately performs such operations and produces a table of calculated disc chemistry ratio values for each disc examined. It is this table that the NOCIGRAM references in performing its analysis.

Second, NOCIGRAM is intended for the purpose of displaying, analyzing, or printing medical information about a patient or other medical information. The NOCISCORE Table and graphical plots provide medical information about the patient and analyze the data into classifications.

Third, NOCIGRAM is intended for the purpose of supporting or providing recommendations to a health care professional about prevention, diagnosis, or treatment of a disease or condition. The information generated by the product is intended to support recommendations on how to manage patients presenting with low back pain that may be discogenic in nature. It does this by providing additional disc chemistry-based information to be considered by the physician in combination with other available patient information.

The fourth element of the statute is also met by NOCIGRAM, although the requirements for this element are more involved than the other three elements. This element requires a means for the health care professional to independently review the basis for any recommendation to prevent primary reliance on the software. In its recent Draft Guidance, FDA provides four elements that can be used to determine whether the CDS software allows for independent review: whether it explains (1) the purpose or intended use; (2) the intended user; (3) the inputs used to generate the recommendation; and (4) the rationale for the recommendation.

The NOCIGRAM explains the purpose of the intended use. It instructs the user that it is intended to provide analyses of chemical ratio information obtained from the NOCICALC product, which was separately derived from data via an MRS device, for the purpose of supporting recommendations about diagnosing and/or treating patients with certain back conditions. This information is explained in the product labeling. The product labeling also explicitly states that the intended user is a professional medical healthcare provider trained and skilled in diagnosing and recommending treatment options for low back pain and related lumbar spine disorders. Thus, both the first and second elements set forth in the Draft Guidance are satisfied.

As to the third element, the inputs used to generate any calculations for the health care professional consist of the chemical ratio information obtained from the NOCICALC device, and also the adjustment and analysis factors (e.g. weighting and thresholding/ranges) for analyzing that disc chemistry data. The labeling for NOCIGRAM will describe the NOCICALC outputs as the source disc chemistry data, and will also reference the published clinical trial results (i.e. correlations to discogram results) and related adjustment and analysis factors. This satisfies the third element.

The fourth element requires that the health care professional is able to independently review the rationale for the CDS software recommendation. FDA's Draft Guidance indicates that the sources supporting a recommendation should, among other things, be publicly available. Tracking the statute, FDA suggests that clinical practice guidelines and published literature would fit this description. The Company intends to publish the various factors (i.e. weighting and thresholds) applied to adjusting and analyzing the various input chemical ratios, and the correlative analysis to the PD reference test (as well as certain related treatment outcomes), in medical literature in marketing NOCIGRAM. The user is informed of the medical literature in the instructions for use of NOCIGRAM.

Moreover, the physician-user will have three means to independently verify the results of the NOCIGRAM. First, the user can manually input the adjustment factors and thresholding of the ratios as custom inputs for the NOCICALC product to derive the same custom output results from NOCICALC as those results provided by NOCIGRAM. Second, the user can independently (apart from NOCICALC) perform these same factor-adjusted and threshold classifier calculations based on the values obtained from NOCICALC using the methods described in publicly available literature. Third, the user can further verify the NOCI+/- results of the NOCIGRAM, which are correlated to discogram as a reference test based on clinical trial data, by conducting a discogram on the same discs in the patient. This will either confirm or disprove the correlation of NOCI+/ - to discogram results in those particular discs in that specific patient. These three verification options sufficiently address the issue of a proprietary database or algorithm that is essentially a "black box" to users, creating primary reliance on the CDS software rather than aiding informed decision making.

However, although we believe the above analysis is reasonable, whenever a company self classifies, there is a risk that FDA could disagree with the classification. Accordingly, in that context, it is possible that FDA could potentially disagree that the NOCIGRAM falls under the CDS software exemption to the definition of a device and there can be no assurance that the FDA will agree with our conclusion and in the event the FDA does not agree, our business would be severely negatively impacted.

FDA clearance or approval, when granted, may entail limitations on the indicated uses for which a product may be marketed, and such product approvals, once granted, may be withdrawn if problems occur after initial marketing. Manufacturers of FDA-regulated products are subject to pervasive and continuing post-approval governmental regulation, including, but not limited to: (i) the registration and listing regulation, which requires manufacturers to register all manufacturing facilities and list all medical devices placed into commercial distribution, (ii) the QSR, which requires manufacturers, including third party manufacturers, to follow stringent design, validation, testing, production, control, supplier/contractor selection, complaint handling, documentation and other quality assurance procedures during the manufacturing process, (iii) labeling regulations and unique device identification requirements, (iv) advertising and promotion requirements, (v) restrictions on sale, distribution or use of a device, (vi) PMA annual reporting requirements, (vii) the FDA’s general prohibition against promoting products for unapproved or “off-label” uses, (viii) the Medical Device Reporting (MDR) regulation, which requires that manufacturers report to the FDA if their device may have caused or contributed to a death or serious injury or malfunctioned in a way that would likely cause or contribute to a death or serious injury if it were to reoccur, (ix) medical device correction and removal reporting regulations, which require that manufacturers report to the FDA field corrections and product recalls or removals if undertaken to reduce a risk to health posed by the device or to remedy a violation of the FDCA that may present a risk to health; recall requirements, including a mandatory recall if there is a reasonable probability that the device would cause serious adverse health consequences or death; an order of repair, replacement or refund, (x) device tracking requirements, and (xi) post-approval study and post-market surveillance requirements. The FDA has also established a Unique Device Identification (“UDI”) system that was phased in over a period of years. The UDI system requires manufacturers to mark certain medical devices distributed in the United States with unique device identifiers.

The FDA recently finalized its guidance for managing post-market cybersecurity for connected medical devices. This guidance places additional expectations on our technology to build in cybersecurity controls when we design and develop our devices to assure safe performance in the face of cyber threats. It is also incumbent on us to monitor third party software for new vulnerabilities and verify and validate any software updates or patches meant to address vulnerabilities.

Our facilities, records and manufacturing processes are subject to periodic unscheduled inspections by the FDA. Failure to comply with the applicable United States medical device regulatory requirements could result in, among other things, warning letters, untitled letters, fines, injunctions, consent decrees, civil penalties, unanticipated expenditures, repairs, replacements, refunds, recalls or seizures of products, operating restrictions, total or partial suspension of production, the FDA’s refusal to issue certificates to foreign governments needed to export products for sale in other countries, the FDA’s refusal to grant future premarket clearances or approvals, withdrawals or suspensions of current product clearances or approvals and criminal prosecution.

Coverage and Reimbursement.

Government and private sector initiatives to limit the growth of healthcare costs, including price regulation and competitive pricing, coverage and payment policies, comparative effectiveness therapies, technology assessments and managed care arrangements, are continuing in many countries where we do business, including the United States, Europe and Asia. As a result of these changes, the marketplace has placed increased emphasis on the delivery of more cost-effective medical therapies. In addition, because there is generally no separate reimbursement from third-party payers to our customers for many of our products, the additional costs associated with the use of our products can impact the profit margin of our customers. Accordingly, these various initiatives have created increased price sensitivity over healthcare products generally and may impact demand for our products and technologies.

Healthcare cost containment efforts have also prompted domestic hospitals and other customers of medical devices to consolidate into larger purchasing groups to enhance purchasing power, and this trend is expected to continue. The medical device industry has also experienced some consolidation, partly in order to offer a broader range of products to large purchasers. As a result, transactions with customers are larger, more complex and tend to involve more long-term contracts than in the past. These larger customers, due to their enhanced purchasing power, may attempt to increase the pressure on product pricing.

Significant healthcare reforms have had an impact on medical device manufacturer and hospital revenues. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as amended by the Health Care and Education and Reconciliation Act of 2010, collectively referred to as the Affordable Care Act, is a sweeping measure designed to expand access to affordable health insurance, control healthcare spending and improve healthcare quality. Many states have also adopted or are considering changes in healthcare policies, in part due to state budgetary pressures. Ongoing uncertainty regarding implementation of certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act makes it difficult to predict the impact the Affordable Care Act or state law proposals may have on our business.

Other Healthcare Laws. 

In addition to FDA restrictions on marketing and promotion of drugs and devices, other federal and state laws restrict our business practices. These laws include, without limitation, data privacy and security laws, anti-kickback and false claims laws, and transparency laws regarding payments or other items of value provided to healthcare providers.

As a participant in the healthcare industry, we are subject to extensive regulations protecting the privacy and security of patient health information that we receive, including the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009 (HITECH), which was enacted as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Among other things, these regulations impose extensive requirements for maintaining the privacy and security of individually identifiable health information, known as “protected health information.” The HIPAA privacy regulations do not preempt state laws and regulations relating to personal information that may also apply to us. Our failure to comply with these regulations could expose us to civil and criminal sanctions.

The HIPAA provisions also created federal criminal statutes that prohibit among other actions, knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program, including private third-party payers, knowingly and willfully embezzling or stealing from a healthcare benefit program, willfully obstructing a criminal investigation of a healthcare offense, and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services. A person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statutes or specific intent to violate them in order to have committed a violation. Also, many states have similar fraud and abuse statutes or regulations that may be broader in scope and may apply regardless of payer, in addition to items and services reimbursed under Medicaid and other state programs.

The federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits, among other things, knowingly and willfully offering, paying, soliciting or receiving any remuneration (including any kickback, bribe or rebate), directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, to induce or in return for the purchasing, leasing, ordering, or arranging for or recommending the purchase, lease or order of items or services for which payment may be made, in whole or in part, under Medicare, Medicaid or other federal healthcare programs. The term “remuneration” has been broadly interpreted to include anything of value. Although there are a number of statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting some common activities from prosecution, the exceptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly. Further, a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the federal civil False Claims Act.

The federal False Claims Act prohibits, among other things, any person or entity from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval to the federal government, or knowingly making, using or causing to be made or used a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim to the federal government. A claim includes “any request or demand” for money or property presented to the U.S. Government. Medical device manufacturers have been held liable under these laws if they are deemed to cause the submission of false or fraudulent claims by, for example, providing customers with inaccurate billing or coding information.

These laws impact the kinds of financial arrangements we may have with potential users of our technology. They particularly impact how we structure our marketing, including discount practices, customer support, education and training programs, physician consulting, research grants and other service arrangements. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of the health regulatory laws described above or any other laws that apply to us, we may be subject to penalties, including potentially significant criminal and civil and administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, imprisonment, exclusion from participation in government healthcare programs, contractual damages, reputational harm, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations.

Additionally, there has been a trend towards increased federal and state regulation of payments and other transfers of value provided to healthcare professionals or entities. The federal Physician Payment Sunshine Act requires that certain device manufacturers track and report to the government information regarding payments and other transfers of value to physicians and teaching hospitals, as well as ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their family members. A manufacturer’s failure to submit timely, accurately and completely the required information for all payments, transfers of value or ownership or investment interests may result in civil monetary penalties of up to an aggregate of $150,000 per year, and up to an aggregate of $1 million per year for “knowing failures.” Certain states also mandate implementation of compliance programs, impose restrictions on device manufacturer marketing practices and/or require the tracking and reporting of gifts, compensation and other remuneration to healthcare professionals and entities.

We are subject to similar laws in foreign countries where we conduct business. For example, within the EU, the control of unlawful marketing activities is a matter of national law in each of the member states. The member states of the EU closely monitor perceived unlawful marketing activity by companies. We could face civil, criminal, and administrative sanctions if any member state determines that we have breached our obligations under its national laws. Industry associations also closely monitor the activities of member companies. If these organizations or authorities name us as having breached our obligations under their regulations, rules or standards, our reputation would suffer and our business and financial condition could be adversely affected.

Other Foreign Healthcare Regulations

We are also subject to regulation in the foreign countries in which we manufacture and market our products. For example, the commercialization of certain products, including certain medical devices, in the EU is regulated under a system that presently requires all such products sold in the EU to bear the CE mark—an international symbol of adherence to quality assurance standards.

The International Medical Device Regulators Forum has implemented a global approach to auditing manufacturers of medical devices. This audit system, called the Medical Device Single Audit Program (“MDSAP”), provides for an annual audit of a medical device manufacturer by a certified body on behalf of various regulatory authorities. Current authorities participating in MDSAP include the Therapeutic Goods Administration of Australia, Brazil’s Agencia Nacional de Vigilancia Sanitaria, Health Canada, Japan’s Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, and the Japanese Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency and the FDA. It is expected that more regulatory authorities will participate in MDSAP in the future.

We, and other medical device manufacturers, are currently adjusting to major changes in the EU’s decades-old regulatory framework which governs market access to the EU. The Medical Devices Regulation (“MDR”) went into effect on May 26, 2021 and replaces the EU’s prior Medical Device Directive (93/42/EEC).

Our NOCISCAN product suite is subject to these EU regulations, and is CE Marked via self-certification as a Class I medical device. However, this was secured prior to enactment of the MDR. Under the MDR, we expect to be considered a Class II medical device and subject to stricter requirements for pre-market review and certification for CE Marking by a Notified Body, including with respect to clinical data that must be submitted in support of our claimed indications and labeling. However, manufacturers of certain classes of currently approved medical devices will have a transition time to meet certain aspects of the new requirements under the MDR. A grace period until May 2024 is provided for Class I medical devices that were self-certified for CE Marking prior to the MDR conversion to become CE Mark certified as a Class II medical device by a Notified Body. We are still, however, required to continue monitoring and ensuring our on-going compliance with certain other provisions under the new MDR requirements with respect to post-market surveillance of our products, as of May 2021.

The EU Parliament has voted to extend the Medical Device Regulation (MDR 2017/745) transition period. The extension will see the May 2024 deadline postponed until 2027 for higher-risk Class III and implantable IIb devices, and May 2028 for lower-risk Class I, IIa, and other IIb devices.

The MDR differs in several important ways from the EU’s prior MDD directives for medical devices and active implantable medical devices. The most significant changes in the regulation include:

Following Brexit, certain medical devices, including our products, are also required to meet the local regulatory requirements within the U.K., separate and apart from EU regulations that previously also covered commercial practices in the U.K. While our CE Mark still applies for the U.K., other U.K. requirements for regulatory monitoring and compliance must also be met. Our quality and regulatory compliance systems and practices are currently in the process of being updated for ensuring compliance with the applicable U.K. regulations.

General Data Protection Regulation

The implementation on May 25, 2018 of the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”), a regulation in the EU on data protection and privacy for all individuals in the EU and the European Economic Area (“EEA”), applies to all enterprises, regardless of location, that are doing business in the EU or that collect and analyze data tied to EU and EEA residents. GDPR creates a range of new compliance obligations, including stringent technical and security controls surrounding the storage, use, and disclosure of personal information, and significantly increases financial penalties for noncompliance (including possible fines of up to 4% of global annual turnover for the preceding financial year or €20 million (whichever is higher) for the most serious infringements).

In July 2020, the European Commission invalidated the EU.-U.S. Privacy Shield framework, of which we were registrants. This has resulted in some uncertainty related to continuing obligations and future data transfer compliance obligations.

California Consumer Privacy Act

The California Consumer Privacy Act, “CCPA”, became effective on January 1, 2020 along with a number of complex privacy regulations affecting the processing of personal information of California residents. If we fail to comply with the CCPA, we may be subject to significant financial penalties or adverse regulatory actions. In addition to the CCPA, the California legislature is exploring additional regulations to expand the scope and depth of the state’s data protection controls.

Competition

In the diagnostic and connected care markets, competition is also based on a variety of factors including product performance, functionality, value and breadth of sales and service organization. We believe that currently, there is a scarcity of new diagnostic platforms on the market, or otherwise proposed and approaching the market, that are competitive with our products for our primary intended discogenic low back pain indication. Accordingly, our primary competition resides with the current diagnostic standards over which our products are intended to improve – in particular, X-ray, lumbar MRI, and provocation discography (PD). While we believe our products are positioned for synergistic use with lumbar MRI, and to enhance the diagnostic value of lumbar MR exams, the existing reliance on MRI as a standard of care for our indication, and other potential enhancements to those platforms and techniques, nonetheless also represent competition. To the extent these other platforms represent our primary competitors, they are mainly provided by large, well-capitalized companies with significant market share and resources. Our competitors have more established sales and marketing programs than we do and have greater name recognition. These competitors also have long operating histories and may have more established relationships with our potential customers. In addition to competing for market share, competitors may develop or acquire patents or other rights that may limit our ability to compete.

Competition could result in price reductions, reduced margins and loss of our potential market share. We believe that our NOCISCAN product suite is superior to currently known competition in this market as follows:

Employees

As of January 1, 2024, we had 6 total employees, 2 of whom were engaged in full-time research and development activities, 1 engaged in strategy and business development, and 3 of whom were engaged in general administration. We believe that we maintain good relations with our employees.

Segment Information

We operate in a single operating segment and a single reporting segment. Operating segments are defined as components of an enterprise about which separate financial information is regularly evaluated by the chief operating decision maker function (which is fulfilled by our chief executive officer) in deciding how to allocate resources and in assessing performance. Our chief executive officer allocates resources and assesses performance based upon financial information at the level. Since we operate in one operating segment, all required financial segment information is presented in the financial statements.

Our corporate information

We were formed under the name Nocimed, LLC, a limited liability company in January 2008, under the laws of the State of Delaware. In February 2015, Nocimed, LLC was converted into Nocimed, Inc. a Delaware corporation. On December 3, 2021, we changed our name to Aclarion, Inc. Our principal executive offices are located at 8181 Arista Place, Suite 100, Broomfield, Colorado 80021. Our main telephone number is (833) 275-2266. Our internet website is www.aclarion.com. The information contained in or accessible from our website is not incorporated into this Annual Report, and you should not consider it part of this Annual Report. We have included our website address in this Annual Report solely as an inactive textual reference.

Implications of being an emerging growth company and a smaller reporting company

We qualify as an “emerging growth company” as defined in the Jumpstart our Business Startups Act of 2012 (the “JOBS Act”). An emerging growth company may take advantage of specified reduced reporting and other burdens that are otherwise applicable generally to public companies. These provisions include:

We may take advantage of these provisions until we are no longer an emerging growth company. We will remain an emerging growth company until the earliest of (1) the last day of the fiscal year (a) following the fifth anniversary of the completion of our IPO, (b) in which we have total annual gross revenue of at least $1.07 billion or (c) in which we are deemed to be a large accelerated filer, which means the market value of our common stock that is held by non-affiliates exceeds $700 million as of the prior December 31st, and (2) the date on which we have issued more than $1.0 billion in non-convertible debt during the prior three-year period.

We have taken advantage of the reduced reporting requirements in this Annual Report. Accordingly, the information contained herein may be different from the information you receive from other public companies that are not emerging growth companies.

The JOBS Act permits an emerging growth company such as us to take advantage of an extended transition period to comply with new or revised accounting standards applicable to public companies until those standards would otherwise apply to private companies.

We are also a “smaller reporting company” meaning that the market value of our stock held by non-affiliates is less than $700 million and our annual revenue was less than $100 million during the most recently completed fiscal year. We may continue to be a smaller reporting company if either (i) the market value of our stock held by non-affiliates is less than $250 million or (ii) our annual revenue was less than $100 million during the most recently completed fiscal year and the market value of our stock held by non-affiliates is less than $700 million. If we are a smaller reporting company at the time we cease to be an emerging growth company, we may continue to rely on exemptions from certain disclosure requirements that are available to smaller reporting companies. Specifically, as a smaller reporting company we may choose to present only the two most recent fiscal years of audited financial statements in our Annual Report on Form 10-K and, similar to emerging growth companies, smaller reporting companies have reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation.

Available Information

Our internet address is www.aclarion.com. Our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports can be found on our investor relations website, free of charge, as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the SEC. Information contained on our website is not incorporated by reference into this Form 10-K. The SEC maintains a public website, www.sec.gov, which includes information about and the filings of issuers that file electronically with the SEC.

Summary of Risk Factors

The following is a summary of the principal risks and uncertainties that could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, or results of operations. You should read this summary together with the more detailed description of risk factors below under the heading “Risk Factors”.

Risk Factors.

This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains forward-looking information based on our current expectations. Because our business is subject to many risks and our actual results may differ materially from any forward-looking statements made by or on behalf of us, this section includes a discussion of important factors that could affect our business, operating results, financial condition and the trading price of our securities. This discussion should be read in conjunction with the other information in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including our financial statements and the related notes and “Management’s Discussion And Analysis Of Financial Condition And Results Of Operations.” The occurrence of any of the events or developments described below could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition, prospects and securities trading prices. Additional risks and uncertainties not presently known to us or that we currently deem immaterial may also impair our business operations.

Risks related to our Nasdaq listing

We may not be able to maintain compliance with the continued listing rules of the Nasdaq Capital Market and a delisting could limit the liquidity of our stock, increase its volatility and hinder our ability to raise capital.

During 2022 and 2023 the Company received notices from Nasdaq indicating that the Company was not in compliance with (i) Nasdaq Listing Rule 5550(b)(1), which requires companies listed on The Nasdaq Stock Market to maintain a minimum of $2,500,000 in stockholders’ equity for continued listing or (ii) Nasdaq Listing Rule 5550(a)(2) which requires companies listed on The Nasdaq Stock Market to maintain a minimum of a $1.00 bid price for continued listing. The Company regained compliance with the bid price requirement after the completion of its January 2024 reverse stock split. The Company recently regained compliance with the stockholders’ equity requirement after the completion of the Company’s February 2024 public offering. Although the Company has recently resolved all pending Nasdaq listing compliance issues, there can be no assurance that the Company will be able to maintain compliance with all Nasdaq continued listing requirements in the future.

If our common stock is delisted by Nasdaq, our common stock may be eligible for quotation on an over-the-counter quotation system or on the pink sheets. Upon any such delisting, our common stock would become subject to the regulations of the SEC relating to the market for penny stocks. A penny stock is any equity security not traded on a national securities exchange that has a market price of less than $5.00 per share. The regulations applicable to penny stocks may severely affect the market liquidity for our common stock and could limit the ability of shareholders to sell securities in the secondary market. In such a case, an investor may find it more difficult to dispose of or obtain accurate quotations as to the market value of our common stock, and there can be no assurance that our common stock will be eligible for trading or quotation on any alternative exchanges or markets.

Delisting from Nasdaq could adversely affect our ability to raise additional financing through public or private sales of equity securities, would significantly affect the ability of investors to trade our securities and would negatively affect the value and liquidity of our common stock. Delisting could also have other negative results, including the potential loss of confidence by employees, the loss of institutional investor interest and fewer business development opportunities.

Risks related to financial, operational, commercial and manufacturing matters

The auditors of our December 31, 2023 and 2022 financial statements have expressed substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern, which may hinder our ability to obtain further financing.

Our past working capital deficiency, stockholders’ deficit and recurring losses from operations raised substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. As a result, our independent registered public accounting firm included an explanatory paragraph in its report on our financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2023, with respect to this uncertainty. As of December 31, 2023, we had cash of approximately $1.0 million. Subsequent to December 31, 2023, the Company raised capital using an equity line and a secondary public offering (refer to Note 17 – Subsequent Events to our financial statements). We believe our current cash will fund our operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements into the third quarter of 2024, approaching our final maturity repayment of our unsecured non-convertible note, which is due in September 2024. If we are unable to raise capital when needed or on acceptable terms, we would be forced to delay, reduce, or eliminate our technology development and commercialization efforts.

We have incurred significant net losses since inception and anticipate that we will continue to incur net losses for the foreseeable future and may never achieve or maintain profitability.

Since our inception, we have incurred significant net losses. Our net losses were $4,911,374 and $7,068,593 for the years ended December 31, 2023, and 2022, respectively. As of December 31, 2023, we had an accumulated deficit of $44,281,526. To date, we have devoted our efforts toward securing financing, building and evolving our technology platform, and complying with regulatory requirements as well as initiating marketing efforts for our products. We expect to continue to incur significant expenses and operating losses for the foreseeable future. We anticipate that our expenses will increase substantially if, and as, we:

To become and remain profitable, we must enhance the marketing and commercial acceptance of our products. This will require us to be successful in a range of challenging activities, and our expenses will increase substantially as we bring these products to market. We may never succeed in any or all of these activities and, even if we do, we may never generate revenue that is significant or large enough to achieve profitability. If we do achieve profitability, we may not be able to sustain or increase profitability on a quarterly or annual basis. Our failure to become and remain profitable would decrease the value of our company and could impair our ability to raise capital, develop new products, expand our business or continue our operations. A decline in the value of our company also could cause stockholders to lose all or part of their investment.

We have identified a material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting. Failure to maintain effective internal controls could cause our investors to lose confidence in us and adversely affect the market price of our common stock. If our internal controls are not effective, we may not be able to accurately report our financial results or prevent fraud.

Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, or Section 404, requires that we maintain internal control over financial reporting that meets applicable standards. We may err in the design or operation of our controls, and all internal control systems, no matter how well designed and operated, can provide only reasonable assurance that the objectives of the control system are met. Because there are inherent limitations in all control systems, there can be no assurance that all control issues have been or will be detected. If we are unable, or are perceived as unable, to produce reliable financial reports due to internal control deficiencies, investors could lose confidence in our reported financial information and operating results, which could result in a negative market reaction and a decrease in our stock price.

The Company is required, pursuant to Section 404, to furnish a report by management on, among other things, the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting (see Item 9A Management’s Annual Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting). We disclose any material weaknesses identified by our management in our internal control over financial reporting. As an “emerging growth company,” we will avail ourselves of the exemption from the requirement that our independent registered public accounting firm attest to the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting under Section 404. However, we may no longer avail ourselves of this exemption when we cease to be an “emerging growth company.” When our independent registered public accounting firm is required to undertake an assessment of our internal control over financial reporting, the cost of our compliance with Section 404 will correspondingly increase. Our compliance with applicable provisions of Section 404 will require that we incur substantial accounting expense and expend significant management time on compliance-related issues as we implement additional corporate governance practices and comply with reporting requirements. Moreover, if we are not able to comply with the requirements of Section 404 applicable to us in a timely manner, or if we or our independent registered public accounting firm identifies deficiencies in our internal control over financial reporting that are deemed to be material weaknesses, the market price of our stock could decline and we could be subject to sanctions or investigations by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC, or other regulatory authorities, which would require additional financial and management resources.

If we continue to have material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting, if we are unable to comply with the requirements of Section 404 in a timely manner, if we are unable to assert that our internal control over financial reporting is effective, or if our independent registered public accounting firm is unable to express an opinion as to the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting, we may be late with the filing of our periodic reports, investors may lose confidence in the accuracy and completeness of our financial reports and the market price of our common stock could be negatively affected.

We will need additional funding, which may not be available on acceptable terms, or at all. Failure to obtain this capital when needed may force us to delay, limit or terminate our product development efforts or other operations.

We believe our current cash resources will be sufficient to fund our current operating plans into the third quarter of 2024, approaching our final maturity repayment of our unsecured non-convertible note, which is due in September 2024. We expect our expenses to increase in connection with our ongoing activities, particularly as we continue to invest in clinical studies, sales, marketing, and engineering resources to bring our products to market.

Building and scaling technology products is a time-consuming, expensive and uncertain process that takes years to complete, and we may never generate the necessary user experience required to obtain market acceptance and achieve meaningful product sales. In addition, our product candidates, once developed, may not achieve commercial success. The majority of revenue will be derived from or based on sales of software products that may not be commercially available for many years, if at all. Accordingly, we will need to continue to rely on additional financing to achieve our business objectives. Adequate additional financing may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all.

Raising additional capital may cause dilution to our existing stockholders, restrict our operations or require us to relinquish rights to our technologies and product candidates.

We may seek additional capital through a combination of public and private equity offerings, debt financings, strategic partnerships and alliances and licensing arrangements. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, your ownership interest will be diluted, and the terms may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect your rights as a stockholder. The incurrence of indebtedness would result in increased fixed payment obligations and could involve restrictive covenants, such as limitations on our ability to incur additional debt, limitations on our ability to acquire or license intellectual property rights and other operating restrictions that could adversely impact our ability to conduct our business. If we raise additional funds through strategic partnerships and alliances and licensing arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our technologies, or our other product candidates, or grant licenses on terms unfavorable to us.

We are highly dependent on our senior management team and key personnel, and our business could be harmed if we are unable to attract and retain personnel necessary for our success.

We are highly dependent on our senior management and key personnel. Our success will depend on our ability to retain senior management and to attract and retain qualified personnel in the future, including sales and marketing professionals, engineers, scientists, clinical trial specialists and other highly skilled personnel and to integrate current and additional personnel in all departments. The loss of members of our senior management, marketing professionals, engineers, scientists and clinical trial specialists could result in delays in product development and harm our business.

Competition for skilled personnel in our market is intense and may limit our ability to hire and retain highly qualified personnel on acceptable terms, or at all. To induce valuable employees to remain at our company, in addition to salary and cash incentives, we have issued stock options that vest over time. The value to employees of stock options that vest over time may be significantly affected by fluctuations in our stock price that are beyond our control, and may at any time be insufficient to counteract more lucrative offers from other companies. Despite our efforts to retain valuable employees, members of our management and other key personnel may terminate their employment with us on short notice. Our employment arrangements with our employees provide for at-will employment, which means that any of our employees could leave our employment at any time, with or without notice. We also do not maintain “key man” insurance policies on the lives of these individuals or the lives of any of our other employees.

Our MR data post-processing products currently depend on compatible use with only a limited number of MR scanners that are provided only by one manufacturer of MR devices.

Our MR data post-processing software products are only compatible for post-processing disc MRS data acquired via certain scanner models and operating configurations provided only by one, third-party scanner vendor - SIEMENS. There are risks associated with our reliance on SIEMENS, and/or the MR service providers who own and operate the SIEMENS scanners, to maintain those scanners and their operating configurations in a manner that continues to support compatibility with our products. There are also risks that current compatible scanner platforms may become incompatible as a result of changes made to those scanners by SIEMENS, or by the scanner owner or related service provider, which would frustrate our ability to continue supporting that MR provider customer with our products. There are also risks that these SIEMENS scanners do not perform reliably as intended or expected in performing data acquisition exams as required by our post-processing products, which would also frustrate the ability for our products to perform as intended. There is also a risk that SIEMENS loses its install base of compatible MR Scanners due to cannibalization by other non-compatible replacement scanner sales or fails to grow its install base of those compatible scanners, which could adversely affect the number and locations of compatible scanners for our own market share and penetration. Manifestations of these risks becoming actually realized in the marketplace could harm our business, financial condition, and results of operations. We are not subject to any exclusivity agreement or obligations with SIEMENS, nor do we have any fee sharing, royalty, or other exchange of moneys or payments between us and Siemens. The nexus for our focused relationship with Siemens resulted from our determination that SIEMENS scanner models were optimally positioned to support our product. We have had a collaborative relationship with Siemens since 2011 and have been party to a Collaborative Agreement with Siemens since October of 2017, The Collaborative Agreement is terminable.at any time by either party if such party is of the opinion that the goals of the Collaborative Agreement cannot be achieved for technical, economic and/or clinical reasons. If Siemens were to terminate its relationship with the Company, it would have a material adverse effect on our business.

If we are not successful in enhancing awareness of our technology, driving adoption across our current target population, increasing referrals from surgeons and clinicians, and expanding the population of eligible patients, our sales, business, financial condition and results of operations will be negatively affected.

Our business depends on our ability to successfully market our technology, which includes increasing the number of patients scanned with our technology, increasing adoption of our technology and driving utilization of our technology by surgeons and clinicians. Additionally, our technology is primarily recommended and implemented to provide advanced diagnosis and management of spine and back pain, in particular, for diagnosing painful discs causing discogenic low back pain. Therefore, we are dependent on widespread market adoption of our technology. While we intend to expand the population of patients we can provide with our diagnostic technology as well as increase the number of physicians, surgeons and clinicians that can prescribe technology, there can be no assurance that we will succeed.

The commercial success of our technology will continue to depend on a number of factors, including the following:

If we fail to successfully market and sell our technology cost-effectively and maintain and expand our market share, our sales, business, financial condition and results of operations will be negatively affected.

Our commercial success will continue to depend on attaining significant market acceptance of our technology among physicians, surgeons, patients, clinicians and imaging facilities, and increasing the number of patients diagnosed by our technology.

Our commercial success will depend, in large part, on the further acceptance by surgeons, physicians, clinicians, patients and imaging facilities of our technology as safe, useful, cost-effective, and that it can increase the number of patients that are diagnosed. We cannot predict how quickly, or if at all, additional surgeons, physicians, clinicians, patients and imaging facilities will adopt our technology over competing diagnostic platforms for support in on-going care and treatment options that are expected to be supported by the intended diagnostic uses of our technology. For example, surgeons, other physicians, clinicians, patients, and imaging facilities may be reluctant to use our technology due to familiarity with pre-existing diagnostic systems that are more established or an otherwise resistance to adopt new technologies or change current practices. Our ability to grow sales of our technology and drive market acceptance will depend on successfully educating surgeons, physicians, clinicians, patients and MR imaging facilities on the relative benefits of our Technology.

We may be unable to compete successfully with other diagnostic options for low back pain, or may be unable to continue providing value for supporting new treatments that may not need the diagnostic information our products provide.

The medical device industry is intensely competitive, subject to rapid change and significantly affected by new product introductions and other market activities of industry participants. Our current competition primarily resides with the diagnostic standards over which our products are intended to improve – in particular, X-ray, lumbar MRI, and PD. Our products are positioned for synergistic use with lumbar MRI, and to enhance the diagnostic value of lumbar MR exams. However, the existing reliance on lumbar MRI as a standard of care for our DLBP indication, and on PD in some medical practices, and the potential for other enhancements to those platforms and techniques, nonetheless also represents a competitive threat. To the extent that these other platforms represent our primary competitors, they are mainly provided by large, well-capitalized companies with significant market share and resources. Most of our competitors have more established sales and marketing programs than us and have greater name recognition. These competitors also have long operating histories and may have more established relationships with potential customers. Also, there can be no assurance that other companies or institutions will not succeed in developing or marketing devices and products that are more accurate, useful, effective or safer than our technology or that would render our technology obsolete or noncompetitive.

Adoption of our technology depends on positive clinical data as well as clinician acceptance of the data and our products, and negative clinical data or perceptions among these clinicians would harm our sales, business, financial condition, and results of operations.

The rate of adoption and sales of our products are heavily influenced by clinical data. We have published positive clinical data from an Institutional Review Board (“IRB”), approved more than 100 patient single center trial in a major peer-reviewed spine journal which showed both: (a) high diagnostic accuracy against provocation discography controls, and (b) much higher patient success outcomes for surgeries that treated discs identified as painful using our products, versus much lower success rates when discs diagnosed as painful with our products were left untreated. However, there can be no assurance that our clinical data will continue to be positive for our ongoing or future clinical studies. Additionally, there can be no assurance that future clinical studies, including those to continue demonstrating the diagnostic accuracy and value of our products in currently approved patient populations and those to support label retention and expansion for our products, will demonstrate diagnostic acuity or value. Unfavorable or inconsistent clinical data from ongoing or future clinical studies conducted by us, our competitors, or third parties, or the potential for negative interpretation of our clinical data by customers, competitors, patients, and regulators, or the potential for finding new or more frequent adverse events related to the use of our products could harm our sales, business, financial condition, and results of operations.

If adequate reimbursement is not available for the procedures implementing our technology, or for clinicians to provide ongoing care for patients diagnosed with our technology, it could diminish our sales or affect our ability to sell our technology.

Our ability to increase sales of our technology depends, in significant part, on the availability of adequate financial coverage and reimbursement from third-party payors, which include: (i) governmental payors such as the Medicare and Medicaid programs in the United States; (ii) private managed care organizations; and (iii) private health insurers. Third-party payers determine which services and treatments they will cover and establish reimbursement rates for those treatments. While we have secured certain reimbursement codes against which the use of our products can potentially be billed, we do not yet currently bill any third-party payers directly for our technology. The cost of our customers using our technology is currently being paid for by either: (i) billing patients to pay directly (ii) allocation at least in part against payments received by healthcare providers for other procedures conducted in association with the use of our technology, or (c) third-party payer reimbursement payments to a several of our customers for less than 10 patients through the date of this prospectus. A failure to obtain wide coverage and adequate reimbursement for using our technology in conducting our new diagnostic procedures, or for clinicians providing ongoing patient care based on or related to our diagnostic results could diminish our sales and affect our ability to sell our technology.

If adequate reimbursement for our temporary Category III CMS Code designation for our products cannot be obtained or we are not successful in obtaining conversion to permanent Category I codes at an adequate reimbursement level, it would diminish our sales and would affect our ability to market our technology.

On January 1, 2021, our Category III CPT Codes became effective (see “Business”, “Reimbursement” above). Category III codes represent the first step in the reimbursement process (See “Business” “Reimbursement” above). The effectiveness of our Category III codes commenced a five-year period in which, in order to maintain our Category III status, we are required to demonstrate that the medical community needs (“Clinical Needs”) the NOCISCAN product. Clinical Needs would be demonstrated to the CPT Committee based on the volume at which our Category III codes are billed by imaging centers and physicians. In addition to demonstrating that there is Clinical Needs, we also are required to show that NOCISCAN is clinically effective as indicated by patients having better outcomes when NOCISCAN reports are used to help guide surgical treatments. We expect to show clinical effectiveness through a combination of clinical registries and clinical studies that build upon our published clinical study the CPT committee used to create our Category III CPT codes. However, if we are not able to demonstrate Clinical Needs, nor that NOCISCAN is clinically effective, our revenue would be limited to a direct patient payment model, which will severely limit our ability to market our products and generate sufficient revenue to continue market our technology.

Further, for us to obtain a conversion from of our CPT codes from Category III to Category I, we will need to attract a significant larger number of surgeons and imaging centers to adopt our technology and thereby increase the volume of reimbursement claims data needed for the CPT committee to determine that our product is needed in the healthcare marketplace. In addition to generating clinical use volume, we will also need to demonstrate the ongoing clinical efficacy of our products to secure adequate reimbursement from payers. A failure to convert Category III codes to Category I codes will ultimately make us more dependent on a patient pay model which will significantly diminish our sales and affect our ability to market our technology.

Use of our technology requires appropriate training for proper use of our products, and inadequate training may lead to negative patient outcomes, which could harm our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

The successful use of our technology depends, in part, on the training and skill of referring doctors and other healthcare providers for appropriately prescribing our diagnostic exam for the correctly indicated patients and anatomy, and properly interpreting the results from using our product as indicated under our related IFUs. It also depends upon MR technicians and operators appropriately implementing and using our technology as indicated under our related IFUs. MR technicians and operators could also experience difficulty with the steps and techniques necessary to successfully implement and use our technology protocols. We cannot guarantee that all medical and MR technician professionals will have the necessary skills and training, according to our instructions for use, or will sufficiently comply with that training and instructions for use in order to properly prescribe and interpret the results of our diagnostic imaging platform. We cannot be certain that surgeons, other physicians, MRI technicians or operators, or other healthcare providers that use our technology will have received sufficient training or will continue to comply with that training in their on-going practice in using our technology. If physicians and surgeons utilize our technology incorrectly or, without adhering to or completing all relevant training according to our instructions, the utility and value of our diagnostic products and their related patient outcomes from on-going care following that diagnostic work-up may not be consistent with the outcomes achieved in our clinical studies or otherwise expected or desired by such care providers or the patients themselves. Adverse treatment outcomes that could potentially arise from improper or incorrect use of our technology may negatively impact the perception of patient benefit and safety of our technology, notwithstanding results from our clinical studies. These results could limit adoption of our technology, which would harm our sales, business, financial condition, and results of operations.

We expect to increase the size of our organization in the future, and we may experience difficulties in managing this growth. If we are unable to manage the anticipated growth of our business, our future revenue and operating results may be harmed.

As of December 31, 2023, we had 4 full-time employees, 2 part-time employees,1 full-time consultant, and 3 part-time consultants. As our sales and marketing strategies develop, and as we transition into operating as a public company, we expect to need additional managerial, operational, sales, marketing, financial and other personnel. Future growth would impose significant added responsibilities on members of management, including:

Our future financial performance and our ability to successfully market and sell our technology will depend, in part, on our ability to effectively manage any future growth, and our management may also have to divert a disproportionate amount of attention away from day-to-day activities in order to devote a substantial amount of time to managing these growth activities.

We may not be able to achieve or maintain satisfactory pricing and margins for our NOCISCAN disc MRS diagnostic software products and related services, which could harm our business and results of operations.

Software products classified as medical devices have a history of price competition and we can give no assurance that we will be able to maintain satisfactory prices for our technology. The pricing of our technology could be impacted by several factors, including pressure to reduce prices by our customers due to a decline in the amount that third-party payers reimburse for diagnostic procedures using our technology or for clinicians providing ongoing patient care related to the diagnostic information we provide. A decline in the amount that third-party payers reimburse our customers for ongoing patient care could also make it difficult for us to maintain procedural volume without a corresponding reduction in prices for our products. If we are forced to lower the price we charge for our technology, our gross margins will decrease, which will harm our ability to invest in and grow our business. If we are unable to maintain our prices, or if our costs increase and we are unable to offset such increase with an increase in our prices, our margins would erode and could harm our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

Our results of operations may be harmed if we are unable to accurately forecast customer demand for our technology.

Our ability to accurately forecast demand for our products could be negatively affected by many factors, including (i) our potential failure to accurately manage or execute our expansion strategy, (ii) new product introductions by competitors, (iii) an increase or decrease in customer demand for our products or for other competing products, (iv) our failure to accurately forecast customer adoption of new products, (v) unanticipated changes in general market conditions or regulatory matters and (vi) weakening of economic conditions or consumer confidence in future economic conditions. Software processing capacity, data storage, and related computer hosting resources in excess of customer demand may result in financial write-downs or write-offs, which would cause our gross margin to be adversely affected and could impair the strength of our brand. Conversely, if we underestimate customer demand for our products, our technical and IT resource support team, software processing and storage resources, and computing architectures may not be able to support sufficient processing requirements to meet the demand for our products; and this could result in lost sales and damage to our reputation and customer relationships. In addition, if we experience a significant increase in demand, additional computing and storage capacity and resources, and additional technical support personnel required to support the increased demand may not be available when required or on terms that are acceptable to us, or at all, which may negatively affect our sales, business, financial condition, and results of operations.

Risks related to government regulation and our industry

Our operations and technology are subject to pervasive and continuing FDA regulatory requirements, and failure to comply with these requirements could harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Before a regulated new medical device or service, or a new intended use for an existing device or service, can be marketed in the United States, a company must first receive either 510(k) clearance, or a PMA from the FDA, unless an exemption applies. In the 510(k) clearance process, before a device may be marketed, the FDA must determine that: (i) a proposed device is substantially equivalent to a legally-marketed predicate device, which includes a legal marketed device that has been previously cleared through the 510(k) process, (ii) was legally marketed prior to May 28, 1976 (pre-amendments device), (iii) was legally marketed pursuant to an approved PMA and later down-classified, or (iv) is covered by a classification regulation created through the de novo review process.

In the process of obtaining PMA approval, which the FDA could potentially require in the future for our products, the FDA must determine that a proposed device is safe and effective for its intended use based, in part, on extensive data, including, but not limited to, technical, preclinical, clinical study, manufacturing and labeling data. The PMA process is typically required for devices that are deemed to pose the greatest risk, such as life-sustaining, life-supporting or implantable devices.

We believe that one of our products under the NOCISCAN Suite, NOCICALC, is a Class I 510(k)-exempt medical device, which only requires registration and no pre-market review with the FDA, and which we registered as such with the FDA. We also believe the other of our products in the suite, NOCIGRAM, is “Clinical Decision Support Software” under the 21^st Century Cures Act and as such, is not considered a medical device, and thus is not regulated by the FDA. Accordingly, we believe that our current products do not require FDA clearance or approval under either 510(k) or PMA approval pathways. However, there can be no assurance that in the future, the FDA will not determine that PMA approval, de novo classification, or 510(k) clearance is required for our products. If the FDA were to make such a determination, we would not be able to sell or market our products without or until securing such approval or clearance and may be subject to potential fines and other penalties or remedial actions for illegally marketing or selling an unapproved medical device, which would affect our sales, business, financial condition, and results of operation.

If we are unable to expand the labeling claims for using our technology to include additional indications, our growth potential could be harmed.

We intend to seek expanded labeling claims for our technology in the future, including for example: (i) extending the intended indications for use to include disc MRS along the thoracic or cervical spine, (ii) incorporating certain MRI image post-processing along with MRS data post-processing, and (iii) real-time post-processing of MRS exam data during the exam itself via our software installed and operated within the MR scanner software environment (vs. our current products which are for cloud-hosted post-processing of MRS data that is transferred to us, following the MRS exams, via our own remote computing resources). If regulatory clearance or approval is required to expand the use of our technology, and which clearance and approval may require clinical trial results, we could incur substantial costs and the attention of management could be diverted throughout this process. However, there can be no assurance we will be able to obtain and maintain necessary clearance or approvals for additional uses of our technology, or even if obtained, that the broadened use of our technology would be accepted or adopted by intended users, thus limiting the growth potential of our business.

Our medical device products may be subject to recalls, which could divert managerial and financial resources, harm our reputation and our business.

The FDA has the authority to require the recall of medical device products in certain circumstances. A government mandated or voluntary product recall by us could occur because of device malfunctions or other adverse events, such as quality-related issues resulting from product operating malfunctions or defects. Any future recalls of our products could divert managerial and financial resources, harm our reputation and negatively impact our business.

If we initiate a correction or removal of certain of our products from the market to reduce a risk to health posed by the device, we would be required to submit a Correction and Removal report to the FDA and, in many cases, similar reports to other regulatory agencies. This report could be classified by the FDA as a device recall which could lead to increased scrutiny by the FDA and our customers regarding the quality and safety of our products. Furthermore, the submission of these reports could be used by competitors against us and could harm our reputation, which could cause customers to delay purchase decisions, cancel orders or decide not to purchase our products and could cause patients to lose trust in our technology.

We may experience difficulties outside the US in obtaining or maintaining regulatory clearance or approval, or exemptions therefrom, or in successfully gaining third-party reimbursement or marketing our technology, even if approved or otherwise legally marketed.

Our NOCISCAN product suite was initially commercialized as a Class I medical device under European Commission regulations. The process did not require pre-market submission, review, or certification by a Notified Body in order to be CE marked. A “Notified Body” is an organization designated by an EU country to assess the conformity of certain products before being placed on the market.

For commercialization outside the United States, in particular the European Union (“EU”) and United Kingdom (“UK”), the Company, in conjunction with our regulatory consultants, determined NOCISCAN to be a Class I medical device, for which we secured a CE mark via self-certification. As such, we self-certified our product for the CE mark under a Declaration of Continuity (“DOC”) filed by us as part of a dossier with a qualified EU Representative. Since self-certification was completed by the Company, the EU adopted Medical Device Regulation (EU) 2019/1020, known as MDR, that went into effect on July 16, 2021. Under these new regulations, we believe NOCISCAN to be considered a Class II(a) device that requires re-certification for CE mark by a Notified Body prior to May 2024. Notified Bodies carry out tasks related to conformity assessment procedures set out in the applicable legislation, when a third party is required. Class II(a) device certification is subject to additional requirements for approval beyond our existing submissions, including requiring pre-market review and CE mark approval by a Notified Body, and which may require submission and approval of supportive clinical data. We are currently seeking to identify, but have not yet engaged, a Notified Body for this purpose. The available number of Notified Bodies, and those engaging new company applicants, has been significantly reduced in recent years and the ability for conducting a Notified Body review and CE mark approval can typically take more than a year. Certain aspects of the new MDR also place new requirements on Class I medical devices that are not subject to the extended 2024 grace period and became effective as of May 2021. This applies to new required policies and practices for post-market surveillance of our products. While we are not currently compliant with these new requirements, we are in the process of updating our policies and practices and taking the corrective actions to achieve and maintain ongoing compliance. We believe the actions we are taking are sufficient to support the continuance of our commercial activities in the EU under our CE mark without adverse penalties or other consequences. However, there is a risk that one or more regulatory body or agency in the EU may determine otherwise, either with respect to our prior non-compliance that has since been corrected or with respect to the sufficiency of our corrective actions, and which could result in us incurring certain penalties or other consequences.

If we are unable to engage or receive CE mark approval from a Notified Body under the MDR by the May 2024 grace period deadline, or are determined to be non-compliant with MDR regulations not subject to the grace period and therefore applicable to us as of May 2021, we could lose our CE mark, and may become unable to continue promoting or selling our products for commercial use in the EU, UK, or other countries that relate their medical device regulations to a CE mark.

In conjunction with Brexit, medical devices in the UK are no longer governed by CE regulations. As such, the UK has introduced the UKCA marking system which largely follows the CE marking regulations to include permitting use of the same submissions for approval. The major difference post-Brexit is that CE marking is regulated by the EU and UKCA marking is regulated by the UK. The only practical implication to the Company is the requirement of a Notifying Body within both the EU and the UK. If the Company is successful in meeting all requirements of the CE mark under MDR set forth above, the company believes it will meet all requirements for UKCA marking. While we are not currently compliant with new requirements in the UK, we are in the process of updating our policies and practices and taking what we believe are corrective actions to achieve and maintain ongoing compliance in the UK. We believe our activities are sufficient to support the continuance of our commercial activities in the UK under our CE mark without adverse penalties or other consequences. However, there is a risk that one or more regulatory body or agency in the UK may determine otherwise, either with respect to our prior non-compliance that we believe has been corrected or with respect to the sufficiency of those corrective actions and which could result in us incurring certain penalties or other adverse consequences to our business. There can be no assurance that we can obtain a UKCA mark and if we are not able to secure a UKCA mark, we will lose our ability to conduct business in the UK.

Sales of our technology outside of the United States will be subject to foreign regulatory requirements governing clinical studies and marketing approval, as well as additional post-market requirements. We would incur substantial expenses in connection with any international expansion. Additional risks related to operating in foreign countries include:

These and other risks associated with international operations may harm our ability to attain or maintain profitable operations internationally, which would harm our growth potential.

Furthermore, there are foreign privacy laws and regulations that impose restrictions on the collection, use, storage, disclosure, transfer and other processing of personal data, including health information. For example, the European Union General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”), imposes stringent data protection requirements, including, for example, more robust disclosures to individuals, a strengthened individual data rights regime, shortened timelines for data breach notifications, limitations on retention of information, increased requirements pertaining to special categories of data, such as health data, and additional obligations regarding third-party processors in connection with the processing of the personal data. Our failure to comply with the GDPR or other applicable foreign privacy laws or regulations or significant changes in the laws and regulations restricting our ability to obtain or use required patient information could significantly impact our business and our future business plans.

If we fail to comply with fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations in the U.S. and internationally including those relating to kickbacks and false claims for reimbursement, we could face substantial penalties and our business, financial condition and results of operations could be harmed.

Healthcare providers play a primary role in the distribution, recommendation, ordering and purchasing of any of our products. Through our arrangements with healthcare professionals and hospital facilities, we are exposed to broadly applicable anti-fraud and abuse, anti-kickback, false claims and other healthcare laws and regulations that may constrain our business, our arrangements and relationships with customers, and how we market, sell and distribute our marketed medical devices. We have a compliance program, code of conduct and associated policies and procedures, but it is not always possible to identify and deter misconduct by our employees, contractors, and other third parties, including our customers, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent noncompliance may not be effective in protecting us from governmental investigations for failure to comply with applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations.

In the United States, we are subject to various state and federal anti-fraud and abuse laws, including, without limitation, the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and federal civil False Claims Act, or the FCA. Our relationships with physicians, other health care professionals and hospitals are subject to scrutiny under these laws. There are also similar laws in other countries that we may become subject to if we expand internationally.

The laws that may affect our ability to operate include, among others:

State and federal regulatory and enforcement agencies continue to actively investigate violations of healthcare laws and regulations, and the U.S. Congress continues to strengthen the arsenal of enforcement tools. Enforcement agencies also continue to pursue novel theories of liability under these laws. In particular, government agencies have increased regulatory scrutiny and enforcement activity with respect to manufacturer reimbursement support activities and patient care programs, including bringing criminal charges or civil enforcement actions under the Anti-Kickback Statute, the FCA and HIPAA’s healthcare fraud and privacy provisions.

Achieving and sustaining compliance with applicable federal and state anti-fraud and abuse laws may prove costly. If we, or our employees, are found to have violated any of the above laws we may be subjected to substantial criminal, civil and administrative penalties, including imprisonment, exclusion from participation in federal healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and significant fines, monetary penalties, forfeiture, disgorgement and damages, contractual damages, reputational harm, administrative burdens, diminished profits and future earnings and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our financial results. Any action or investigation against us for the violation of these healthcare fraud and abuse laws, even if successfully defended, could result in significant legal expenses and could divert our management’s attention from the operation of our business. Companies settling FCA, Anti-Kickback Statute or civil monetary penalties law cases also may be required to enter into a Corporate Integrity Agreement with the OIG, in order to avoid exclusion from participation (which results in a loss of coverage for their products) in federal healthcare programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. Corporate Integrity Agreements typically impose substantial costs and operational burdens on companies to ensure compliance. Defending against any such actions can be detrimental to our reputation and brand and can otherwise be costly, time-consuming and may require significant personnel resources, and may harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We have financial relationships with certain physicians and health care providers, research investigators, and authors for our clinical or scientific publications that may be deemed a conflict of interest and may be subject to certain statutory or regulatory requirements, under which a failure to comply could lead to enforcement actions against us and other negative consequences for our business.

We have certain financial relationships with medical doctors and other healthcare providers who are investors and shareholders in our Company and/or paid consultants, clinical investigators, or speakers promoting our products and clinical results, some of whom are also our customers who pay us for patients receiving a NOCISCAN exam, or otherwise prescribe and get paid for interpreting a NOCISCAN exam. There are risks that one or more of these relationships may be determined to be a conflict of interest and be in violation of applicable laws, regulations, or guidelines, which could potentially subject us to significant fines or curtailment of our active commercial operations, and which could also potentially harm our reputation in the marketplace. If we are deemed to not comply with requirements governing the industry’s relationships with physicians or there is an investigation into our compliance by the Office of the Inspector General, the Department of Justice, states’ attorney generals or other government agencies, it could harm our sales, business, financial condition, and results of operations.

Regulatory compliance is expensive, complex and uncertain, and a failure to comply could lead to enforcement actions against us and other negative consequences for our business.

The FDA, EU, and other foreign regulatory agencies or governing bodies, regulate certain of our products as medical devices. Complying with these regulations is costly, time-consuming, complex and uncertain. For instance, before a new medical device, or a new intended use for an existing device, can be marketed in the United States, a company must first submit and receive either 510(k) clearance, de novo approval, or approval of a PMA from the FDA, unless an exemption applies. FDA regulations and regulations of similar agencies are wide-ranging and include, among other things, oversight of:

Further, improvements of our existing technology, any potential new technology, and new indications for use of our current technology may be subject to extensive regulation, and we may require permission from regulatory agencies and ethics boards to conduct clinical studies, as well as clearance or approval from the FDA, or other such foreign regulatory agencies or governing bodies, prior to commercial sale. In order to commercialize and distribute our products in markets outside of the United States, it will require approval from, or otherwise meeting the requirements of, non-U.S. regulatory agencies.

The FDA and foreign regulatory bodies can delay, limit or deny clearance or approval (or otherwise a related “exemption”) for a device for many reasons, including:

Future clinical studies may be delayed, suspended or terminated for many reasons, including to support reimbursement coverage and certain potential label expansions for additional indications, which will increase our expenses and delay the time it takes to secure reimbursement coverage or support label expansion for additional indications.

We plan to continue to develop and execute clinical studies to support reimbursement coverage for using our products, label retention for our products, label expansion for our products into additional claims for diagnosing painful discs and improving patient outcomes and additional thoracic and cervical discogenic back pain patient populations. We may also develop and execute clinical studies for new products or for label expansion for our current products into patient populations suffering from other pain or tissue chemistry-mediated conditions. We may also develop modifications to our products, and conduct related clinical studies, related to expanding indications for post-processing data from other MRS applications in the body. We do not know whether future clinical studies will begin on time, will need to be redesigned, have an adequate number of patients enrolled or be completed on schedule, if at all. The commencement and completion of clinical studies to support label retention and expansion for additional indications or for new products may be delayed, suspended or terminated as a result of many factors, including:

In addition, if the FDA concludes that we have not adequately disclosed financial interests of our investigators or if our disclosed financial relationships with investigators result in a perceived or actual conflict of interest that may have affected the interpretation of a study, the integrity of the data generated at the applicable clinical study site or the utility of the clinical study itself, FDA may refuse to consider data from the study. This could result in delay or rejection by the FDA. Any such delay or rejection could prevent us from supporting label retention and expansion for our products.

A failure to comply with governmental regulatory requirements would have a negative impact upon our business.

Failure to comply with applicable U.S. requirements regarding promoting, manufacturing, labeling, and establishing and complying with appropriate quality assurance policies, systems, and practices for our products may subject us to a variety of administrative or judicial actions and sanctions. We currently offer the NOCISCAN product suite via two interactive products, NOCICALC, which is listed with the FDA as a Class I, 510(k)-exempt product, and NOCIGRAM, a type of medical software that we have concluded is exempt from medical device regulation by the FDA pursuant to the 21^st Century Cures Act. This product suite is also self-certified and CE Marked as a Class I medical device under MDD requirements, while we believe it is considered a Class II medical device and requiring Notified Body review and certification under newer MDR regulations (subject to a grace period until May 2024). These products are marketed and sold with certain labeling and related instructions for use and are promoted by various marketing and sales materials and related human interactions via our personnel and our target customers. We have also established, and operate under, certain quality assurance systems, policies, and procedures under our QMS intended to be compliant with applicable requirements for all relevant territories and jurisdictions related to our commercial activities. In the event that our establishment, maintenance, marketing, promotion, labeling, or execution of these products, or these systems, policies, practices, or procedures, are determined to be inadequate or non-compliant with applicable regulatory requirements, such defect could result in certain potential enforcement actions or other adverse consequences, and our business would be negatively affected.

If we become subject to enforcement action by governmental regulatory agencies, our business would be negatively affected.

Our failure to comply with applicable regulatory requirements could result in enforcement action by the FDA or other governmental regulatory agencies, which enforcement actions may include the following:

If any of these events were to occur, it would have a negative impact on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

If certain of our medical device products cause or contribute to a death or a serious injury or malfunction in certain ways, we will be required to report under applicable medical device reporting regulations, or MDRs, which can result in voluntary corrective actions or agency enforcement actions and harm our reputation, business, financial condition and results of operations.

FDA’s Medical Device Reporting (“MDR”) regulation requires, medical device manufacturers to report to the FDA information of which the manufacturer becomes aware that a device has or may have caused or contributed to a death or serious injury or has malfunctioned in a way that would likely cause or contribute to death or serious injury if the malfunction of the device or a similar device marketed by the manufacturer were to recur. If we fail to report events required to be reported to the FDA within the required timeframes, or at all, the FDA could take enforcement action and impose sanctions against us. Any such adverse event involving our products also could result in the need to take corrective and preventative actions, such as changes to design or manufacturing processes, corrections, removals, or recalls or customer notifications, or agency action, such as inspection or enforcement action. Risk of harm to patients, including without limitation serious injury or death, associated with using our products could also result in product liability actions against us. Any corrective action, whether voluntary or involuntary, as well as defending ourselves in a lawsuit, would be costly, distract management from operating our business, could be used by competitors against us, and may harm our reputation, business, financial condition and results of operations.

From time to time, we engage outside parties to perform services related to certain of our clinical studies. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or meet expected deadlines, we may not be able to complete our clinical studies on our planned timelines, or at all, and may incur significant additional costs.

The FDA’s investigational device exemption (“IDE”) regulations impose requirements on the conduct of certain clinical investigations conducted with medical devices. The requirements depend on whether the study is considered to be exempt, a nonsignificant risk or a significant risk. In general, clinical investigations with medical devices, including those that are IDE exempt, must comply with requirements for the protection of human subjects, which include review and approval by an institutional review board (“IRB”) and informed consent of subject participants. Significant risk device studies also must submit an IDE to FDA for approval. The IDE regulations specify the responsibilities of sponsors and investigators to ensure compliance with IDE requirements, including compliance with Good Clinical Practice (“GCP”) requirements. Failure to comply may result in FDA placing a temporary or permanent clinical hold on the study, issuance of warning letters, or other regulatory actions.

From time to time, we engage consultants to help design, monitor and analyze the results of certain clinical studies and trials that we sponsor. The consultants we engage may interact with clinical investigators to enroll patients in our clinical studies. We depend on these consultants and clinical investigators to conduct clinical studies and trials and monitor and analyze data from these studies and trials under the investigational plan and protocol for the study or trial and in compliance with applicable regulations and standards. We may face delays in, or be prevented from, completing our clinical studies if these parties do not fulfill their obligations in a timely, compliant or competent manner. Such roles, functions, and related risks, also apply to certain employees of the Company. If these third parties or employees do not successfully carry out their duties, comply with Good Clinical Practice (GCP) guidelines and other applicable requirements, or meet expected deadlines, or if the quality, completeness or accuracy of the data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to our clinical study protocols or for other reasons, our clinical studies or trials may need to be extended, delayed or terminated by us or be placed on clinical hold by FDA, or may otherwise prove to be unsuccessful, and we may have to conduct additional studies, which would significantly increase our costs.

Healthcare reform initiatives and other administrative and legislative proposals may harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows in our key markets.

There have been, and continue to be, proposals by the federal government, state governments, regulators and third-party payers to control or manage the increased costs of healthcare and, more generally, to reform the U.S. healthcare system. Certain of these proposals could limit the prices we are able to charge for our products or the coverage and reimbursement available for our products and could limit the acceptance and availability of our products. The adoption of proposals to control costs could harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.

There likely will continue to be legislative and regulatory proposals at the federal and state levels directed at containing or lowering the cost of healthcare. We cannot predict the initiatives that may be adopted in the future or their full impact. The continuing efforts of the government, insurance companies, managed care organizations and other payers of healthcare services to contain or reduce costs of healthcare may harm:

Recently there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which companies set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal legislation designed to bring transparency to product pricing and reduce the cost of products and services under government healthcare programs. Additionally, individual states in the United States have also increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures. Moreover, regional healthcare authorities and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what products to purchase and which suppliers will be included in their healthcare programs. Adoption of price controls and other cost-containment measures, and adoption of more restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures may prevent or limit our ability to generate revenue and attain profitability.

Various new healthcare reform proposals are emerging at the federal and state level. Any new federal and state healthcare initiatives that may be adopted could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services, and could harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our collection, use, storage, disclosure, transfer and other processing of sensitive and personal information could give rise to significant costs, liabilities and other risks, including as a result of investigations, inquiries, litigation, fines, legislative and regulatory action and negative press about our privacy and data protection practices, which may harm our business, financial conditions, results of operations and prospects.

In the course of our operations, we collect, use, store, disclose, transfer and otherwise process an increasing volume of sensitive, and personal information including detailed recordings of MRI and MRS results from patients as well as information from our employees and third parties with whom we conduct business. The collection, use, storage, disclosure, transfer and other processing of personal information is increasingly subject to a wide array of federal, state and foreign laws, rules, regulations, and standards regarding data privacy and security including comprehensive laws of broad application, such as the CCPA and the GDPR, that are intended to protect the privacy of personal information that is collected, used, stored, disclosed, transferred or otherwise processed in or from the governing jurisdiction. As we seek to expand our business, we are, and may increasingly become, subject to various laws, rules, regulations and standards, as well as contractual obligations, relating to data privacy and security in the jurisdictions in which we operate or in the jurisdictions where our patients may be. When conducting clinical studies, we face risks associated with collecting trial participants’ data, especially health data, in a manner consistent with applicable laws and regulations, such as GCP guidelines or FDA human subject protection regulations.

In many cases, these laws, rules, regulations and standards apply not only to third-party transactions, but also to transfers of information between or among us, any of our affiliates and other parties with whom we conduct business. These laws, rules, regulations and standards may be interpreted and applied differently over time and from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and it is possible that they will be interpreted and applied in ways that may harm our business, financial condition and results of operations. The regulatory framework for data privacy and security worldwide is continuously evolving and developing and, as a result, interpretation and implementation standards and enforcement practices are likely to remain uncertain for the foreseeable future.

We are subject to many diverse laws and regulations relating to data privacy and security. In the United States, various federal and state regulators have adopted, or are considering adopting, laws and regulations concerning personal information and data security. Additionally, our customers may be subject to additional federal and state privacy and security laws, rules, regulations and standards, including HIPAA, that they may require us to comply with through contractual obligations. This patchwork of legislation and regulation may give rise to conflicts or differing views of personal privacy rights. For example, certain state laws may be more stringent or broader in scope, or offer greater individual rights, with respect to personal information than federal, foreign or other state laws, and such laws may differ from each other, all of which may complicate compliance efforts. Additionally, new privacy rules are being enacted in the United States and globally, and existing ones are being updated and strengthened. The CCPA regulates the processing of personal information of California residents and increases the privacy and security obligations of covered companies handling such personal information. The CCPA requires covered companies to, amongst other things, provide new and additional disclosures to California consumers and provide such consumers new data protection and privacy rights, including the ability to access their personal information and opt out of certain sales of personal information. The CCPA provides for civil penalties for violations, as well as a private right of action for certain data breaches that result in the loss of personal information. This private right of action may increase the likelihood of, and risks associated with, data breach litigation. The CCPA was amended in September 2018 and November 2019, and it is possible that further amendments will be enacted, but even in its current form it remains unclear how various provisions of the CCPA will be interpreted and enforced. Moreover, a new privacy law, the California Privacy Rights Act, (“CPRA”) a consumer privacy ballot initiative that amends and expands the CCPA, was recently passed. The CPRA affords California residents significantly more control over their personal information, imposes heightened compliance obligations on covered companies, and establishes a new enforcement agency dedicated to consumer privacy. The CPRA’s substantive provisions become effective January 1, 2023, and new regulations are expected to be introduced by July 1, 2022. While aspects of the CPRA and its interpretation remain to be determined in practice, they create further uncertainty and may result in additional costs and expenses in an effort to comply. Further, all 50 states have passed laws regulating the actions that a business must take if it experiences a data breach, such as prompt disclosure to affected customers. In addition to data breach notification laws, some states have enacted statutes and rules requiring businesses to reasonably protect certain types of personal information they hold or to otherwise comply with certain specified data security requirements for personal information. We are also subject to the supervisory and enforcement authority of the Federal Trade Commission with regard to the collection, use, sharing, and disclosure of certain data collected from or about individuals. State laws are changing rapidly and there is discussion in Congress of a new federal data protection and privacy law to which we would become subject if it is enacted. All of these evolving compliance and operational requirements impose significant costs that are likely to increase over time, may require us to modify our data processing practices and policies, divert resources from other initiatives and projects, and could restrict the way products and services involving data are offered, all of which may harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.

In the event we expand our operations internationally, we may become subject to additional foreign data privacy and security laws, rules, regulations, requirements, and standards, which in the European Union, for instance, have been significantly reformed. On May 25, 2018, the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) entered into force and became directly applicable in all European Union member states. The GDPR implements more stringent operational requirements than its predecessor legislation. For example, the GDPR requires companies to make more detailed disclosures to data subjects, requires disclosure of the legal basis on which companies can process personal data, makes it harder for companies to obtain valid consent for processing, requires the appointment of data protection officers when sensitive personal data, such as health data, is processed on a large scale, provides more robust rights for data subjects, introduces mandatory data breach notification through the European Union, imposes additional obligations on companies when contracting with service providers and requires companies to adopt appropriate privacy governance including policies, procedures, training and data audits. The GDPR permits data protection authorities to impose large penalties for violations of the GDPR, including potential fines of up to €20 million or four percent of annual global revenues, whichever is greater. The GDPR also confers a private right of action on data subjects and consumer associations to lodge complaints with supervisory authorities, seek judicial remedies, and obtain compensation for damages resulting from violations of the GDPR. If we become subject to the GDPR and do not comply with our obligations under the GDPR, we could be exposed to significant fines. Compliance with the GDPR will be a rigorous and time-intensive process that may increase our cost of doing business or require us to change our business practices, and despite those efforts, there is a risk that we may be subject to fines and penalties, litigation, and reputational harm in connection with our European activities. In addition, we may be the subject of litigation or adverse publicity, which could negatively affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We expect that there will continue to be new proposed laws and regulations concerning data privacy and security, and we cannot yet determine the impact such future laws, rules, regulations and standards may have on our business. New laws, amendments to or re-interpretations of existing laws, regulations, standards and other obligations may require us to incur additional costs and restrict our business operations. Because the interpretation, scope, and application of laws, regulations, standards and other obligations relating to data privacy and security are still uncertain, it is possible that these laws, regulations, standards and other obligations may be interpreted and applied in a manner that is inconsistent with our data processing practices and policies or the features of our products and services. If so, in addition to the possibility of fines, lawsuits, regulatory investigations, public censure, other claims and penalties, and significant costs for remediation and damage to our reputation, we could be materially and adversely affected if legislation or regulations are expanded to require changes in our data processing practices and policies or if governing jurisdictions interpret or implement their legislation or regulations in ways that negatively impact our business, financial condition and results of operations. We may be unable to make such changes and modifications in a commercially reasonable manner, or at all. In addition to government regulation, privacy advocates and industry groups have and may in the future propose self-regulatory standards from time to time. These and other industry standards may legally or contractually apply to us, or we may elect to comply with such standards. Any inability to adequately address data privacy or security-related concerns, even if unfounded, or to comply with applicable laws, regulations, standards and other obligations relating to data privacy and security, could result in additional cost and liability to us, harm our reputation and brand, damage our relationships with consumers and harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We make public statements about our use and disclosure of personal information through our privacy policies, information provided on our website and press statements. Although we endeavor to comply with our public statements and documentation, we may at times fail to do so or be alleged to have failed to do so. The publication of our privacy policies and other statements that provide promises and assurances about data privacy and security can subject us to potential government or legal action if they are found to be deceptive, unfair or misrepresentative of our actual practices. Any concerns about our data privacy and security practices, even if unfounded, could damage the reputation of our business and harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Complying with these numerous, complex and often changing laws, rules, regulations, and standards is expensive and difficult. Any failure or perceived failure by us or our service providers to comply with our posted privacy policies or with any applicable or potentially applicable federal or state laws, rules, regulations, standards, certifications or orders relating to data privacy, security or consumer protection, or any compromise of security that results in the theft, unauthorized access, acquisition, use, disclosure, or misappropriation of personal information or other user data, could result in significant fines or penalties, negative publicity or proceedings or litigation by governmental agencies or consumers, including class action privacy litigation in certain jurisdictions, which would subject us to significant awards, penalties or judgments, one or all of which could require us to change our business practices or increase our costs and could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. In addition, if our practices are not consistent, or viewed as not consistent, with applicable legal and regulatory requirements, including changes in laws, regulations and standards or new interpretations or applications of existing laws, regulations and standards, we may also become subject to audits, inquiries, whistleblower complaints, adverse media coverage, investigations, criminal or civil sanctions, all of which may harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our employees, independent contractors, consultants, commercial partners and vendors may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including noncompliance with regulatory standards and requirements, which could harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We are exposed to the risk that our employees, independent contractors, consultants, commercial partners and vendors may engage in fraudulent or illegal activity. Misconduct by these parties could include intentional, reckless or negligent conduct or disclosure of unauthorized activities to us that violates: (i) the laws of the FDA and other similar state or foreign regulatory bodies, including those laws requiring the reporting of true, complete and accurate information to such regulators, (ii) manufacturing standards, (iii) healthcare fraud and abuse laws in the United States and similar foreign fraudulent misconduct laws, (iv) laws related to discrimination, harassment, or other conduct relating to a hostile work environment, or (v) laws that require the true, complete and accurate reporting of financial information or data. These laws may impact, among other things, future sales, marketing and education programs. In particular, the promotion, sales and marketing of healthcare items and services, as well as certain business arrangements in the healthcare industry, are subject to extensive laws designed to prevent fraud, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices. These laws and regulations may restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing arrangements, discounting, marketing and promotion, structuring and commissions, certain customer incentive programs and other business arrangements generally. These laws also address the improper use of information obtained in the course of patient recruitment for clinical studies.

We have adopted a code of conduct, employee handbook, and compliance policies, but it is not always possible to identify and deter misconduct by our employees and other third parties, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent these activities may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to be in compliance with such laws or regulations. If any such actions are instituted against us and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could result in the imposition of significant fines or other sanctions, including the imposition of civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, monetary fines, disgorgement, imprisonment, reporting and oversight obligations, possible exclusion from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other federal healthcare programs, contractual damages, diminished profits and future earnings and curtailment of operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations. If any such actions are instituted against us and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could result in integrity issues, or a negative impact to our reputation or brand. Whether or not we are successful in defending against any such actions or investigations, we could incur substantial costs, including legal fees, and divert the attention of management in defending ourselves against any of these claims or investigations, which could harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Significant disruptions in our information technology systems, whether through breaches or failures of our technology, unauthorized access or otherwise, may result in both an adverse impact to our products, as well as the unauthorized use, disclosure, modification or misappropriation of patient personal information, the occurrence of fraudulent activity, or other data security-related incidents, all of which could have a material and adverse impact on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We are increasingly dependent on complex information technology systems for the efficient functioning of our business, including the manufacture, distribution and maintenance of our products, as well as for accounting, data storage, compliance, purchasing and inventory management purposes. Further, our products collect, use, store, disclose, transfer, and otherwise process sensitive patient data, such as detailed recordings of MRIs to help clinicians make more informed treatment decisions and optimize their patients’ care. These data are recorded by our technology and can be viewed by the physician during regular patient visits using the Physician Tablet or on demand through a secure website. We also collect, use, store, disclose, transfer, and otherwise process a growing volume of other personal information and confidential, proprietary and sensitive data, which may include procedure-based information and sensitive healthcare data, credit card, and other financial information, insurance information, and other potentially personally identifiable information. Our information technology systems or those of our service providers may be subject to computer viruses, phishing, social engineering, denial or degradation of service attacks, ransomware, malware attacks or other threats, cyberattacks, or dishonest acts by computer hackers or terrorists, failures during the process of upgrading or replacing software, databases or components thereof, power outages, damage or interruption from fires or other natural disasters, hardware failures, telecommunication failures and user errors, among other malfunctions. Technological interruptions or threats would disrupt our operations, including the ability of our clinicians to use our products as intended to treat patients, the ability of patients to safely and securely upload their data using and into our products, as well as our ability to adequately manufacture our products, timely ship and track product orders, project inventory requirements, manage our supply chain and otherwise adequately service our customers. Additionally, any of these incidents could result in the theft, unauthorized access, acquisition, use, disclosure, modification, or misappropriation of personal information of patients that use our products, trial participants, employees, third parties with whom we conduct business, as well as other confidential, proprietary, and sensitive data, and can also result in fraudulent activity, system disruptions or shutdowns.

The occurrence of any actual or attempted breach, failure of security or fraudulent activity, the reporting of such an incident, whether accurate or not, or our failure to make adequate or timely disclosures to the public or law enforcement agencies following any such event, whether due to delayed discovery or a failure to follow existing protocols, could result in claims made against us or our service providers, which could result in state and/or federal litigation and related financial liabilities, as well as criminal penalties or civil liabilities, regulatory actions from state and/or federal governmental authorities, and significant fines, orders, sanctions, litigation and claims against us by consumers or third parties and related indemnification obligations. Actual or perceived security breaches or failures could also cause financial losses, increased costs, interruptions in the operations of our businesses, misappropriation of assets, significant damage to our brand and reputation with customers, patients, employees, and third parties with whom we do business, and result in adverse publicity, loss of consumer confidence, distraction to our management, and reduced sales and profits, any or all of which could harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our technology is also subject to compromise from internal threats, such as theft, misuse, unauthorized access or other improper actions by employees, service providers and other third parties with otherwise legitimate access to our systems and website. Data security-related incidents and fraudulent activity are increasing in frequency and evolving in nature. We rely on a framework of security processes, procedures, tools, and controls designed to protect our information and assets but, given the unpredictability of the timing, nature and scope of data security-related incidents and fraudulent activity, there can be no assurance that any security procedures and controls that we or our service providers have implemented will be sufficient to prevent data security-related incidents or other fraudulent activity from occurring. Furthermore, because the methods of attack and deception change frequently, are increasingly complex and sophisticated, and can originate from a wide variety of sources, including third parties such as service providers and even nation-state actors, despite our reasonable efforts to ensure the integrity of our systems and website, it is possible that we may not be able to anticipate, detect, appropriately react and respond to, or implement effective preventative measures against, all security breaches and failures and fraudulent activity. In the event we experience significant disruptions, we may be unable to repair our systems in an efficient and timely manner.

We also face risks associated with security breaches affecting third parties with whom we are affiliated or otherwise conduct business. Due to applicable laws and regulations or contractual obligations, we may be held responsible for any breach, failure or fraudulent activity attributed to our service providers as they relate to the information we share with them. In addition, while we take precautions in selecting service providers, because we do not control our service providers and our ability to monitor their data security is limited, we cannot ensure the security measures they take will be sufficient to protect our information. Any of the foregoing could harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.

As data security-related threats continue to evolve, we may be required to expend significant additional resources to continue to modify or enhance our protective measures or to investigate and remediate any information security vulnerabilities, or to protect against, respond to and recover from any potential, attempted, or existing security breaches. In addition, our remediation efforts may not be successful. The inability to implement, maintain and upgrade adequate safeguards could have a material and adverse impact on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Moreover, there could be public announcements regarding any data security-related incidents and any steps we take to respond to or remediate such incidents, and if securities analysts or investors perceive these announcements to be negative, it could, among other things, have a substantial adverse effect on the price of our common stock. Any of the foregoing could harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We currently maintain a cybersecurity insurance policy and business interruption coverage in order to mitigate certain potential losses but this insurance is limited in amount, and we cannot be certain that such potential losses will not exceed our policy limits, or will cover all potential claims to which we are exposed and may not be adequate to indemnify us for all liability that may be imposed. Therefore, failure to maintain or protect our information systems and data integrity effectively could harm our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

We face potential liability related to the privacy of health information we obtain.

We may maintain, use, and share sensitive health information that we receive directly from patients that use our technology, throughout the clinical study process, in the course of our research collaborations, and from healthcare providers in the course of using our products and systems. Most healthcare providers, including hospitals from which we obtain patient health information, are subject to privacy and security regulations promulgated under HIPAA, as amended by the HITECH, and also under GDPR. We believe that we are not currently classified or regulated under HIPAA or GDPR as a Covered Entity, but we believe we are considered and regulated as a Business Associate. Accordingly, we are subject to HIPAA and GDPR requirements or penalties as applied to Business Associates. However, in certain situations, any person may be prosecuted under HIPAA’s criminal provisions either directly or under aiding-and-abetting or conspiracy principles. Consequently, depending on the facts and circumstances, we could face substantial criminal penalties if we knowingly receive, maintain, use, or transfer individually identifiable health information from a Covered Entity, as defined under HIPAA, that has not satisfied HIPAA’s requirements for disclosure of individually identifiable health information. Furthermore, certain health privacy laws, data breach notification laws, consumer protection laws and genetic testing laws may apply directly to our operations or those of our collaborators and may impose restrictions on our collection, use and dissemination of individuals’ health information As such, we may be subject to state laws requiring notification of affected individuals and state regulators in the event of a breach of personal information, including certain health information, which is a broader class of information than the health information protected by HIPAA. To the extent we engage in clinical studies and commercial uses of our products outside the United States, we may implicate foreign data privacy and security laws and regulations, including the GDPR and legislation of the European Union member states implementing it.

To the extent we do business in international markets now, and in the future, any failure by us or our third-party contractors to comply with the strict rules on the transfer of personal data from outside of the European Union, the United Kingdom, or other foreign country or territory into the United States in accordance with such laws and regulations may result in the imposition of criminal and administrative sanctions on such contractors, which could adversely affect our sales, business, financial condition, and results of operations.

Moreover, patients about whom we or our contractors or collaborators obtain or share health information, as well as the providers who share this information with us or whom we share this data with, may have statutory or contractual rights that limit our ability to use and disclose the information. We may be required to expend significant capital and other resources to ensure ongoing compliance with applicable privacy and data security laws. Potential claims alleging that we have violated individuals’ privacy rights or breached our contractual obligations, even if we are not found liable, could be expensive and time consuming to defend and could result in adverse publicity that could negatively affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. If we or third-party contractors or consultants fail to comply with applicable federal, state or local regulatory requirements, we could be subject to a range of regulatory actions that could affect our or our contractors’ ability to develop and commercialize our products and could harm or prevent sales of our technology, or could substantially increase the costs and expenses of developing, commercializing and marketing our products. Any threatened or actual government enforcement action could also generate adverse publicity and require that we devote substantial resources that could otherwise be used in other aspects of our business.

Additionally, data collection, privacy and security have become the subject of increasing public concern and changing preferences towards data collection, privacy and security could adversely affect patient willingness to consent to our collection of their health information. Patients may be reluctant or unwilling to consent to the collecting of their health information, and patients that have opted-in to the collection of their health information may revoke their consent at any time, including as a result of these concerns or as a result of changes to our data policies that we have implemented or may implement in the future. In particular, the success of our business depends in part on our ability to lawfully obtain health information from our patients. If patients choose not to consent to the collection of their health information as a result of these concerns, or our customers who transfer patient data to us via the use of our products refuse to do so due to concerns for data privacy or potential related liabilities, or our consent or data privacy protection and management policies or practices are found to be unlawful, this could negatively impact the growth potential for our business.

We have encountered potential customers in the EU who have been reluctant, and indeed refused, to become customers due to concerns about transferring of any private patient information from their practice in the EU into the United States. Certain such customers have indicated their opinion that such a transfer is, on its face, non-compliant with GDPR requirements due to certain rights of the US Federal Government to seize such data from US domiciled companies or storage facilities. We may need to expand our operations to host at least one foreign instance of our cloud-based post-processing software products within a foreign country, such as within the European Union, in order to overcome such concerns and reach and engage more customers to grow our business in the related territory. If we are unable to sufficiently dissuade these concerns held by certain potential customers outside of the United States, or do not establish certain changes in our private patient health information data privacy practices, such as moving the hosting of EU-based information to an EU-based instance of our products and storage of related patient health information we receive via use of our products, our sales, business, financial condition, and results of operations could be harmed. We could also encounter delays if a clinical study is suspended or terminated by us, by the IRBs or the Ethics Committees of institutions at which such studies are being conducted, by the Data Safety Monitoring Board for such trial or by the FDA or other regulatory authorities. Such authorities may suspend or terminate a clinical study due to a number of factors, including failure to conduct the clinical study in accordance with regulatory requirements, including GC.

Risks related to our intellectual property

If we are unable to obtain, maintain, protect, enforce and defend patents or other intellectual property protection for our technology, or if the scope of our patents and other intellectual property protections is not sufficiently broad, or as a result of our existing or any future out-licenses of our intellectual property, our competitors could develop and commercialize products similar to or competitive with our products and services, our ability to continue to commercialize our technology, or our other products and services, may be harmed.

As with other medical device companies, our success depends, in large part, on our ability to obtain, maintain, protect, enforce and defend a proprietary position for our products and services, which will depend upon our success in obtaining and maintaining effective patent and other intellectual property protection in the United States and other countries into which we may expand our business in the future that relate to our technology and any other products, their manufacturing processes and their intended methods of use. Furthermore, our success will also depend on our ability to enforce and defend those patents, as well as our other intellectual property. In some cases, we may not be able to obtain patents relating to our products and services which are sufficient to prevent third parties, such as our competitors, from copying and competing with other products or services that are the same, similar, or otherwise competitive with our products and services. Or, our competitors may have rights under current or future out-licenses of our intellectual property which could result in our competitors developing and commercializing products similar to or competitive with our products and services. Any failure to obtain, maintain, protect, enforce or defend patent and other intellectual property protection with respect to our NOCISCAN product suite and related services, or other aspects of our business, could harm our business, competitive position, financial condition and results of operations.

Changes in the patent or other intellectual property laws, or their interpretation, in the United States and other countries may diminish our ability to protect our inventions or to obtain, maintain, protect, enforce, and defend our patents and other intellectual property rights, and could affect the value of our intellectual property or narrow the scope of our patents. Additionally, we cannot predict whether the patent applications we are currently pursuing will issue as patents in any particular jurisdiction or whether the claims of any issued patents will provide sufficient protection from competitors or other third parties.

The patent prosecution process is expensive, time-consuming and complex and we may not be able to file, prosecute, maintain, enforce or license all necessary or desirable patents or patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner. It is also possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development output in time to obtain patent protection in one, several, or all geographies. Although we enter into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to our confidential information or patentable aspects of our research and development output, such as our employees, corporate collaborators, outside scientific collaborators, suppliers, consultants, advisors and other third parties, any of these parties may breach the agreements and publicly disclose such confidential information or research and development output. If such unauthorized public disclosure occurs before a patent application is filed, it could compromise or diminish our ability to seek patent protection. Such third parties could also breach obligations with respect to limited uses of our confidential information, which may include (i) breaching restrictions against making or inventing improvements or modifications to, or derivations of, our confidential technologies, and (ii) further separately applying, on their own behalf, for patent protections for such improvements, modifications, or derivations. Such breaches may compromise our ability to obtain or enforce our own patent protections for such improvements, modifications, or derivations. In addition, our ability to obtain and maintain valid and enforceable patents depends on whether the differences between our inventions and the prior art allow our inventions to be patentable over the prior art. Furthermore, the publication of discoveries in scientific literature often lags behind the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the United States and other jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing, or in some cases not at all. As such, we cannot be certain that we were the first to make the inventions claimed in any of our patents or pending patent applications, or that we were the first to file for patent protection of such inventions. Moreover, in some circumstances, we may not have the right to control the preparation, filing and prosecution of patent applications, or to maintain the patents, relating to technology that we license from or license to third parties, including by way of our license from the Board of Regents of the University of California, and we are therefore reliant on our licensors or licensees. Therefore, these and any of our patents and patent applications may not be prosecuted and enforced in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business. Furthermore, our license agreements may be terminated by the licensor. Defects of form in the preparation or filing of our patents or patent applications may exist, or may arise in the future, for example, with respect to proper priority claims, inventorship and the like, although we are unaware of any such defects that we believe are of importance. If we or any of our current or future licensors or licensees fail to obtain, maintain, protect, enforce or defend such patents and other intellectual property rights, such rights may be reduced or eliminated. If any of our current or future licensors or licensees are not fully cooperative or disagree with us as to the prosecution, maintenance or enforcement of any patent rights, such patent rights could be compromised. If there are material defects in the form, preparation or prosecution of our patents or patent applications, such patents or applications may be invalid and/or unenforceable. Any of these outcomes could impair our ability to prevent competition from third parties, which may harm our business.

The strength of patent rights generally, and particularly the patent position of medical device companies, involves complex legal and scientific questions, can be uncertain, and has been the subject of much litigation in recent years. This uncertainty includes changes to the patent laws through either legislative action to change statutory patent law or court action that may reinterpret existing law or rules in ways affecting the scope or validity of issued patents. Our current or future patent applications may fail to result in issued patents in the United States or foreign countries with claims that cover our products, including our technology. Even if patents do successfully issue from our patent applications, third parties may challenge the validity, enforceability or scope of such patents, which may result in such patents being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable. Any successful challenge to our patents could deprive us of exclusive rights necessary for the successful commercialization of our products, including our NOCISCAN product suite. Furthermore, even if they are unchallenged, our patents may not adequately protect our technology or any other products we develop, provide exclusivity for these products or prevent others from designing around our claims. If the scope of any patent protection we obtain is not sufficiently broad, or if we lose any of our patent protection, our ability to prevent our competitors from commercializing similar or identical products could be adversely affected. If the breadth or strength of protection provided by the patents we hold or pursue with respect to our products is challenged, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to develop, or threaten our ability to commercialize, our technology.

Patents have a limited lifespan. In the United States, the natural expiration of a utility patent is generally 20 years after its effective filing date and the natural expiration of a design patent is generally 14 years after its issue date, unless the filing date occurred on or after May 13, 2015, in which case the natural expiration of a design patent is generally 15 years after its issue date. However, the actual protection afforded by a patent varies from country to country, and depends upon many factors, including the type of patent, the scope of its coverage, any terminal disclaimers filed or to be filed, overlap in claimed subject matter with other patents in the portfolio, the availability of regulatory-related extensions, the availability of legal remedies in a particular country and the validity and enforceability of the patent. Various extensions may be available; however, the life of a patent, and the protection it affords, is limited. Without patent protection for our technology, we may be open to competition. Further, if we encounter delays in our development efforts, the period of time during which we could market our technology under patent protection would be reduced and, given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of planned or future technology and products, patents protecting such technology and products might expire before or shortly after such products are commercialized. For information regarding the expiration dates of patents in our patent portfolio, see “Business—Intellectual Property.” Our U.S. issued patents are expected to expire between January 3, 2026 and March 15, 2033, without taking into account all possible patent term adjustments, extensions, or abandonments, and assuming payment of all appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity, and other governmental fees. As our patents expire, the scope of our patent protection will be reduced, which may reduce or eliminate any competitive advantage afforded by our patent portfolio. As a result, our patent portfolio may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing products similar or identical to ours.

Moreover, the coverage claimed in a patent application can be significantly reduced before the patent is issued, and its scope can be reinterpreted after issuance. Even if patent applications licensed to us or assigned to us, currently or in the future, issue as patents, they may not issue in a form that will provide us with any meaningful protection, prevent competitors or other third parties from competing with us, or otherwise provide us with any competitive advantage. Any patents assigned to us may be challenged, narrowed, circumvented or invalidated by third parties. Consequently, we do not know whether our NOCISCAN product suite or our other products will be protectable or remain protected by valid and enforceable patents. Our competitors or other third parties may be able to circumvent our patents by developing similar or alternative products in a non-infringing manner, which could harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Some of our patents and patent applications may be co-owned or cross-licensed with third parties. If we give up, do not pursue, or are unable to obtain an exclusive license to any such third-party co-owners’ or licensee’s interest in such patents or patent applications, such co-owners or cross-licensees may be able to license or sub-license, respectively, their rights to other third parties, including our competitors, and our competitors could market competing products and technology. In addition, we may need the cooperation of any such co-owners or co-licensees of our patents in order to enforce such patents against third parties, and such cooperation may not be provided to us. Any of the foregoing could harm our sales, business, financial condition and results of operations.

We rely on a License from the Regents of the University of California, as well as other aspects of our own patented technology and intellectual property, in order to be able to use and sell various proprietary technologies that are material to our business, as well as technologies which we intend to use in our future commercial activities. Our rights to use these licensed technologies and the inventions claimed in the licensed patents, are subject to the continuation of, and our compliance with the terms of the license. The License provides that for so long as we pay patent prosecution costs, the Regents of the University of California will diligently prosecute and maintain the United States and foreign patents comprising the Patent Rights using counsel of its choice, and the UCSF Regents' counsel will take instructions only from The Regents of the University of California has the right to terminate the agreement upon advanced notice in the event of a default by us. The agreement will expire upon the expiration or abandonment of the last of the licensed patents. The patents subject to the agreement expire between 2025 and 2029. The loss of this license would materially negatively affect our ability to pursue our business objectives and result in material harm to our business operations.

We may not be successful in obtaining or maintaining necessary rights to any products or processes we may have or develop through acquisitions and in-licenses.

We may find it necessary or prudent to acquire, obtain, or maintain licenses to intellectual property or proprietary rights held by third parties that we may identify as necessary or important to our business operations. However, we may be unable to acquire, secure, or maintain such licenses to any intellectual property or proprietary rights from third parties that we identify as necessary for our technology or any future products we may develop. The acquisition or licensing of third-party intellectual property or proprietary rights is a competitive area, and our competitors may pursue strategies to acquire or license third party intellectual property or proprietary rights that we may consider attractive or necessary. Our competitors may have a competitive advantage over us due to their size, capital resources and greater 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 acquire or license third party intellectual property or proprietary rights on terms that would allow us to make an appropriate return on our investment or at all. We have an existing license with the Board of Regents of the University of California, and which covers multiple patents and patent applications for inventions that are incorporated into our products, and if we are unable to maintain this license, we may not be able to legally market or sell our current or future products, which would harm our sales, business, financial condition, and results of operations. If we are unable to successfully acquire or license third-party intellectual property or proprietary rights that we require for making, using, or selling our products or services, or to maintain the existing licenses to intellectual property rights we have, we may have to abandon the development, manufacturing, marketing, or selling of our related products that require those rights, which could harm our sales, business, financial condition, and results of operations.

Patents directing to our technology could be found invalid or unenforceable if challenged in court or before administrative bodies in the United States or abroad, which could harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity or enforceability, and our patents may be challenged in the courts or patent offices in the United States and abroad. We may be subject to a third-party pre-issuance submission of prior art to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), or become involved in opposition, derivation, revocation, reexamination, post-grant and inter partes review, or IPR, or interference proceedings or other similar proceedings challenging our patent rights. An adverse determination in any such submission, proceeding or litigation could reduce the scope of, or invalidate or render unenforceable, such patent rights, allow third parties to commercialize our products and compete directly with us, without payment to us, or result in our inability to manufacture or commercialize products without infringing third-party patent rights. Moreover, we may have to participate in interference proceedings declared by the USPTO to determine priority of invention or in post-grant challenge proceedings, such as oppositions in a foreign patent office, that challenge our priority of invention or other features of patentability with respect to our patents and patent applications. Such challenges may result in loss of patent rights, in loss of exclusivity, or in patent claims being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable, which could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical products or limit the duration of the patent protection of our products. Such proceedings also may result in substantial cost and require significant time from our management, even if the eventual outcome is favorable to us.

In addition, if we initiate legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent relating to our products, the defendant could counterclaim that such patent is invalid or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity or unenforceability are commonplace. Grounds for a validity challenge could be an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, including lack of novelty, obviousness or non-enablement. Grounds for an unenforceability assertion could be an allegation that someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld relevant information from the USPTO, or made a false or misleading statement, or otherwise committed inequitable conduct, during prosecution. Defenses of these types of claims, regardless of their merit, would involve substantial litigation expense, would result in reputational harm, and would be a substantial diversion of employee resources from our business. Third parties may also raise claims challenging the validity or enforceability of our patents before administrative bodies in the United States or abroad, even outside the context of litigation, including through re-examination, post-grant review, IPR, interference proceedings, derivation proceedings and equivalent or similar proceedings in foreign jurisdictions (such as opposition proceedings). Such proceedings could result in the revocation of, cancellation of or amendment to our patents in such a way that they no longer relate to our products. The outcome for any particular patent following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. With respect to the validity question, for example, we cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior art, of which we and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution. Moreover, potential third-party claims that are validated in a final ruling or determination regarding inequitable conduct with respect to securing or enforcing a patent could also potentially give rise to other adverse claims, which may include business torts or other causes of action regarding our enforcement of that patent, and could also potentially carry over and apply downstream to other patents that are related to (e.g. claim of priority) the instant patent. 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 potentially all, of the patent protection for the patents raised in such a claim. Such a loss of patent protection would harm our sales, business, financial condition, and results of operations.

The medical device industry is characterized by patent litigation and in the future we could become subject to actual or threatened patent or other intellectual property litigation alleging our products or services infringe or misappropriate third party rights, which could be costly to address and defend, result in the diversion of management’s time and efforts, require us to pay damages, or prevent us from making, using, or selling our existing or future products.

Patent litigation is prevalent in the medical device and diagnostic sectors. Our commercial success depends, in part, upon our ability and that of our suppliers to manufacture, market, sell, and use our proprietary technology without infringing, misappropriating or otherwise violating the intellectual property or proprietary rights of third parties. We may in the future become party to, or be threatened with, adversarial proceedings or litigation regarding intellectual property rights with respect to our products. Third parties may assert infringement claims against us based on existing or future intellectual property rights, regardless of merit. If we are found to infringe a third party’s intellectual property rights, we could be required to incur costs to obtain a license from such third party to continue developing, making, using, or selling our products and services. We may also elect to enter into such a license in order to settle pending or threatened litigation. However, we may not be able to obtain any required license on commercially reasonable terms, or at all. Even if we were able to obtain a license, it could be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors access to the same technologies or methods licensed to us and could require us to pay significant royalties and other fees. We could be forced, including by court order, to cease commercializing the infringing product or service. In addition, we could be found liable for monetary damages, which may be significant. If we are found to have willfully infringed a third-party patent, we could be required to pay treble damages and attorneys’ fees. A finding of infringement could prevent us from commercializing our planned products in commercially important territories or force us to cease some of our business operations, which could harm our business and cause brand and reputational harm. An adverse infringement determination in one territory where such a claim might be brought could also potentially carry over to influence other similarly adverse claims being brought, and/or adverse results of those additional claims, in other territories where we have or seek a commercial presence. We could also be forced to redesign or otherwise change those products or services that use or implicate the allegedly infringing intellectual property, which could be costly, disruptive and infeasible.

Many of our employees were previously employed at, and many of our current advisors and consultants are employed by, universities or other biotechnology, medical device, healthcare, or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. Although we try to ensure that our employees, advisors and consultants do not use the proprietary information or know-how of others in their work for us, we may be subject to claims that we, or these employees, have used or disclosed intellectual property, including trade secrets or other proprietary information, of any such employee’s former employer. Furthermore, although these agreements may be difficult to enforce, we may in the future be subject to claims that these individuals are violating non-compete agreements with their former employers. These and other claims that we have misappropriated the confidential information or trade secrets of third parties can have a similar negative impact on our business, including with respect to the infringement claims discussed above.

Even if we are successful in defending against intellectual property claims, litigation or other legal proceedings relating to such claims, the claims and related defense may still cause us to incur significant expenses, cause reputational harm, and could distract our technical and management personnel from their normal responsibilities. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages or other settlements, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel, which could harm our business, financial condition and results of operations. We could potentially be required, or be forced or choose among other options, to negotiate a settlement of third party infringement claims that may include cross-licensing of our own patent or other intellectual property rights with the third party bringing the initial adverse claim against us. This could result in our inability to protect our products and services as exclusively proprietary only to us, and allow the third party to compete against us, with respect to the inventions or technologies related to those out-licensed rights, and which could also diminish the value of our products, services, and overall business and company, and harm our sales, business, financial condition, and results of operations. 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 negative impact on the price of our shares of common stock. Such litigation or proceedings could substantially increase our operating losses and reduce our resources available for development activities. We may not have sufficient financial or other resources to adequately conduct such litigation or proceedings. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of such litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their substantially greater financial resources. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of litigation or other intellectual property related proceedings could harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Obtaining and maintaining our patent protection depends on compliance with various procedural, document submission, fee payment and other requirements imposed by government patent agencies, and our patent protection could be reduced or eliminated for non-compliance with these requirements.

Obtaining and maintaining our patent protection depends on compliance with various procedural measures, document submissions, fee payments and other requirements imposed by government patent agencies, and our patent protection could be reduced or eliminated for non-compliance with these requirements.

Periodic maintenance fees, renewal fees, annuity fees and various other government fees on patents and patent applications will be due to be paid to the USPTO and various government patent agencies outside of the United States over the lifetime of our patents and applications. The USPTO and various non-U.S. government agencies require compliance with several procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions during the patent application process. In some cases, an intentional lapse can be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules. There are situations, however, in which non-compliance can result in the abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting in a partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. In such an event, potential competitors might be able to enter the market with similar or identical products or technology, which could harm our business, financial condition and results of operations. Certain legal or contractual requirements, and/or rights of others involved in our development or products, may permit the U.S. government to disclose our confidential information to third parties. To the extent any of our current or future intellectual property is generated through the use of U.S. government funding, the provisions of the Bayh-Dole Act may similarly apply. For example, the National Institute of Health and the Regents of the University of California have limited rights to use certain of our patents and patent applications for research. Any exercise by the government of any of the foregoing rights could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

If we fail to comply with our obligations in any current or future agreements under which we license intellectual property rights from third parties or otherwise experience disruptions to our business relationships with our licensors, we could lose license rights that are important to our business.

We are, and may become, party to license or collaboration agreements with third parties to advance our research or allow commercialization of our products. Such agreements may impose numerous obligations, such as development, diligence, payment, commercialization, funding, milestone, royalty, sublicensing, insurance, patent prosecution, enforcement and other obligations on us and may require us to meet development timelines, or to exercise certain efforts to develop and commercialize licensed products, in order to maintain the licenses. In spite of our best efforts, our licensors might conclude that we have materially breached such license agreements and might therefore terminate the license agreements, thereby removing or limiting our ability to develop and commercialize products and technologies covered by these license agreements.

We have an existing license with the Regents of the University of California which covers multiple patents and patent applications for inventions that are incorporated into our products. Any termination of this or other licenses could result in the loss of significant rights and could harm our ability to commercialize our products and competitors or other third parties may have the freedom to seek regulatory approval of, and to market, products identical to ours, at least to the extent of products and services that incorporate the features captured by those previously licensed patent rights and assuming our licensor permits such competitive activities, either passively or via further out licensing, under their remaining patent rights. If we lose our licensed patent rights, we may also be required to cease our development and commercialization of certain of our products. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial conditions, results of operations, and prospects.

Disputes may also arise between us and our licensors regarding intellectual property subject to a license agreement, including:

In addition, the agreements under which we may license intellectual property or technology from third parties are likely to be 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 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 sales, business, financial condition or results of operations. Moreover, if disputes over intellectual property that we may license prevent or impair our ability to maintain future license agreements on acceptable terms, we may be unable to successfully develop and commercialize the affected products, which could have a material adverse effect on our sales, business, financial conditions or results of operations.

Our existing license with the Regents of the University of California, in particular, includes both exclusive rights, as applied to certain aspects of their patent rights under the license, and partial-exclusive and co-exclusive rights as applied to certain other aspects of the Licensor’s patent rights, under which we have rights for diagnostic-related patent claims. The balance of remaining rights for therapy-related claims are exclusively licensed to another third-party company. There are risks that the interpretation of which patent rights apply to us under our license, versus which patent rights apply to the other third-party company under their license, could be the subject of disagreement or dispute, the existence of which, and potential adverse result from which, could diminish the scope of rights we actually have. This could also be the subject of disagreement or dispute with respect to patent prosecution matters along the examination path of applications toward seeking issued patents. Any of the above could diminish, or prevent, our ability to commercialize all aspects of our products as intended, and which could result in harm to our sales, business, financial condition, or result of operations.

Our existing license also includes exclusive rights to certain patents which are co-owned by us and the Board of Regents of the University of California, in relation to inventions that have been determined to be jointly invented by separate but joint inventors that are under different obligation of assignment to us and them. If we fail to maintain and/or lose those license rights to one or more of these co-owned patents and patent applications, others would have the ability to commercialize, or license the ability to commercialize, products or services covered by those patents competitively against us. This would result in us losing exclusive proprietary advantage with respect to technologies and methods relating to those patents, which could harm our sales, business, financial condition, and results of operations.

If we are unable to obtain patent term extension under the Hatch-Waxman Amendments, our business may be materially harmed.

Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of FDA marketing approval of our products, one or more of the U.S. patents assigned or licensed to us may be eligible for limited patent term restoration under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, referred to as the Hatch-Waxman Amendments. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit a patent restoration term of up to five years for a patent covering an approved product as compensation for effective patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review process. However, even if, at the relevant time, we have an issued patent covering our product, we may not be granted an extension if we were, for example, to fail to exercise due diligence during the testing phase or regulatory review process, to fail to apply within applicable deadlines or prior to expiration of relevant patents or otherwise to fail to satisfy applicable requirements. Moreover, the time period of the extension or the scope of patent protection afforded could be less than we request. Only one patent per approved product can be extended, the extension cannot extend the total patent term beyond 14 years from approval and only those claims covering the approved product, a method for using it or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. If we are unable to obtain patent term extension or restoration or the term of any such extension is less than we request, the period during which we can enforce our patent rights for the applicable product will be shortened and our competitors may obtain approval of competing products following our patent expiration. As a result, our ability to generate revenues could be adversely affected. Further, if this occurs, our competitors may take advantage of our investment in development and studies by referencing our clinical and preclinical data and launch their product earlier than might otherwise be the case. If we do not have adequate patent protection or other exclusivity for our products, our business, financial condition or results of operations could be adversely affected.

We have limited foreign intellectual property rights and may not be able to protect our intellectual property and proprietary rights throughout the world, which could harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We have limited intellectual property rights outside the United States. Filing, prosecuting and defending patents on our products in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and the laws of foreign countries may not protect our rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in all countries outside the United States, or from selling or importing products made using our inventions in and into the United States or other jurisdictions. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to develop their own products and, further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we have patent protection but enforcement is not as strong as in the United States. While we do not currently operate or sell our products outside of the United States, these products may compete with our products, and our patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing. Patent protection must ultimately be sought on a country-by-country basis, which is an expensive and time-consuming process with uncertain outcomes. Accordingly, we may choose not to seek patent protection in certain countries, and we will not have the benefit of patent protection in such countries, which may impede on our ability to grow outside of the United States.

Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents, trade secrets and other intellectual property protection, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents or marketing of competing products in violation of our intellectual property and proprietary rights generally. Proceedings to enforce our intellectual property and proprietary rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly, could put our patent applications at risk of not issuing and could provoke third parties to assert claims against us. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate, and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our intellectual property and proprietary rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop or license.

Many countries have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner may be compelled to grant licenses to third parties. In addition, many countries limit the enforceability of patents against government agencies or government contractors. In these countries, the patent owner may have limited remedies, which could materially diminish the value of such patent. If we are forced to grant a license to third parties with respect to any patents relevant to our business, our competitive position may be impaired, and our business, financial condition and results of operations may be harmed.

Changes in U.S. patent laws, or patent laws in other countries and jurisdictions, could diminish the value of patents in general, thereby impairing our ability to protect our products.

Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of the patent laws in the United States, or elsewhere, could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of patent applications and the enforcement or defense of issued patents. Assuming that other requirements for patentability are met, prior to March 2013, in the United States, the first to invent the claimed invention was entitled to the patent, while outside the United States, generally the first to file a patent application was entitled to the patent. After March 2013, under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or the America Invents Act, enacted in September 2011, the United States transitioned to a first inventor to file system in which, assuming that other requirements for patentability are met, the first inventor to file a patent application will be entitled to the patent on an invention regardless of whether a third party, who may have filed a patent application later, was the first to actually invent the claimed invention. A third party that files a patent application in the USPTO after March 2013, but before we filed a patent application for the same invention (as defined by claims), could therefore be awarded a patent covering an invention of ours even if we had made the invention before it was made by such third party. This will require us to be cognizant of the time from invention to filing of a patent application. Since patent applications in the United States and most other countries are confidential for a period of time after filing or until issuance, we could continue incurring costs without being certain that we were the first to file any patent application related to our products or the first to invent any of the inventions claimed in our patents or patent applications.

The America Invents Act also includes a number of significant changes that affect the way patent applications are prosecuted and also may affect patent litigation. These include allowing third-party submission of prior art to the USPTO during patent prosecution and additional procedures to attack the validity of a patent by USPTO administered post-grant proceedings, including post-grant review, inter partes review and derivation proceedings. Because of a lower evidentiary standard in USPTO proceedings compared to the evidentiary standard in U.S. federal courts necessary to invalidate a patent claim, a third party could potentially provide evidence in a USPTO proceeding sufficient for the USPTO to hold a claim invalid even though the same evidence would be insufficient to invalidate the claim if first presented in a district court action. Accordingly, a third party may attempt to use the USPTO procedures to invalidate our patent claims that would not have been invalidated if first challenged by the third party as a defendant in a district court action. Additionally, USPTO proceedings provide a venue for challenging the validity of patents at a cost must lower than district court litigation and on much faster timelines. This lower-cost, faster and potentially more potent tribunal for challenging patents could itself increase the likelihood that our own patents will be challenged. Therefore, 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. In addition, future actions by the U.S. Congress, the federal courts and the USPTO could cause the laws and regulations governing patents to change in unpredictable ways. Any of the foregoing could harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.

In addition, recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings have narrowed the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances and weakened the rights of patent owners in certain situations. In addition to increasing uncertainty with regard to our ability to obtain patents in the future, this combination of events has created uncertainty with respect to the validity and enforceability of patents, once obtained. For example, after the filing of our earlier filed patent applications, from which we have received granted patents and also continue to prosecute additional patent applications under priority filing claims, certain laws and interpretation of those laws changed. This includes, in particular, new changes that diminish or make it more difficult to obtain, enforce, or defend as valid, claims related to medical diagnostics, any methods, and in particular any methods involving the human body or medical procedures. Our patent portfolio is principally related to medical diagnostic methods, which in many cases merge these multiple areas of patent laws that have since been changed. Some of our patents were issued prior to certain such changes in the laws occurring, which could potentially result in certain risks that the patents which were initially valid when granted, under the laws at that time, had become invalid due to the later changes in the laws. Moreover, some of our patents were granted after these changes in the laws, but these may still be subject to risk of challenge due to uncertainty in interpreting and applying these newer changes in the laws related to medical diagnostic methods to our issued patent claims. Depending on future actions by the U.S. Congress, the federal courts, and the USPTO, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that could weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce our existing patents and patents that we might obtain in the future. We cannot predict how this and future decisions laws or regulations by the courts, the U.S. Congress or the USPTO may impact the value of our patents. Any similar adverse changes in the patent laws of other jurisdictions could also harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We may be subject to claims, including third-party claims of intellectual property infringement, misappropriation or other violations against us or our collaborators, challenging the ownership or inventorship of our intellectual property and, if unsuccessful in any of these proceedings, we may be required to obtain licenses from third parties, which may not be available on commercially reasonable terms, or at all, or to cease the development, manufacture and commercialization of one or more of our products.

The medical device industry is highly competitive and dynamic. Due to the focused research and development that is taking place by several companies, including us and our competitors in this field, the intellectual property landscape is in flux and it may remain uncertain in the future. As such, we may be subject to claims that current or former employees, collaborators or other third parties have an interest, either as an owner, co-owner, or otherwise, in our patents, trade secrets or other intellectual property as an inventor or co-inventor. Additionally, we could become subject to significant intellectual property-related litigation and proceedings relating to our or third-party intellectual property and proprietary rights. For example, we may have inventorship disputes arise from conflicting obligations of employees, consultants or others who are involved in developing our products, or could face third-party claims of intellectual property infringement, misappropriation or other violations, including by a licensor from whom we’ve licensed certain intellectual property. These risks apply to our existing license from the Regents of the University of California, both in relation to patent rights we co-own with them as a result of joint invention between our and their respective inventors, and in relation to co-existent license rights that we share with another third-party company in some of those patent rights, as further summarized above.

Litigation may be necessary to defend against these and other claims challenging inventorship of our patents, trade secrets or other intellectual property. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights, such as exclusive ownership of, or right to use, intellectual property that is important to our products. If we were to lose exclusive ownership of such intellectual property, other owners may be able to license their rights to other third parties, including our competitors. We also may be required to obtain and maintain licenses from third parties, including parties involved in any such disputes. 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 one or more of our products. The loss of exclusivity or the narrowing of our patent claims could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical technology and products. 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. Any of the foregoing could harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Additionally, our commercial success depends, in part, on our and any potential future collaborators’ ability to develop, manufacture, market and sell any products that we may develop and use our proprietary technologies without infringing, misappropriating or otherwise violating the patents and other intellectual property or proprietary rights of third parties. It is uncertain whether the issuance of any third-party patent would require us or any potential collaborators to alter our development or commercial strategies, obtain licenses or cease certain activities. The medical device industry is characterized by extensive litigation regarding patents and other intellectual property rights, as well as administrative proceedings for challenging patents, including interference, inter partes or post-grant review, derivation and reexamination proceedings before the USPTO or oppositions and other comparable proceedings in foreign jurisdictions.

Third parties, including our competitors, may currently have patents or obtain patents in the future and claim that the manufacture, use or sale of our products infringes upon these patents. We have not conducted an extensive search of patents issued or assigned to other parties, including our competitors, and no assurance can be given that patents containing claims relating to our products, parts of our products, technology or methods do not exist, have not been filed or could not be filed or issued. In addition, because patent applications can take many years to issue and because publication schedules for pending patent applications vary by jurisdiction, there may be applications now pending of which we are unaware and which may result in issued patents which our current or future products infringe. Also, because the claims of published patent applications can change between publication and patent grant, there may be published patent applications that may ultimately issue with claims that we infringe. Unintentionally abandoned patents or applications can also be revived, so there may be recently revived patents or applications of which we are unaware. As the number of competitors in our market grows and the number of patents issued in this area increases, the possibility of patent infringement claims against us escalates. Moreover, we may face claims from non-practicing entities, or NPEs, which have no relevant product revenue and against whom our own patent portfolio may have no deterrent effect. Third parties may in the future claim that our products infringe or violate their patents or other intellectual property rights.

Defense of infringement claims, regardless of their merit or outcome, would involve substantial litigation expense and would be a substantial diversion of management and other employee resources from our business, and may impact our reputation. In the event of a successful claim of infringement against us, we may be enjoined from further developing or commercializing the infringing products and/or have to pay substantial damages for use of the asserted intellectual property, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees were we found to willfully infringe such intellectual property. Claims that we have misappropriated the confidential information or trade secrets of third parties could harm our business, financial condition and results of operations. We also might have to redesign any our allegedly infringing products or technologies, which may be impossible or require substantial time and monetary expenditure.

Engaging in litigation, including defending against third-party infringement claims is very expensive, particularly for a company of our size, and time-consuming. 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 negative impact on our common stock price. Such litigation or proceedings could substantially increase our operating losses and reduce the resources available for development activities or any future sales, marketing or distribution activities. We may not have sufficient financial or other resources to conduct such litigation or proceedings adequately. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of litigation or administrative proceedings more effectively than we can because of greater financial resources and more mature and developed intellectual property portfolios. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings against us could impair our ability to compete in the marketplace. The occurrence of any of the foregoing could harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We may become involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our patents and other intellectual property rights, which could be expensive, time-consuming and unsuccessful.

Competitors may infringe our patents, or the patents of any current or future licensing partners, or we may be required to defend against claims of infringement. Our ability to enforce our patent rights against competitors who infringe our patents depends on our ability to detect such infringement. It may be difficult to detect infringers who do not advertise the components or processes that are used in their products or services. Moreover, it may be difficult or impossible to obtain evidence of infringement in a competitor’s or potential competitor’s product. For example, many of our patents relate to methods and related computer processing architectures and structures for post-processing data. The use of these methods and structures may not be obvious or certain to assess, and may not be possible or at least may be challenging to reveal or confirm by reverse engineering, based on limited evidence that might be available to us, such as for example from only being able to observe the results of using those methods or architectures. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate, and the damages or other remedies awarded if we were to prevail may not be commercially meaningful.

In addition, our patents or the patents of our licensing partners also may become involved in inventorship, priority or validity disputes. For example, although we try to ensure that our employees, consultants and advisors are not in breach of any past contractual obligations and do not use the proprietary information or know-how of others in the work that they do for us, we may in the future become subject to claims that we or these individuals have, inadvertently or otherwise, used or disclosed intellectual property, including trade secrets or other proprietary information, of their former university or employer. Additionally, we may be subject to claims from third parties challenging intellectual property rights we regard as our own, based on claims that our agreements with employees or consultants obligating them to assign intellectual property to us are ineffective or in conflict with prior or competing contractual obligations to assign inventions to a previous employer, or to another person or entity. Furthermore, while it is our policy to require all employees and contractors to execute agreements assigning relevant intellectual property to us, we may also be unsuccessful in executing such an agreement with each party who, in fact, conceives or develops intellectual property that we regard as our own. These assignment agreements may not be self-executing or adequate in scope, and may be breached or challenged, and we may be forced to bring claims against third parties, or defend claims that they may bring against us, to determine the ownership of what we regard as our intellectual property. We may not have adequate remedies for any such breaches, and such claims could harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.

To counter or defend against such claims can be expensive and time-consuming, and it may be necessary, or we may desire to, enter into a license to settle any such claims; however, there can be no assurance that we would be able to obtain a license on commercially reasonable terms, if at all. In an infringement proceeding, a court may decide that our patent is invalid or unenforceable or may refuse to stop the other party from using the technology at issue on the grounds that our patents do not cover such technology. An adverse result in any litigation proceeding could put one or more of our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly. 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 litigation.

Even if resolved in our favor, litigation or other legal proceedings relating to intellectual property claims may cause us to incur significant expenses and could distract our management and other personnel from their normal responsibilities. In addition, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments, and if securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a substantial negative impact on our common stock price. Such litigation or proceedings could substantially increase our operating losses and reduce the resources available for development activities or any future sales, marketing or distribution activities. We may not have sufficient financial or other resources to conduct such litigation or proceedings adequately. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of such litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their greater financial resources and more mature and developed intellectual property portfolios. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings could harm our ability to compete in the marketplace, including the ability to hire new employees or contract with independent sales representatives. Additionally, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel. Any of the foregoing could harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.

If our trademarks and trade names are not adequately protected, then we may not be able to build name recognition in our markets of interest and our business may be harmed.

Our registered and unregistered trademarks or trade names may be challenged, infringed, circumvented, declared generic or determined to be violating or infringing on marks held by others. We may not be able to protect our rights to these trademarks and trade names, which we need to build or sustain name recognition among potential partners, customers and patients in our markets of interest. At times, competitors or other third parties may adopt trade names or trademarks similar to ours, thereby impeding our ability to continue to build brand identity and possibly leading to market confusion. In fact, a practice exists with international scope, and which may become manifest in a given case in any or only certain territories, in which certain third parties will deliberately secure or allege they own trademarks or tradenames that are specifically being first used by another party in order to extort license fees or damages in those territories in which the original user of the mark had not filed or perfected its rights to the mark. In addition, there could be potential trade name or trademark infringement, or dilution claims brought by owners of other trademarks. Over the long term, if we are unable to establish name recognition based on our trademarks, trade names, domain names or other intellectual property, then we may not be able to compete effectively, and our business may be adversely affected. Our efforts to enforce or protect our proprietary rights related to trademarks, trade secrets, domain names or other intellectual property may be ineffective, could result in substantial costs, diversion of resources, or adverse impact to our brand and could harm our sales, business, financial condition, and results of operations.

Intellectual property rights do not necessarily address all potential threats, and limitations in intellectual property rights could harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The degree of future protection afforded by our intellectual property rights is uncertain because intellectual property rights have limitations, may evolve, and may not adequately protect our business or permit us to maintain our competitive advantage. For example:

Any of the foregoing could harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.

If we are unable to protect the confidentiality of our other proprietary information, our business and competitive position may be harmed.

In addition to patent protection, we also rely on other proprietary rights, including protection of trade secrets, know-how and other confidential or proprietary information that is not patentable or that we elect not to patent. However, such information can be difficult to protect, and some courts, for instance, are less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets. To maintain the confidentiality of our trade secrets and proprietary information, we rely heavily on confidentiality provisions that we have in contracts with our employees, consultants, collaborators, suppliers, customers, and others upon the commencement of their relationship with us. We cannot guarantee that we have entered into such agreements with each party that may have or have had access to our trade secrets or proprietary technology and processes. Furthermore, we may not be able to prevent the unauthorized disclosure or use of our technical knowledge or other trade secrets by such third parties, despite the existence generally of these confidentiality restrictions. These contracts may not provide meaningful protection or equitable remedies for our trade secrets, know-how, or other proprietary information in the event of any unauthorized use, misappropriation, or disclosure of such trade secrets, know-how, or other proprietary information. There can be no assurance that such third parties will not breach their agreements with us, that we will have adequate remedies for any breach, or that our trade secrets will not otherwise become known or independently developed by competitors. Despite the protections we do place on our intellectual property or other proprietary rights, monitoring unauthorized use and disclosure of our intellectual property is difficult, and we do not know whether the steps we have taken to protect our intellectual property or other proprietary rights have or will be adequate. Trade secret violations are often a matter of state law, and the criteria for protection of trade secrets can vary among different jurisdictions. In addition, the laws of many foreign countries will not protect our intellectual property or other proprietary rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States. Consequently, we may be unable to prevent our proprietary technology from being exploited abroad, which could affect our ability to expand to foreign markets or require costly efforts to protect our products.

We also license rights to use certain proprietary information and technology from third parties. The use of such proprietary information and technology is therefore subject to the obligations of the applicable license agreement between us and the owner. For example, the software we developed for our technology includes the use of open source software that is subject to the terms and conditions of the applicable open source software licenses that grant us permission to use such software. The owner of any such proprietary information or technology also might not enforce or otherwise protect its rights in the proprietary information or technology with the same vigilance that we would, which would allow competitors to use such proprietary information and technology without having to adhere to a license agreement with the owner.

To the extent our intellectual property or other proprietary information protection is incomplete, we are exposed to a greater risk of direct competition. A third party could, without authorization, copy or otherwise obtain and use our products or technology, or develop similar products or technology. Our competitors could purchase our products and attempt to reverse engineer or replicate some or all of the competitive advantages we derive from our development efforts or design around our protected products or technology. Our failure to secure, protect and enforce our intellectual property rights could substantially harm the value of our products, brand and business. The theft or unauthorized use or publication of our trade secrets and other confidential business information could reduce the differentiation of our products, substantially and adversely impact our sales and commercial operations and harm our business. Additionally, the value of our investment in development or business acquisitions could be reduced and third parties might make claims against us related to losses of their confidential or proprietary information. Any of the foregoing could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Further, it is possible that others will independently develop the same or similar technology or product or otherwise obtain access to our unpatented technology, and in such cases, we could not assert any trade secret rights against such parties. Costly and time-consuming litigation could be necessary to enforce and determine the scope of our trade secret rights and related confidentiality and nondisclosure provisions. If we fail to obtain or maintain trade secret protection, or if our competitors otherwise obtain our trade secrets or independently develop technology or products similar to and potentially competing with our products, our competitive market position could be materially and adversely affected. In addition, some courts are less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets and agreement terms that address non-competition are difficult to enforce in many jurisdictions and might not be enforceable in certain cases.

We also seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our data and other confidential information by maintaining physical security of our premises and physical and electronic security of our information technology systems. While we have confidence in these individuals, organizations, systems and tools, agreements or security measures may be breached, whereby detecting the disclosure or misappropriation of confidential information and enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated confidential information is difficult, expensive and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. Further, we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for any breach.

Our inability to use software licensed from third parties, or our use of open-source software under license terms that interfere with our proprietary rights, could disrupt our business.

Our products, including our technology and methods used, include the use of open-source software that is subject to the terms and conditions of the applicable open-source software licenses that grant us permission to use such software. Although we monitor our use of open-source software, the terms of many open source licenses to which we are subject have not been interpreted by U.S. or foreign courts, and there is a risk that such licenses could be construed in a manner that imposes unanticipated conditions or restrictions on our ability to provide our technology to our customers. Moreover, we cannot ensure that we have not incorporated additional open-source software in our products in a manner that is inconsistent with the terms of the applicable license or our current policies and procedures. In the future, we could be required to seek licenses from third parties in order to continue offering our solutions, which licenses may not be available on terms that are acceptable to us, or at all. Claims related to our use of open-source software could also result in litigation, require us to purchase costly licenses or require us to devote additional research and development resources to change the software underlying our technology, any of which would have a negative effect on our business, financial condition and operating results and may not be possible in a timely manner. We and our customers may also be subject to suits by parties claiming infringement due to the reliance by our products on certain open source software, and such litigation could be costly for us to defend or subject us to injunctions enjoining us from the sale of our products that contain open source software.

Alternatively, we may need to re-engineer our products or discontinue using portions of the functionality provided by our products. In addition, the terms of open source software licenses may require us to provide software that we develop using such software to others on unfavorable terms, such as by precluding us from charging license fees, requiring us to disclose our source code, requiring us to license certain of our own source code under the terms of the applicable open source license or requiring us to provide notice on our products using such code. Any such restriction on the use of our own software, or our inability to use open source or third-party software, could result in disruptions to our business or operations, or delays in our development of future products or enhancements of our existing products, such as our RNS System, which could impair our business.

Other risks facing our company

If product liability lawsuits are brought against us, we may incur substantial liabilities and may be required to limit or halt the marketing and sale of our technology. The expense and potential unavailability of insurance coverage for liabilities resulting from our technology could harm our business and our ability to sell our technology.

We face an inherent risk of product liability as a result of the marketing and sale of our technology. Although we have established internal procedures designed to minimize risks that may arise from quality issues, there can be no assurance that we will eliminate or mitigate occurrences of these issues and associated liabilities. Our products and services are diagnostic in nature and involve an exam that is non-invasive using other third-party MR scanner products and technologies. Those exams are also conducted by other third party MR service providers. The results of using our products are also intended to provide information to doctors that help them perform a diagnosis for their patient, using all other diagnostic information that is available to them. The downstream results from those diagnoses may also lead to certain treatments being performed, which are decided upon between that treating doctor and the patient (and related payers), and which are conducted by that treating doctor on the patient. We are not responsible for the performance of those MR scanners, nor for the performance of the MR service providers for conducting those patient exams using the MR scanners, nor for the final diagnosis performed by a doctor as assisted via the results of our products in combination with other available information, nor for the decisions and performance on conducting treatments or other on-going patient care, or the patient outcomes from that care, following the use of our diagnostic assistance product. However, there are risks that certain liability exposures or claims could be threatened or actually filed against us with respect to the performance or results of these other activities around and relating to, but not directly caused by, the use of our products, including with respect to the use of our products in the overall patient care regimen that might result in adverse patient outcomes. Even if we successfully defend any such allegation or claim, this could involve significant risk of liability exposure and significant cost and diversion of resources and focus.

If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against product liability claims, we may incur substantial liabilities or be required to limit or halt commercialization of our products. Regardless of the merits or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in:

We believe we have adequate product liability insurance, but it may not prove to be adequate to cover all liabilities that we may incur. Insurance coverage is increasingly expensive. We currently carry product liability insurance in the amount of $5 million in the aggregate. In the future, we may not be able to maintain or obtain insurance at a reasonable cost or in an amount adequate to satisfy any liability that may arise. Our insurance policy contains various exclusions, and we may be subject to a product liability claim for which we have no coverage. The potential inability to obtain sufficient product liability insurance at an acceptable cost to protect against product liability claims could prevent or inhibit the marketing and sale of products we may develop. We may have to pay any amounts awarded by a court or negotiated in a settlement that exceed our coverage limitations or that are not covered by our insurance, and we may not have, or be able to obtain, sufficient capital to pay such amounts, which would harm our business, financial condition and results of operations. In addition, any product liability claims brought against us, with or without merit, could increase our product liability insurance rates or prevent us from securing continuing coverage, harm our patient-focused brand, negatively impact our reputation in the industry, significantly increase our expenses and reduce product sales.

Some of our customers may also have difficulty in procuring or maintaining liability insurance to cover their operations, including their use of our products. Medical malpractice carriers are withdrawing coverage in certain states or substantially increasing premiums. If this trend continues or worsens, our customers may discontinue using our products and potential additional customers may opt against purchasing our products due to the cost or inability to procure insurance coverage.

The failure of third parties to meet their contractual, regulatory and other obligations could adversely affect our business.

We rely on licensors, suppliers, vendors, partners, consultants, and other third parties to research, develop, and partake in both the commercialization of our technology, as well as manage certain parts of our business. Using these third parties poses a number of risks, such as:

If and as any of one or more of these identified parties might be replaced in the future by another party with whom we might engage or rely upon for similar technological or business purposes, or to the extent we may expand our business to involve and rely on still more additional parties for similar purposes as those listed (e.g. additional MR scanner vendors), similar risks would apply to those other parties.

Moreover, some third parties may be located in markets subject to political and social risk, corruption, infrastructure problems and natural disasters, in addition to country-specific privacy and data security risk given current legal and regulatory environments. Failure of third parties to meet their contractual, regulatory and other obligations may materially affect our business.

Litigation and other legal proceedings may harm our business.

From time to time in the future we may become involved in legal proceedings relating to patent and other intellectual property matters, product liability claims, employee matters, tort or contract claims, federal regulatory investigations, private rights of action, securities class action and other legal proceedings or investigations, which could have a negative impact on our reputation, business and financial condition and divert the attention of our management from the operation of our business.

Litigation is inherently unpredictable and can result in excessive or unanticipated verdicts, judgements, and/or injunctive relief that affect how we operate our business. We could incur judgments or enter into settlements of claims for monetary damages or for agreements to change the way we operate our business, or both. There may be an increase in the scope of these or other matters or there may be additional lawsuits, claims, proceedings, or investigations in the future, which could harm our business, financial condition and results of operations. Adverse publicity about regulatory or legal action against us, irrespective of outcome, could damage our reputation and brand image, undermine our customers’ confidence, and reduce long-term demand for our products, even if the regulatory or legal action is unfounded or not material to our operations.

Our operating results may fluctuate across periods, which makes our future operating results difficult to predict and could cause our operating results to fall below expectations or any guidance we may provide.

Our quarterly and annual operating results may fluctuate across periods, which makes it difficult for us to predict our future operating results. Accordingly, the results of any one quarter or period should not be relied upon as an indication of future performance. Our quarterly and annual operating results may fluctuate due to a variety of factors, many of which are outside of our control, including, but not limited to:

The cumulative effects of these factors could result in fluctuations and unpredictability in our quarterly and annual operating results. As a result, comparing our operating results on a period-to-period basis may not be meaningful. Further, our historical results are not necessarily indicative of results expected for any future period, and quarterly results are not necessarily indicative of the results to be expected for the full year or any other period. Investors should not rely on our past results as an indication of our future performance.

This variability and unpredictability could also result in our failing to meet the expectations of industry or financial analysts or investors for any period. If our revenue or operating results fall below the expectations of analysts or investors or below any forecasts we may provide to the market, it could harm our business, financial condition, and results or operations.

We will incur increased costs as a result of operating as a public company, and our management and board of directors will be required to devote substantial time to compliance with our public company responsibilities and corporate governance practices.

As a public company, we will incur significant legal, accounting, and other expenses that we did not incur as a private company. We expect such expenses to further increase after we are no longer an emerging growth company. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the listing requirements of the Nasdaq Capital Market, and other applicable securities rules and regulations impose various requirements on public companies. Furthermore, most senior members of our management team as well as our board of directors do not have significant experience with operating a public company. As a result, our management, board of directors, and other personnel will have to devote a substantial amount of time to compliance with these requirements. Moreover, these rules and regulations will increase our legal and financial compliance costs and will make some activities more time-consuming and costly. We cannot predict or estimate the amount of additional costs we will incur as a public company or the timing of such costs.

Risks related to the ownership of our common stock and IPO Warrants

Our stock price may be volatile, and the value of our common stock and IPO Warrants may decline.

The market price of our common stock and IPO Warrants may be highly volatile and may fluctuate or decline substantially as a result of a variety of factors, some of which are beyond our control or are related in complex ways, including:

Broad market and industry fluctuations, as well as general economic, political, regulatory, and market conditions, may negatively impact the market price of our common stock. In addition, given the relatively small expected public float of shares of our common stock on the Nasdaq Capital Market, the trading market for our shares may be subject to increased volatility. In the past, securities class action litigation has often been brought against a company following a decline in the market price of its securities. This risk is especially relevant for us, because medical device companies have experienced significant stock price volatility in recent years. If we face such litigation, it could result in substantial costs and a diversion of management’s attention and resources, which could harm our reputation and our business.

A significant portion of our total outstanding shares may be sold into the market, which could cause the market price of our common stock to drop significantly, even if our business is performing well.

Sales of a substantial number of shares of our common stock in the public market could occur at any time. These sales, or the perception in the market that holders of a large number of shares intend to sell shares, could reduce the market price of our common stock.

You may experience additional dilution if any of our outstanding common stock warrants are exercised.

If the holders of any of our outstanding common stock warrants exercise their warrants, you will experience dilution at the time they exercise their warrants.

The issuance of common stock to White Lion pursuant to the Equity Line Purchase Agreement may cause substantial dilution to our existing shareholders, and the sale of such shares acquired by White Lion could cause the price of our common stock to decline.

Under our Equity Line Purchase Agreement with White Lion, the Company has the right, but not the obligation to require White Lion to purchase, from time to time, up to of $10,000,000 in aggregate gross purchase price of newly issued shares of the Company’s common stock. Through March 1, 2024, the Company has sold 750,000 shares to White Lion for total proceeds of $2,912,481. After White Lion has acquired shares under the Equity Line Purchase Agreement, it may sell all, some or none of those shares. Sales to White Lion by us pursuant to the Equity Line Purchase Agreement under this prospectus may result in substantial dilution to the interests of other holders of our common stock.

The sale of a substantial number of shares to White Lion, or anticipation of such sales, could make it more difficult for us to sell equity or equity-related securities in the future at a time and at a price that we might otherwise desire. The number of shares of our common stock ultimately offered for resale by White Lion is dependent upon the number of shares of common stock issued to the White Lion pursuant to the Equity Line Purchase Agreement. Depending on a variety of factors, including market liquidity of our common stock, the issuance of shares to the Selling Securityholder may cause the trading price of our common stock to decline.

The price of our common stock and IPO Warrants may be volatile and fluctuate substantially, which could result in substantial losses for investors in our common stock.

Our common stock price is likely to be volatile. The stock market in general and the market for bio-technology companies in particular, has experienced extreme volatility that has often been unrelated to the operating performance of particular companies. As a result of this volatility, you may not be able to sell your common stock at or above your investment price. The market price for our common stock may be influenced by many factors, including:

If our quarterly operating results fall below the expectations of investors or securities analysts, the price of our common stock could decline substantially. Furthermore, any quarterly fluctuations in our operating results may, in turn, cause the price of our stock to fluctuate substantially. We believe that quarterly comparisons of our financial results are not necessarily meaningful and should not be relied upon as an indication of our future performance.

In the past, following periods of volatility in the market price of a company’s securities, securities class-action litigation often has been instituted against that company. Such litigation, if instituted against us, could cause us to incur substantial costs to defend such claims and divert management’s attention and resources.

Because we do not expect to pay dividends in the foreseeable future, investors seeking cash dividends should not purchase shares of our common stock.

We have never declared or paid any cash dividends on our common stock. We currently intend to retain future earnings, if any, to finance the expansion of our business. As a result, we do not anticipate paying any cash dividends in the foreseeable future. Our payment of any future dividends will be at the discretion of our Board of Directors after taking into account various factors, including but not limited to our financial condition, operating results, cash needs, growth plans and the terms of any credit agreements that we may be a party to at the time. Accordingly, investors seeking cash dividends should not purchase our shares.

If securities analysts do not publish research or reports about our business or if they publish negative evaluations of our stock, the price of our stock could decline.

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

We are an emerging growth company and a smaller reporting company, and our compliance with the reduced reporting and disclosure requirements applicable to emerging growth companies and smaller reporting companies could make our common stock and IPO Warrants less attractive to investors.

We are an emerging growth company, as defined in the JOBS Act, and we expect to take advantage of certain exemptions from various reporting requirements that are applicable to other public companies that are not emerging growth companies, including the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404, reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation in our periodic reports and proxy statements, exemptions from the requirements of holding a nonbinding advisory vote on executive compensation and stockholder approval of any golden parachute payments not previously approved and extended adoption period for accounting pronouncements.

Even after we no longer qualify as an emerging growth company, we may still qualify as a “smaller reporting company,” which would allow us to continue to take advantage of many of the same exemptions from disclosure requirements, including not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation in this prospectus and our periodic reports and proxy statements.

We cannot predict whether investors will find our common stock less attractive as a result of our reliance on these exemptions. If some investors find our common stock less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for our common stock and our stock price may be more volatile.

We will remain an emerging growth company until the earliest of (i) the end of the fiscal year following the fifth anniversary of the completion of our IPO, (ii) the first fiscal year after our annual gross revenues exceed $1.235 billion, (iii) the date on which we have, during the immediately preceding three-year period, issued more than $1.00 billion in non-convertible debt securities, or (iv) the end of any fiscal year in which the market value of our common stock held by non-affiliates exceeds $700 million as of the end of the second quarter of that fiscal year.

Provisions in our corporate charter and our bylaws and under Delaware law could make an acquisition of us, which may be beneficial to our stockholders, more difficult and may prevent attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove our current management.

The anti-takeover provisions of the Delaware General Corporation Law (the “DGCL”) may discourage, delay or prevent a change in control by prohibiting us from engaging in a business combination with an interested stockholder for a period of three years after the person becomes an interested stockholder, even if a change in control would be beneficial to our existing stockholders.

Provisions in our corporate charter and our bylaws discourage, delay or prevent a merger, acquisition or other change in control of us that stockholders may consider favorable, including transactions in which you might otherwise receive a premium for your shares. These provisions also could limit the price that investors might be willing to pay in the future for shares of our common stock, thereby depressing the market price of our common stock. In addition, because our board of directors is responsible for appointing the members of our management team, these provisions may frustrate or prevent any attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove our current management by making it more difficult for stockholders to replace members of our board of directors. Among other things, these provisions:

Moreover, because we are incorporated in Delaware, we are governed by the provisions of Section 203 of the DGCL, which prohibits a person who owns in excess of 15% of our outstanding voting stock from merging or combining with us for a period of three years after the date of the transaction in which the person acquired in excess of 15% of our outstanding voting stock, unless the merger or combination is approved in a prescribed manner.

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation provides that the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware or, under certain circumstances, the federal district courts of the United States of America will be the exclusive forums for certain types of actions and proceedings that may be initiated by our stockholders, which could limit our stockholders’ ability to obtain a favorable judicial forum for disputes with us or our directors, officers, employees or agents.

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation provides that the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (or, if the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware lacks subject matter jurisdiction, any state court located within the State of Delaware or, if all such state courts lack subject matter jurisdiction, the federal district court for the District of Delaware) is the sole and exclusive forum for the following types of actions or proceedings under Delaware statutory or common law for:

These provisions would not apply to suits brought to enforce a duty or liability created by the Exchange Act or any claim for which the federal district courts of the United States of America have exclusive jurisdiction. Furthermore, Section 22 of the Securities Act creates concurrent jurisdiction for federal and state courts over all such Securities Act actions. Accordingly, both state and federal courts have jurisdiction to entertain such claims.

Our stockholders cannot waive compliance with the federal securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder. Any person or entity purchasing or otherwise acquiring any interest in shares of our capital stock will be deemed to have notice of, and consented to, the provisions of our amended and restated certificate of incorporation described in the preceding sentences.

To prevent having to litigate claims in multiple jurisdictions and the threat of inconsistent or contrary rulings by different courts, among other considerations, our amended and restated certificate of provides that the federal district courts of the United States will be the exclusive forum for resolving any complaint asserting a cause of action arising under the Securities Act. While the Delaware courts have determined that such choice of forum provisions are facially valid, a stockholder may nevertheless seek to bring a claim in a venue other than those designated in the exclusive forum provisions. In such an instance, we would expect to vigorously assert the validity and enforceability of the exclusive forum provisions of our amended and restated certificate of incorporation. This may require significant additional costs associated with resolving such actions in other jurisdictions and there can be no assurance that the provisions will be enforced by a court in those other jurisdictions.

These exclusive forum provisions may limit a stockholder’s ability to bring a claim in a judicial forum that it finds favorable for disputes with us or our directors, officers, or other employees, which may discourage lawsuits against us and our directors, officers, and other employees. If a court were to find either exclusive-forum provision in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation in effect upon the effectiveness of our IPO to be inapplicable or unenforceable in an action, we may incur further significant additional costs associated with resolving the dispute in other jurisdictions, all of which could harm our business and financial condition.

None.

Risk Management and Strategy

Aclarion is committed to maintaining the highest standards of cybersecurity to protect our systems, data, and operations against potential threats. Our cybersecurity risk management process is comprehensive and integrated into our overall risk management framework, ensuring continuous assessment, identification, and management of cybersecurity threats.

Governance

Cybersecurity Measures and Compliance

Aclarion is dedicated to maintaining robust cybersecurity measures to protect against potential threats. Our proactive approach to cybersecurity risk management, coupled with our compliance with industry standards and regulations, positions us well to manage and mitigate cybersecurity risks effectively. We remain committed to transparency and continuous improvement in our cybersecurity practices to safeguard our stakeholders' interests.

Our prior office lease and sublease expired on June 30, 2022. The Company does not have any contractual obligations not otherwise on our balance sheet as of December 31, 2023.

Rent expense for the year ended December 31, 2023 and 2022 was $0 and $36,070, respectively. The Company entered into a subleasing agreement in 2021 and realized $0 and $26,340 of sublease income for the year ended December 31, 2023, and 2022. Both the lease and sublease are netted within the general & administrative line item in the Statements of Operations.

From time to time, we may be involved in litigation relating to claims arising out of our operations in the normal course of business. We are not currently a party to any material legal proceedings, the adverse outcome of which, in our management’s opinion, individually or in the aggregate, could have a material adverse effect on the results of our operations or financial position. There are no material proceedings in which any of our directors, officers or affiliates or any registered or beneficial stockholder of more than 5% of our common stock is an adverse party or has a material interest adverse to our interest.

None.

PART II

Item 5. Market for Registrants Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

Our common stock has been traded on the Nasdaq Stock Market under the symbol “ACON” since our IPO on April 21, 2022. Our IPO Warrants have been traded on the Nasdaq Stock Market under the symbol “ACONW” since our IPO on April 21, 2022. As of December 31, 2023, there were approximately 137 holders of record of our common stock and 1 holder of record of our IPO Warrants. These numbers are based on the actual number of holders registered at such date and does not include holders whose shares are held in “street name” by brokers and other nominees.

Dividends

We have never paid any cash dividends on our common stock. We currently intend to retain all available funds and any future earnings for use in the operation of our business and do not anticipate paying any cash dividends on our common stock in the foreseeable future. Any future determination to declare dividends will be made at the discretion of our board of directors and will depend on our financial condition, operating results, capital requirements, general business conditions and other factors that our board of directors may deem relevant.

Recent Sales of Unregistered Securities

During the year ended December 31, 2023, all sales of unregistered securities by the Company have been previously reported on a Form 8-K or Form 10-Q.

Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

On February 16, 2023, we entered into a securities purchase agreement with Jeffrey Thramann, our Executive Chairman pursuant to which we issued and sold one (1) share of the Company’s newly designated Series A Preferred Stock for an aggregate purchase price of $1,000.

The share of Series A Preferred Stock had 15,000,000 votes and voted together with the outstanding shares of the Company’s common stock as a single class exclusively with respect to the proposal to amend the Company’s Certificate of Incorporation to effect a reverse stock split of the Company’s common stock. The share of Series A Preferred Stock was voted, without action by the holder, on the reverse stock split proposal in the same proportion as shares of common stock were voted on such proposal (excluding any common shares that are not voted).

The Series A Preferred Stock otherwise had no voting rights, except as otherwise required by the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware. The share of Series A Preferred Stock was not convertible into, or exchangeable for, shares of any other class or series of stock or other securities of the Company. The share of Series A Preferred Stock had no rights with respect to any distribution of assets of the Company, including upon a liquidation, bankruptcy, reorganization, merger, acquisition, sale, dissolution or winding up of the Company, whether voluntarily or involuntarily. The holder of the Share of Series A Preferred Stock was not entitled to receive dividends of any kind. The share of Series A Preferred Stock was to be redeemed in whole, but not in part, at any time (i) if such redemption is ordered by our board in its sole discretion or (ii) automatically upon the effectiveness of the amendment to the Certificate of Incorporation implementing a reverse stock split. Upon such redemption, the holder of the Series A Preferred Stock was to receive consideration of $1,000.00 in cash. We redeemed the one outstanding share of Series A preferred stock on March 28, 2023.

Item 6. [Reserved]

Item 7. Management’s  Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

You should read the following discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations in conjunction with the audited financial statements (prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States (“U.S. GAAP”) and related notes included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K (this “Form 10-K”). The following discussion contains forward-looking statements that are subject to risks and uncertainties. See “Special Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements” for a discussion of the uncertainties, risks, and assumptions associated with those statements. Actual results could differ materially from those discussed in or implied by forward-looking statements as a result of various factors, including those discussed below and elsewhere in this Form 10-K, particularly in the section entitled “Risk Factors.” Unless we state otherwise or the context otherwise requires, the terms “we,” “us,” “our” and the “Company” refer to Aclarion, Inc.

Overview

Aclarion is a healthcare technology company that leverages Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy (“MRS”), proprietary signal processing techniques, biomarkers, and augmented intelligence algorithms to optimize clinical treatments. The Company is first addressing the chronic low back pain market with Nociscan, the first, evidence-supported, SaaS platform to noninvasively help physicians distinguish between painful and nonpainful discs in the lumbar spine. Through a cloud connection, Nociscan receives magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) data from an MRI machine for each lumbar disc being evaluated. In the cloud, proprietary signal processing techniques extract and quantify chemical biomarkers demonstrated to be associated with disc pain. Biomarker data is entered into proprietary algorithms to indicate if a disc may be a source of pain. When used with other diagnostic tools, Nociscan provides critical insights into the location of a patient’s low back pain, giving physicians clarity to optimize treatment strategies.

To date, we have financed our operations primarily through private placements of preferred shares and debt financing, PPP loans that were forgiven, an equity line, an initial public offering on April 21, 2022, and a secondary public offering on February 27, 2024.

Since our inception we have incurred significant operating losses. As of December 31, 2023, we had an accumulated deficit of approximately $44.3 million. Our ability to generate product revenue sufficient to achieve profitability will depend heavily on the successful commercialization and continued development of our SaaS platform. We expect that our expenses and capital requirements will increase substantially in connection with our ongoing activities, particularly if and as we:

Our primary near-term growth strategy is to secure payer contracts (including insurance companies, self- insured employers, Medicare, Medicaid, workmen’s compensation boards et. al.) to cover our Category III CPT codes. We believe that with favorable payer coverage, the Company has the opportunity to more efficiently engage physicians and imaging centers that will adopt our technology.

As a result, we may need substantial additional funding to support our continuing operations and pursue our growth strategy. Until such time as we can generate significant revenue from product sales, if ever, we expect to finance our operations through the sale of equity, debt financings or other capital sources, which may include collaborations with other companies or other strategic transactions.

As of December 31, 2023, we had cash of approximately $1.0 million. Subsequent to December 31, 2023, the Company raised capital using an equity line and a secondary public offering (refer to Note 17 – Subsequent Events to our financial statements). We believe our current cash will fund our operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements into the third quarter of 2024, approaching our final maturity repayment of our unsecured non-convertible note, which is due in September 2024. We have based this estimate on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we could exhaust our available capital resources sooner than we expect. See “Liquidity and capital resources.” To finance our operations beyond that point, we will need to raise additional capital, which cannot be assured. If we are unable to raise additional capital in sufficient amounts or on terms acceptable to us, we may have to significantly delay, scale back, or discontinue the commercialization or further development of our SaaS platform.

Corporate Information

We were formed under the name Nocimed, LLC, a limited liability company in January 2008, under the laws of the State of Delaware. In February 2015, Nocimed, LLC was converted into Nocimed, Inc. a Delaware corporation. On December 3, 2021, we changed our name to Aclarion, Inc. Our principal executive offices are located at 8181 Arista Place, Suite 100, Broomfield, Colorado 80021. Our main telephone number is (833) 275-2266. Our internet website is www.aclarion.com. The information contained in, or that can be accessed through, our website is not incorporated by reference and is not a part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Results of operations

Operating activities:

The following table summarizes our results of operations for the twelve months ended December 31, 2023, and 2022.

Years ended December 31, 2023, and 2022

Total revenues. Total revenue for the year ended December 31, 2023, was $75,404, which was an increase of $14,960 from $60,444 for the year ended December 31, 2022. This increase was primarily due to growing utilization of Nociscan in third-party clinical studies. Volumes and pricing were generally consistent in each year.

Cost of Revenue. Cost of Revenue is comprised of hosting and software costs, field support, UCSF royalty cost, NuVasive commission of 6%, partner fees (Radnet), and credit card fees. Total Cost of Revenue was $75,728 for the year ended December 31, 2023, compared to $65,298 for the year ended December 31, 2022, an increase of 16.0%. This increase was primarily due to higher year-over-year scan volumes and related Nociscan report output.

Sales and Marketing. Sales and marketing expenses were $757,004 for the year ended December 31, 2023, compared to $498,003 for the year ended December 31, 2022, an increase of $259,001 or 52.0%. This increase was driven primarily by additional vesting of restricted stock units to our increased number of Key Opinion Leaders.

Research and Development. Research and development expenses were $873,336 for the year ended December 31, 2023, compared to $1,067,992 for the year ended December 31, 2022, a decrease of $194,656 or 18.2%. This decrease was primarily due to a $123,828 contract milestone payment to UCSF in April 2022, related to the initial public offering, and reduced expense in 2023 clinical services.

General and Administrative. General and administrative expenses were $3,245,317 for the year ended December 31, 2023, a decrease of $745,402 or 18.7%, from $3,990,719 for the year ended December 31, 2022. This decrease in general and administrative expenses was driven primarily by a higher 2022 compensation expense related to the vesting of the Executive Chairman’s and executive’s outstanding common stock options, offset in part by higher legal and accounting fees in 2023.

Interest Expense. Total Interest expense was $608,288 for the year ended December 31, 2023, a decrease of $899,258, from the $1,507,546 for the year ended December 31, 2022. This decrease was driven primarily by the $1.3 million beneficial conversion rate charged to interest expense in 2022 for the conversion of all accrued interest on the Company's outstanding secured promissory notes into common shares and common stock warrants in connection with the April 2022, initial public offering. The 2023 interest expense was primarily due to the amortization of the note discount associated with the unsecured non-convertible promissory notes described in Note 11 to our financial statements -- Short Term Notes, Convertible Debt, and Derivative Liabilities.

Changes in Fair Value of Warrant and Derivative Liabilities. In the year ended December 31, 2023, the Company recorded $646,319 of changes in the fair value of the warrant and derivative liabilities associated with unsecured non-convertible promissory notes described in Note 4 -- Fair Value Measurements and Note 11 -- Short Term Notes, Convertible Debt, and Derivative Liabilities to our financial statements.

Other Net Expenses. During the year ended December 31, 2023, Other Net expenses were $562, which included bank interest, government fees, and realized exchange rate gain (losses).

Net income (loss).  The Company experienced a net loss of $4,911,374 for the year ended December 31, 2023, compared to a net loss of $7,068,593 for the year ended December 31, 2022. In general, the year ended December 31, 2023 excluded two significant expenses that were present during the year 2022, that being the compensation expense related to the vesting of the Executive Chairman’s and other executive’s outstanding common stock options, and the $1.3 million beneficial conversion rate charged to interest expense for the conversion of all accrued interest on the Company's outstanding secured promissory notes into common shares and common stock warrants in connection with the April, 2022, initial public offering.

Critical accounting policies and use of estimates

Our Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations is based on our financial statements, which have been prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States. The preparation of our financial statements and related disclosures requires us to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, costs and expenses and the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities in our financial statements. We base our estimates on historical experience, known trends and events and various other factors that we believe are reasonable under the circumstances, the results of which form the basis for making judgments about the carrying values of assets and liabilities that are not readily apparent from other sources. We evaluate our estimates and assumptions on an ongoing basis. Our actual results may differ from these estimates.

While our significant accounting policies are described in more detail in the notes to our financial statements, we believe that the following accounting policies are those most critical to the judgments and estimates used in the preparation of our financial statements.

Revenue Recognition

The Company derives its revenues from one source, the delivery of Nociscan reports to medical professionals. Revenues are recognized when a contract with a customer exists, and the control of the promised services are transferred to our customers. The amount of revenue recognized reflects the consideration we expect to receive in exchange for those services. Substantially all our revenues are generated from contracts with customers in the United States.

Equity-based compensation

The Company accounts for stock-based awards in accordance with provisions of ASC Topic 718, Compensation—Stock Compensation, under which the Company recognizes the grant-date fair value of stock-based awards issued to employees and nonemployee board members as compensation expense on a straight-line basis over the vesting period of the award, while awards containing a performance condition are recognized as expense when the achievement of the performance criteria is achieved. The Company uses the Black-Scholes option pricing model to determine the grant-date fair value of stock options. The Company records expense for forfeitures in the periods they occur.

Until our April 2022 IPO, we were a private company with no active public market for our common equity. Therefore, we had periodically determined the overall value of our company and the estimated per share fair value of our common equity at their various dates using contemporaneous valuations performed in accordance with the guidance outlined in the American Institute of CPA’s Practice Aid. Since a public trading market for our common stock has been established in connection with the completion of our IPO, the fair value of the Company’s common stock underlying its equity awards is the quoted market price of the Company’s common stock on the grant date.

Going Concern

As of December 31, 2023, we had cash of approximately $1.0 million. Subsequent to December 31, 2023, the Company raised capital using an equity line and a secondary public offering (refer to Note 17 – Subsequent Events to our financial statements). We believe our current cash will fund our operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements into the third quarter of 2024, approaching our final maturity repayment of our unsecured non-convertible note, which is due in September 2024. The Company has based these estimates, however, on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and could spend available financial resources much faster than we currently expect. The Company will need to raise additional funds to continue funding our technology development and commercialization efforts over the following twelve months. Management has plans to secure such additional funding.

As a result of the Company’s recurring losses from operations, and the need for additional financing to fund its operating and capital requirements, there is uncertainty regarding the Company’s ability to maintain liquidity sufficient to operate its business effectively, which raises substantial doubt as to the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern.

Liquidity and capital resources

Sources of liquidity

To date, we have financed our operations primarily through private placements of preferred shares and debt financing, PPP loans that were forgiven, an equity line, an initial public offering on April 21, 2022, and a secondary public offering on February 27, 2024.

Through December 31, 2023, we raised an aggregate of $32,603,097 of gross proceeds from $19,319,098 of preferred and common stock, $2,928,541 from the sale of convertible notes that were later converted to equity, $370,191 of PPP loans that were forgiven, $8,527,318 of net proceeds from the April 2022 IPO, and $1,457,949 of net proceeds from an equity line.

We issued a $2,000,000 promissory note in June 2021 that was repaid in April 2022.

On May 16, 2023, the Company entered into a securities purchase agreement with accredited investors for an unsecured non-convertible note financing. The Company received $1,250,000 of gross proceeds, with out-of-pocket issuance costs of $203,575. On September 1, 2023, the Company closed the second tranche of this financing. The Company received an additional $750,000 of gross proceeds, with out-of-pocket issuance costs of $92,738. On November 1, 2023, the Company entered into a securities purchase agreement with accredited investors for an unsecured non-convertible note financing. The Company received an additional $250,000 of gross proceeds, with out-of-pocket issuance costs of $65,363.

As of December 31, 2023, we had cash, including $10,000 of restricted cash, of $1,031,069. Subsequent to December 31, 2023, the Company entered into a series of Exchange Agreements with accredited investors and issued additional common shares using the equity line. Additionally, the Company completed a secondary public offering in February 2024. See Note 17 – Subsequent Events to our financial statements for more information. We believe our current cash will fund our operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements into the third quarter of 2024, approaching our final maturity repayment of our unsecured non-convertible note, which is due in September 2024. Management is actively managing our cash position and working to secure longer-term funding in the first quarter of 2024.

Cash flows

The following table summarizes our sources and uses of cash for each of the periods presented:

Operating activities

During the year ended December 31, 2023, net cash used in operating activities was $3,646,947. This use of cash consisted primarily of compensation and benefit expense, officers’ liability insurance, consulting, tax and audit fees, and maintain our quality system. Cash outlays in the year 2023 were relatively lower than the year 2022 due to longer procure-to-pay cycles. During the twelve months ended December 31, 2022, operating activities used $4,949,112, consisting primarily of compensation and benefit expense, consulting, and professional fees.

Investing activities

During the year ended December 31, 2023, and 2022, investing activities used $119,522 and $207,870 of cash, respectively. These investing activities consisted almost entirely of patent and license maintenance.

Financing activities

During the year ended December 31, 2023, net cash provided by financing activities was $3,314,732, which included $2,250,000 of proceeds from unsecured non-convertible note financings, 1,462,949 of proceeds from an equity line, and $398,217 of cash issuance costs related to both the equity line and debt. During the year ended December 31, 2022, net cash provided by financing activities was $6,187,258, which included $8,552,318 of initial public offering proceeds (net of underwriter compensation and deductions but excluding $25,000 pre-payment in 2021), $2,000,000 repayment of promissory notes, and $365,060 of IPO issuance costs.

Funding requirements

Developing medical technology products is a time-consuming, expensive and uncertain process that takes years to complete, and we may never generate meaningful revenues. Accordingly, we may need to obtain substantial additional funds to achieve our business objectives.

Adequate additional funds may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity securities, current stockholders’ ownership interests may be diluted. Any debt or preferred equity financing, if available, may involve agreements that include restrictive covenants that may limit our ability to take specific actions, such as incurring additional debt, making capital expenditures, or declaring dividends, which could adversely impact our ability to conduct our business, and may require the issuance of warrants, which could potentially dilute existing stockholders’ ownership interests.

If we raise additional funds through licensing agreements and strategic collaborations with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our technology, future revenue streams, research programs, or product candidates or grant licenses on terms that may not be favorable to us. If we are unable to raise additional funds, we may be required to delay, limit, reduce and/or terminate development of our product candidates or any future commercialization efforts or grant rights to develop and market product candidates that we would otherwise prefer to develop and market ourselves.

Contractual obligations and commitments

Our prior office lease and sublease expired on June 30, 2022. The Company does not have any contractual obligations not otherwise on our balance sheet as of December 31, 2023.

Off-balance sheet arrangements

We did not have, during the periods presented, and we do not currently have any off-balance sheet arrangements as defined in the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”).

Recently issued accounting pronouncements

We have reviewed all recently issued standards and have determined that, other than as disclosed in Note 2 to our financial statements appearing at the end of this annual report, such standards will not have a material impact on our financial statements or do not otherwise apply to our operations.

Emerging growth company and smaller reporting company status

The JOBS Act permits an emerging growth company such as us to take advantage of an extended transition period to comply with new or revised accounting standards applicable to public companies until those standards would otherwise apply to private companies. We have irrevocably elected not to “opt out” of this extended transition period and, as a result, we will not adopt new or revised accounting standards on the relevant dates on which adoption of such standards is required for public entities. Accordingly, our financial statements may not be comparable to other public companies that do not elect the extended transition period.

We are also a “smaller reporting company” meaning that the market value of our stock held by non-affiliates is less than $700 million and our annual revenue was less than $100 million during the most recently completed fiscal year. We may continue to be a smaller reporting company if either (i) the market value of our stock held by non-affiliates is less than $250 million or (ii) our annual revenue was less than $100 million during the most recently completed fiscal year and the market value of our stock held by non-affiliates is less than $700 million. If we are a smaller reporting company at the time we cease to be an emerging growth company, we may continue to rely on exemptions from certain disclosure requirements that are available to smaller reporting companies. Specifically, as a smaller reporting company we may choose to present only the two most recent fiscal years of audited financial statements in our Annual Report on Form 10-K and, similar to emerging growth companies, smaller reporting companies have reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation.

Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk

Interest rate sensitivity

We had cash and restricted cash totaling $1,031,069 as of December 31, 2023. These amounts are invested primarily in demand deposit accounts and money market funds. We consider all highly liquid debt instruments purchased with a maturity of three months or less and SEC-registered money market mutual funds to be cash equivalents. The primary objectives of our investing activities are capital preservation, meeting our liquidity needs and, with respect to investing client funds, generating interest income while maintaining the safety of principal. We do not enter into investments for trading or speculative purposes.

Our cash equivalents are subject to market risk due to changes in interest rates. The market value of fixed rate securities may be adversely affected due to a rise in interest rates, while floating rate securities may produce less income than expected if interest rates fall. Due in part to these factors, our future investment income may fall short of expectations due to changes in interest rates, or we may suffer losses in principal if we are forced to sell securities that decline in market value due to changes in interest rates.

Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Board of Directors and
Stockholders

of Aclarion, Inc.

Opinion on the Financial Statements

We have audited the accompanying balance sheet of Aclarion, Inc. (the Company) as of December 31, 2023, and the related statements of operations, changes in stockholders’ equity (deficit), and cash flows for the year then ended, and the related notes (collectively referred to as the financial statements). In our opinion, the financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Company as of December 31, 2023, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for the year then ended, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Substantial Doubt about the Company’s Ability to Continue as a Going Concern

The accompanying financial statements have been prepared assuming that the Company will continue as a going concern. As discussed in Note 2 to the financial statements, the Company has suffered recurring losses from operations and has a deficiency in shareholders’ equity that raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern. Management's plans in regard to these matters are also described in Note 2. The financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty.

Basis for Opinion

These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Company’s financial statements based on our audit. We are a public accounting firm registered with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) (PCAOB) and are required to be independent with respect to the Company in accordance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB.

We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement, whether due to error or fraud. The Company is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. As part of our audit, we are required to obtain an understanding of internal control over financial reporting, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion.

Our audit included performing procedures to assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to error or fraud, and performing procedures that respond to those risks. Such procedures included examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. Our audit also included evaluating the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

/s/ Haynie & Company

Haynie & Company

Salt Lake City, Utah

February 20, 2024, except for Notes 2 and 17, as to which the date is March 28, 2024

We have served as the Company’s auditor since 2023

PCAOB ID 0457

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Board of Directors and Stockholders

Aclarion, Inc.

Broomfield, Colorado

Opinion on the Financial Statements

We have audited the accompanying balance sheet of Aclarion, Inc. (the “Company”) as of December 31, 2022, and the related statements of operations, changes in stockholders’ equity (deficit) and cash flows for the year then ended, and the related notes (collectively referred to as the financial statements). In our opinion, the financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Company at December 31, 2022, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for the year then ended, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Restatement to correct the 2022 financial statements

As discussed in Note 3 to the financial statements, the 2022 financial statements have been restated to correct misstatements.

The financial statements of the Company as of December 31, 2022, before the effects of the adjustments for the correction of the errors described in Note 3, were audited by Daszkal Bolton LLP who issued an unqualified opinion on those statements in their report, containing explanatory language that substantial doubt exists about the entity’s ability to continue as a going concern, dated February 27, 2023. Effective March 1, 2023, CohnReznick LLP acquired certain people and assets of Daszkal Bolton LLP.

Going Concern Uncertainty

The accompanying financial statements have been prepared assuming that the Company will continue as a going concern. As discussed in Note 2 to the financial statements, the Company has suffered recurring losses from operations and an accumulated deficit that raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern. Management's plans in regard to these matters are also described in Note 2. The financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty.

Basis for Opinion

These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Company’s financial statements based on our audit. We are a public accounting firm registered with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) (PCAOB) and are required to be independent with respect to the Company in accordance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB.

We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement, whether due to error or fraud. The Company is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. As part of our audit, we are required to obtain an understanding of internal control over financial reporting, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion.

Our audit included performing procedures to assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to error or fraud, and performing procedures that respond to those risks. Such procedures included examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. Our audit also included evaluating the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

/s/ CohnReznick LLP

CohnReznick LLP

Sunrise, Florida

June 12, 2023, except for Note 1, 2024 Reverse Stock Split, Note 7, SUPPLEMENTAL FINANCIAL INFORMATION, Prepaids and other current assets and Accrued and other liabilities, and Note 14, Net Loss Per Share of Common Stock, as to which the date is February 21, 2024.

We have served as the Company’s auditor from 2021 (such date takes into account the acquisition of certain people and assets of Daszkal Bolton LLP by CohnReznick LLP effective March 1, 2023) to 2023

Aclarion, Inc.

Balance Sheets

December 31, 2023 and 2022