lung-20201231

Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020

PULMONX CORPORATION

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

700 Chesapeake Drive

Redwood City, California94063

1-650-364-0400

(Address, including zip code, and telephone number, including area code, of registrant’s principal executive offices)

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

Title of each class Trading Symbol(s) Name of each exchange on which registered

Common Stock, $0.001 par value per share LUNG The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC

Securities registered pursuant to section 12(g) of the Act: None

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.

Large accelerated filer ☐ Accelerated filer ☐

Non-accelerated filer ☒ Smaller reporting company ☒

Emerging growth company ☒

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. ☐

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

As of March 4, 2021 there were 35,689,881 shares of the Registrant’s Common Stock, par value $0.001 per share, outstanding.

The Registrant was not a public company as of the last business day of its most recently completed second fiscal quarter and, therefore, cannot calculate the aggregate market value of its voting equity held by non-affiliates as of such date.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Portions of the registrant’s definitive proxy statement relating to its 2021 annual meeting of stockholders (the “2021 Proxy Statement”) are incorporated by reference into Part III of this Annual Report on Form 10-K where indicated. The 2021 Proxy Statement will be filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission within 120 days after the end of the fiscal year to which this Annual Report on Form 10-K relates.

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

PART I

Item 1. Business 7

Item 1A. Risk Factors 54

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments 113

Item 2. Properties 114

Item 3. Legal Proceedings 114

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures 114

PART II

Item 6. Selected Financial Data 118

Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk 142

Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data 144

Item 9A. Controls and Procedures 148

Item 9B. Other Information 148

PART III

Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance 149

Item 11. Executive Compensation 150

Item 14. Principal Accounting Fees and Services 152

PART IV

Item 15. Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules 153

Table of Contents

SPECIAL NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or Exchange Act. We have based these forward-looking statements largely on our current expectations and projections about future events and financial trends affecting the financial condition of our business. Forward-looking statements should not be read as a guarantee of future performance or results, and will not necessarily be accurate indications of the times at, or by, which such performance or results will be achieved. Forward-looking statements are based on information available at the time those statements are made and/or management’s good faith beliefs as of that time with respect to future events, and are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual performance or results to differ materially from those expressed in or suggested by the forward-looking statements.

Forward-looking statements include all statements that are not historical facts. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by terms such as “may,” “might,” “will,” “objective,” “intend,” “should,” “could,” “can,” “would,” “expect,” “believe,” “anticipate,” “project,” “target,” “design,” “estimate,” “predict,” “potential,” “plan” or the negative of these terms, or similar expressions and comparable terminology intended to identify forward-looking statements. These statements reflect our current views with respect to future events and are based on assumptions and subject to risks and uncertainties, including those set forth in Part I, Item 1A “Risk Factors” and elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements about:

•our ability to design, develop, manufacture and market innovative products to treat patients with challenging medical conditions, particularly those with COPD and emphysema;

•our expectations regarding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on our business;

•our expected future growth, including growth in international sales;

•our expected future growth of our sales and marketing organization;

•the size and growth potential of the markets for our products, and our ability to serve those markets;

•the rate and degree of market acceptance of our products;

•coverage and reimbursement for procedures performed using our products;

•the performance of third parties in connection with the development of our products, including third-party suppliers;

•regulatory developments in the United States and foreign countries;

•our ability to obtain and maintain regulatory approval or clearance of our products on expected timelines;

•our plans to research, develop and commercialize our products and any other approved or cleared product;

•our ability to retain and hire our senior management and other highly qualified personnel;

•the development, regulatory approval, efficacy and commercialization of competing products and technologies in our industry;

•our expectations regarding the period during which we qualify as an emerging growth company under the JOBS Act;

•our ability to develop and maintain our corporate infrastructure, including our internal controls;

Table of Contents

•our financial performance and capital requirements; and

•our expectations regarding our ability to obtain and maintain intellectual property protection for our products, as well as our ability to operate our business without infringing the intellectual property rights of others.

All forward-looking statements are based on information available to us on the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K and we will not update any of the forward-looking statements after the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, except as required by law. Our actual results could differ materially from those discussed in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. The forward-looking statements contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, and other written and oral forward-looking statements made by us from time to time, are subject to certain risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those anticipated in the forward- looking statements, and you should not regard these statements as a representation or warranty by us or any other person that we will achieve our objectives and plans in any specified time frame, or at all. Factors that might cause such a difference include, but are not limited to, those discussed in the following discussion and within Part I, Item 1A, “Risk Factors” of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

In addition, statements that “we believe” and similar statements reflect our beliefs and opinions on the relevant subject. These statements are based upon information available to us as of the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, and although we believe such information forms a reasonable basis for such statements, such information may be limited or incomplete, and our statements should not be read to indicate that we have conducted a thorough inquiry into, or review of, all potentially available relevant information. These statements are inherently uncertain and investors are cautioned not to unduly rely upon these statements.

All brand names or trademarks appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K are the property of their respective holders. Unless the context requires otherwise, references in this Annual Report on Form 10-K to “Pulmonx” the “Company,” “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to Pulmonx Corporation.

Risk Factors Summary

Below is a summary of the principal factors that make an investment in our common stock speculative or risky. Importantly, this summary does not address all the risks and uncertainties that we face. Additional discussion of the risks and uncertainties summarized in this risk factor summary, as well as other risks and uncertainties that we face, can be found under “Special Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statement” and Part I, Item 1A, “Risk Factors” in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. The below summary is qualified in its entirety by those more complete discussions of such risks and uncertainties. You should consider carefully the risks and uncertainties described under Part I, Item 1A, “Risk Factors” in this Annual Report on Form 10-K as part of your evaluation of an investment in our common stock:

•We have a history of significant net losses, which we expect to continue, and we may not be able to achieve or sustain profitability in the future;

•We have limited experience marketing and selling our solution;

•We currently rely on a single product, the Zephyr Valve, which can only be marketed for limited indications, and if we are not successful in commercializing the Zephyr Valve, our business, financial condition and results of operations will be negatively affected;

•Our business is dependent on hospital, physician and patient adoption of our solution as a treatment for severe emphysema. If hospitals, physicians or patients are unwilling to change current practices to adopt our solution, it will negatively affect our business, financial condition and results of operations;

•If we fail to receive access to hospital facilities our sales may decrease;

•A pandemic, epidemic or outbreak of an infectious disease in the United States or worldwide, including the outbreak of the novel strain of coronavirus disease, COVID-19, has adversely affected our business;

•Use of the Zephyr Valve involves risks and may result in complications, including pneumothorax or death, and is contraindicated in certain patients, which may limit adoption and negatively affect our business, financial condition and results of operations;

Table of Contents

•If we are unable to achieve and maintain adequate levels of coverage or reimbursement for our solution, or any future products we may seek to commercialize, or if patients are left with significant out-of-pocket costs, our commercial success may be severely hindered;

•If we fail to retain marketing and sales personnel and, as we grow, fail to increase our marketing and sales capabilities or develop broad awareness of our solution in a cost-effective manner, we may not be able to generate revenue growth;

•We have limited long-term data regarding the safety and effectiveness of our solution, including the Zephyr Valve. The only safety and effectiveness data of our solution, including the Zephyr Valve, is limited to one year following placement and we are required to conduct extension studies to follow up on safety and effectiveness out to five years;

•We have limited experience manufacturing our products in significant commercial quantities and we face manufacturing risks that may adversely affect our ability to manufacture our products, reduce our gross margins and negatively affect our business, financial condition and results of operations;

•Our operating results may fluctuate significantly, 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;

•The sizes of the markets for our current and future products have not been established with precision and may be smaller than we estimate and may decline. Certain patients may not have regions of the lung with little to no collateral ventilation, making them poor candidates for the Zephyr Valve. In addition, if the overall rate of smokers continues to decline, this may eventually decrease the number of patients suffering from COPD and emphysema and, accordingly, who would benefit from our solution;

•We expect to continue to incur net losses for the next several years and we expect to require substantial additional capital to finance our planned operations, which may include future equity and debt financings. This additional capital may not be available to us on acceptable terms or at all. Our failure to obtain additional financing when needed on acceptable terms, or at all, could force us to delay, limit, reduce or eliminate our commercialization, sales and marketing efforts, product development programs or other operations;

•Our products and operations are subject to extensive government regulation and oversight both in the United States and abroad. If we fail to obtain and maintain necessary regulatory approvals for the Zephyr Valve and related products, or if approvals for future products and indications are delayed or not issued, it will negatively affect our business, financial condition and results of operations; and

•We may become a party to intellectual property litigation or administrative proceedings that could be costly and could interfere with our ability to sell and market our products.

Table of Contents

PART I

ITEM 1. BUSINESS

Overview

We are a commercial-stage medical technology company that provides a minimally invasive treatment for patients with severe emphysema, a form of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Our solution, which is comprised of the Zephyr Endobronchial Valve (Zephyr Valve), the Chartis Pulmonary Assessment System (Chartis System) and the StratX Lung Analysis Platform (StratX Platform), is designed to treat severe emphysema patients who, despite medical management, are still profoundly symptomatic and either do not want or are ineligible for surgical approaches. We estimate our solution currently addresses approximately 500,000 patients in the United States and 700,000 patients in select international markets, which represents a global market opportunity of approximately $12 billion.

We have a compelling body of clinical evidence with over 100 scientific articles published regarding the clinical benefits of Zephyr Valves, including in The New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet and the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. Multiple randomized controlled clinical trials have demonstrated that patients selected with the Chartis System and successfully treated with Zephyr Valves have shown statistically and clinically significant improvements in lung function, exercise capacity and quality of life compared to medical management alone.

In June 2018, we received pre-market approval (PMA) by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as a result of our breakthrough technology designation. The Zephyr Valve is now commercially available in more than 25 countries, with over 80,000 valves used to treat more than 20,000 patients. We have established reimbursement in major markets in North America, Europe and Asia Pacific and the Zephyr Valve has been included in treatment guidelines for COPD worldwide.

There are several treatment options for patients with emphysema, depending on the level of severity of the disease, ranging from medical management to more invasive surgical options. However, these treatment options have significant limitations for patients with severe emphysema.

Initial treatment for emphysema is generally limited to medications that primarily target airway obstruction and reduce inflammation, but do not address the underlying lung tissue destruction. As the disease worsens, symptoms increase despite optimized drug therapy, pulmonary rehabilitation exercises and supplemental oxygen.

As patients enter the severe phase, many become increasingly unable to engage in the most basic daily activities as a result of the persistent feeling of breathlessness and this reduces their overall health status each year. At this point, physicians may refer patients to thoracic surgeons for single or double lung transplantation or for lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS), in which hyperinflated tissue is cut away and removed. These invasive surgical

Table of Contents

procedures involve substantial risk of complications, prolonged hospital stays and high mortality. In addition, many patients do not qualify for these procedures. Patients with severe emphysema generally experience a worse quality of life than patients with lung cancer. We believe there is both an urgent clinical need and a strong market opportunity for a solution that is safe, effective and minimally invasive.

Our solution, which is comprised of the Zephyr Valve, Chartis System and StratX Platform, is designed to address the need for a more effective, minimally invasive treatment option for patients with severe emphysema, offering bronchoscopic lung volume reduction without surgery and its associated risks. Zephyr Valves are indicated for bronchoscopic treatment of adult patients with hyperinflation associated with severe emphysema in regions of the lung that have little to no collateral ventilation. During the one-time bronchoscopic procedure, Zephyr Valves are placed in the airways to occlude the most diseased parts of the lung, allowing trapped air to escape until the lobe is reduced in size. The intended result is a reduction in lung volume and hyperinflation in the targeted lobe, allowing healthier parts of the lung to expand and take in more air. Patients who are successfully treated with the Zephyr Valve report improved breathing and the ability to go back to doing everyday tasks more easily.

We believe our solution provides the following important benefits:

•Significant, durable improvements in lung function, exercise capacity and quality of life, demonstrated in a substantial body of clinical data;

•Well-characterized safety profile, evidenced by the inclusion in global treatment recommendations and more than 20,000 patients treated globally with the Zephyr Valve;

•High procedural success driven by innovative and effective patient assessment tools; and

•Minimally invasive procedure typically lasting less than an hour.

Over 100 scientific articles have been publishedregarding the clinical benefits of Zephyr Valves, including multiple meta-analyses, review articles, cost-effectiveness analyses and risk-benefit analyses. The Zephyr Valve showed statistically significant improvements in lung function, exercise capacity and quality of life when compared to medical management alone in multiple randomized controlled clinical trials. Additionally, independent studies have demonstrated that Zephyr Valves deliver increases in the BODE Index (a multi-dimensional health status scoring system for patients with COPD) that have been associated with survival benefits.

The LIBERATE study, our pivotal study published in 2018, was a multicenter, multinational, randomized controlled clinical trial of Zephyr Valves that included 190 patients with severe emphysema and little to no collateral ventilation. All primary and secondary endpoints were statistically significant, including the proportion of patients achieving a clinically significant improvement in lung function as well as the mean improvements in exercise capacity, hyperinflation and quality of life. These outcomes were the result of a high rate of procedural success, with 84% of patients achieving a clinically meaningful reduction in treated lobe volume.

We market and sell our products in the United States through a direct sales organization. Our sales territory managers are focused on promoting awareness and increasing adoption of our solution primarily among the approximately 800 pulmonologists performing interventional pulmonary procedures and across approximately 500 high volume hospitals in the United States. We are expanding our commercial operations in the United States while continuing to foster our international growth. In international markets, we employ both direct and distributor-based sales models, with over 90% of our revenue generated in markets where we sell directly.

In the United States, our solution is reimbursed based on established Category I CPT and ICD-10 Procedure Coding System (PCS) codes and associated APC and MS-DRG payment groupings. Current reimbursement in the United States is believed to cover the hospital costs of the procedure and related inpatient care. Commercial payors such as Aetna, Humana, Health Care Service Corporation, and Highmark have issued positive coverage policies for the Zephyr Valve, and United Healthcare no longer considers the procedure unproven or experimental. Medicare covers our solution for patients when medically necessary, and other commercial insurers are approving pre-authorization

Table of Contents

requests on a case-by-case basis. Outside the United States, our solution is covered by major health systems across much of Europe, Australia and South Korea.

We generated revenue of $32.7 million, with a gross margin of 64.8% and a net loss of $32.2 million, for the year ended December 31, 2020 compared to revenue of $32.6 million, with a gross margin of 68.8% and a net loss of $20.7 million, for the year ended December 31, 2019. As of December 31, 2020, we had an accumulated deficit of $242.7 million. We currently generate most of our revenue from the sales of Zephyr Valves and delivery catheters. We also generate a smaller amount of our revenue from our Chartis System, which is comprised of sales of the balloon catheters, usage fees and sales of the Chartis console. The StratX Platform, while used to identify patients eligible for treatment with Zephyr Valves, does not independently generate any revenue for us.

Our Market Opportunity

Overview of COPD and Emphysema

COPD refers to a group of lung diseases characterized by obstruction of airflow that interferes with normal breathing. In 2015, it affected approximately 175 million patients and was responsible for 3.2 million deaths globally. We estimate that there are approximately 8.5 million severe COPD patients in developed markets globally as of 2019. In the United States, COPD is the third leading cause of death and affected approximately 16 million Americans as of 2013.

Emphysema, a form of COPD, which accounts for approximately 25% of all COPD patients, is a debilitating and life-threatening disease that progressively destroys lung tissue, resulting in a diminishing ability to breathe and engage in the most basic daily activities, leading to a high mortality rate. Of the approximately 8.5 million global severe COPD patients, we estimate approximately 3.2 million have severe emphysema and approximately 5 million have severe chronic bronchitis. Of the approximately 3.2 million severe emphysema patients, we estimate that approximately 1.2 million may be eligible for treatment with Zephyr Valves, and an additional number may be able to be treated in the future with other technologies under development by us. We estimate this represents a global market opportunity of approximately $12 billion.

As of 2018, approximately 3.8 million patients in the United States were diagnosed with emphysema, of which roughly 1.5 million have severe emphysema. Of these 1.5 million severe emphysema patients, we estimate that approximately 500,000 patients would qualify for treatment with our Zephyr Valves, and an additional number may be able to be treated in the future with other technologies under development by us if successfully developed and approved. We estimate this represents a U.S. market opportunity of approximately $5 billion.

The lung damage caused by emphysema is irreversible. In patients with emphysema, diseased portions of the lung lose their ability to exchange oxygen and carbon dioxide due to damage to the air sacs, or alveoli. The diseased portions of the lung also lose elasticity, become over-inflated, and crowd out the healthier lung tissue. As a result, patients with emphysema experience shortness of breath, gradually losing their ability to engage in the most basic daily activities such as climbing a flight of stairs, walking or showering. Based on published literature, the five-year mortality rate for patients with severe emphysema is approximately 50%.

Table of Contents

The following graph shows an increased mortality rate for patients with more hyperinflation relative to patients with less hyperinflation.

The inspiratory capacity-to-total-lung capacity (IC/TLC) ratio is an indirect measurement of lung hyperinflation. The graph above depicts two Kaplan-Meier survival analyses of (1) patients with an IC/TLC ratio greater than 25% and (2) patients with an IC/TLC less than or equal to 25%.

Emphysema is diagnosed through a combination of breathing tests and computed tomography (CT) imaging of the lungs. The diagnosis is typically done by a radiologist or a pulmonologist. Emphysema severity is evaluated using a standardized test called spirometry as well as the degree of patient symptoms.

Current Treatments for Emphysema and Their Limitations

There are several treatment options for patients with emphysema, depending on the level of severity of the disease, ranging from medical management to surgery. However, these treatment alternatives have significant limitations and in some cases are highly invasive.

Initial treatment for emphysema is generally limited to prescribing inhaled medications such as drugs that open the airways and reduce inflammation, which primarily target airway obstruction. However, as the disease becomes more severe, the effectiveness of drug therapy is diminished, and patients feel increasingly breathless. As the disease progresses, physicians may prescribe pulmonary rehabilitation exercises and supplemental oxygen, but these can be poorly tolerated by patients and often lose effectiveness with time. As patients enter the severe phase, many become increasingly unable to engage in the most basic daily activities as a result of the persistent feeling of breathlessness and this reduces their overall health status each year. At this point, physicians may refer patients to thoracic surgeons for LVRS, in which hyperinflated tissue is cut away and removed, or for single or double lung transplantation.

LVRS is an invasive surgery that involves cutting away diseased tissue to create space for the remaining lung to more fully inflate. LVRS was studied extensively in the National Emphysema Treatment Trial (NETT), which showed that while a broad group of patients gained quality of life and exercise capacity from the surgery, it also involved substantial risks of complications, prolonged hospital stays and even death. As a result of the NETT study, use of LVRS was restricted by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to a subgroup of patients and can only be offered at a limited number of highly specialized medical centers.

Table of Contents

Lung transplantation involves surgically removing one or both lungs and replacing them with donor lungs. This procedure is highly time and resource intensive due to the complexity of the surgery. Even with a successful procedure and consistent use of anti-rejection medications, lung transplantation patients have a five-year survival rate on average. Due to these limitations, and constraints from limited donor supply, LVRS and lung transplantation combined have fewer than 2,000 procedures performed for COPD each year in the United States.

In addition to recently approved endobronchial valves, there are other approaches to a minimally invasive alternatives to LVRS, including the use of airway bypass, coils and vapor. However, to date, only endobronchial valves have demonstrated safety and effectiveness in FDA-approved investigational device exemption (IDE) studies in the United States.

Our Solution

Our solution, which is comprised of the Zephyr Valve, Chartis System and StratX Platform, is designed to treat severe emphysema patients who, despite medical management, are still profoundly symptomatic and either do not want or are ineligible for surgical approaches. Our solution is designed to address the need for a more effective, minimally invasive treatment option for patients with severe emphysema, offering bronchoscopic lung volume reduction without surgery and its associated risks.

Zephyr Valves are indicated for bronchoscopic treatment of adult patients with hyperinflation associated with severe emphysema in regions of the lung that have little to no collateral ventilation. During the one-time bronchoscopic procedure, Zephyr Valves are placed in the airways to occlude the most diseased parts of the lung, allowing trapped air to escape until the lobe is reduced in size. The intended result is a reduction in lung volume and hyperinflation in the targeted area, allowing healthier parts of the lung to expand and take in more air. Patients who are successfully treated with the Zephyr Valve report improved breathing and the ability to go back to doing everyday tasks more easily. When combined with the Chartis System for informed patient selection and treatment planning, Zephyr Valves have been shown to have successful procedure rates of 84-90% in clinical trials.

We believe our solution provides the following important benefits:

•Significant, durable improvements in lung function, exercise capacity and quality of life, demonstrated in a substantial body of clinical data;

•Well-characterized safety profile, evidenced by the inclusion in global treatment recommendations and more than 20,000 patients treated globally with Zephyr Valve;

•High procedural success driven by innovative and effective patient assessment tools; and

Table of Contents

•Minimally invasive procedure typically lasting less than an hour.

In addition, we believe our solution provides several benefits to other key stakeholders:

•For hospitals, the Zephyr Valve represents a new service line with potential economic benefits, driving additional patients to their facilities. Patients who are evaluated require a comprehensive workup that may unveil other health conditions such as heart disease or cancer, which also may require treatment.

•For physicians, the Zephyr Valve enables treatment for a patient population with few alternatives, and the combination of using the StratX Platform and Chartis System are designed to enable a simple, predictable and efficient patient selection process.

•For payors, treatment with the Zephyr Valve has been demonstrated to result in fewer complications and quicker recovery than invasive surgical alternatives and may reduce hospital stays for COPD and incidence of respiratory failure. We believe the combination of using the StratX Platform and Chartis System enables selection and treatment of patients most likely to benefit from our solution.

Treatment with Zephyr Valves

Patient Selection and Treatment Planning

Patients with advanced COPD routinely undergo a thorough diagnostic workup, which typically includes a high-resolution CT scan of their lungs to determine if they have severe emphysema and hyperinflation. If the patient meets medical eligibility criteria for Zephyr Valves, their CT scan data will be uploaded to our secure cloud-based CT analysis service, the StratX Platform. The treating physician receives an easy-to-read report that we designed for our solution (StratX Lung Report) and based on the report, CT scan and other clinical data, decides if the patient is a good candidate for treatment with Zephyr Valves and which lobes may be the best target for treatment. On the day of the procedure, a flexible camera called a bronchoscope is inserted into the lungs, and using the balloon catheter and console comprising the Chartis System, the physician can determine the presence or absence of collateral ventilation and confirm if the target lobe is likely to respond to treatment. If the assessment shows that there is little to no collateral ventilation to the target lobe (which would refill the lobe with air and limit benefit from the valves), the physician then proceeds to place Zephyr Valves in all airways leading to the target lobe. If there is collateral ventilation in the lobe, the physician may measure another lobe for possible treatment, or decide not to treat the patient with valves.

Placement of the Zephyr Valves

The Zephyr Valve is typically implanted under general anesthesia or conscious sedation. Using our Endobronchial Delivery Catheter (EDC) in a simple, one-step process, physicians select the optimal valve size for each airway. The valves are loaded into the delivery catheter and deployed through the bronchoscope using a controlled release mechanism to enable optimal placement. We offer four valve sizes to accommodate a broad range of airway anatomy that physicians may encounter. Following placement of valves, the patient is kept in the hospital, typically for three nights, to monitor for any side effects including pneumothorax. If a patient develops a pneumothorax, their hospital stay is typically extended by a week.

Zephyr Valves

Each of the Zephyr Valves consists of a one-way silicone duckbill valve suspended inside a self-expanding frame made of shape-memory metal, called Nitinol. The Zephyr Valve is designed to be easily and accurately sized and offers controlled and accurate deployment at the target location. The Zephyr Valve is also designed to resist fractures or breakage, adapt to changes in airway size and stay in place following deployment.

Table of Contents

The following diagram depicts the four sizes of Zephyr Valves (two different diameters and four lengths).

Physicians select the optimal valve size for each airway to be treated using an EDC that includes sizing wings and depth markers, which allows the physician to perform quick and accurate sizing.

The Zephyr Valve is then loaded into the EDC.

Table of Contents

Zephyr Valves offer a controlled, stepwise deployment for easy and accurate placement in the target airway. Once deployed, the valve is held in place by the radial expansion force of the housing. Typically, multiple valves are used to obstruct all airways leading to the target lobe; in clinical studies, an average of four valves per patient were used.

Once the lobe is fully obstructed, air vents out of the treated lobe and is unable to re-enter, causing a reduction in hyperinflation. The treated lobe shrinks in volume over time, allowing the remaining portions of the lung to expand and to restore diaphragm position, making breathing easier.

The Zephyr Valve is designed to be a permanent implant, but unlike surgery, the procedure can be reversed if necessary.

The most common serious complications of treatment with Zephyr Valves can include pneumothorax, worsening of COPD symptoms, hemoptysis, pneumonia, dyspnea, respiratory failure and, in rare cases, death. See “Clinical Trials and Results” for a discussion of complications related to Zephyr Valve, including pneumothoraces and death.

Table of Contents

StratX Platform

The StratX Platform is a cloud-based quantitative CT analysis service that provides physicians with an easy-to-read report that we designed for our solution (StratX Lung Report) that includes information on emphysema destruction, fissure completeness and lobar volume to help identify target lobes for treatment with Zephyr Valves. The StratX Platform is designed to enable physicians to:

•Screen treatment candidates non-invasively;

•Prioritize between multiple potential treatment targets, if applicable;

•Enhance case planning and optimize procedure time; and

•Educate themselves and their patients using the simple to read StratX Lung Report.

In order to make the StratX Platform available to physicians, we contract with a third-party cloud service provider. This third-party cloud service enables physicians to upload CT scan data while removing protected health information (PHI) of patients from that data, in case the physicians have, inadvertently, not removed the PHI themselves. We also contract with additional third-party service providers to analyze the CT scan data using their proprietary software, and provide quantitative results via the StratX Lung Report. The StratX Lung Report is then made available to physicians in the third-party cloud service. The software of each of these third-party service providers has received either 510(k) approval or a CE mark. We provide exclusive access to physicians to their StratX accounts and cases and monitor this CT scan upload and analysis process to ensure quality control.

Table of Contents

A sample StratX Lung Report is below, with each section briefly described afterwards.

1.Summary Graphic: The goal of the Zephyr Valve treatment is to completely obstruct and reduce the volume of a target lobe, thereby reducing hyperinflation and improving breathing. In selecting a target lobe, physicians are instructed to look for higher levels of emphysema destruction and presence of complete or nearly complete fissures with neighboring lobes (which has been associated with absence of collateral ventilation and likely response to therapy). The StratX Lung Report contains tabulated data on fissure completeness by lobe, destruction score by lobe and lobar volume. An infographic “key” for easy interpretation of the data is also included. This infographic includes color coding representing the level of emphysema destruction (with darker colors representing lobes with more destruction) and different levels of fissure completeness relative to a target lobe (with darker and more complete lines having greater completeness).

2.Fissure Completeness: Fissure completeness has been shown to be a predictor of success and a surrogate for collateral ventilation between the target and the neighboring lobes. The StratX Lung Report displays fissure completeness values “by lobe,” meaning the values are computed as a percentage of the total area of the fissure across the lobar boundary. The value of fissure completeness between each lobar region is represented with a dark solid, light solid or dotted line. The dark solid line represents fissures that are ≥95% intact. The light solid line represents fissures that are 80-95% intact. The dotted line represents fissures that are <80% intact. A fissure completeness score of <80% indicates the likely presence of collateral ventilation in that lobe, indicating that the lobe should not be considered for treatment with Zephyr Valves.

Table of Contents

For fissure completeness values of >80%, fissure completeness should be confirmed using the Chartis System to confirm lobe eligibility.

3.Emphysema Destruction Scoring: Lobar destruction values of greater than 50% at -910 Hounsfield Units (a measure of tissue density) have been commonly used as an inclusion criterion for various clinical trials of Zephyr Valve treatment. The StratX Lung Report also includes lobar destruction values using -950 Hounsfield Units. In the report and summary view, the degree of shading of a lobe and the numbers within the lobe represent the level of destruction. Lobes with less than 50% destruction are colored white and are usually not considered as potential targets for Zephyr Valve treatment.

4.Inspiratory Volume: The inspiratory volume represents the volume of each lobe in mL. The inspiratory volume can help to identify the lobes with the largest volume representing hyperinflation and ones that may be a good target for Zephyr Valve treatment.

To use the StratX Platform, users must have an account set up with us. After the physician captures a CT scan of the patient’s chest according to the StratX parameters, the CT scan is de-identified of patient information and the hospital staff uploads the CT scan to our secure encrypted server where it is analyzed using validated algorithms within the StratX Platform. The StratX Platform generates a report that is checked by a trained technician for accuracy and completeness and uploaded to the hospital’s account within two to three working days, where it can be downloaded and reviewed by the treating physician.

We continue to gather scan data and refine our algorithms in the StratX Platform. We believe that our high volume of reports and data are a source of durable competitive advantage.

Chartis Pulmonary Assessment System

The Chartis System is a proprietary balloon catheter and console system with flow and pressure sensors designed to assess the presence of collateral ventilation and to accurately predict responders to Zephyr Valve treatment. The Chartis System consists of a single-patient-use catheter with a central lumen and a balloon at its tip and a console to allow for the assessment of airflow in the targeted lobe.

Table of Contents

When the balloon is inflated, the target lobe is blocked, and air can only escape through the catheter’s central lumen.

Airflow and pressure are displayed on the console of the Chartis System allowing for a measurement of collateral ventilation in the targeted lobe. The system works with spontaneous breathing or mechanical ventilation. If the flow of air leaving the occluded lobe is trending towards zero, there is likely no collateral ventilation in the target lobe and it can be successfully treated with Zephyr Valves. By contrast, if the measurement shows continuous airflow from the lobe, the lobe is being refilled through collateral air channels and will likely not respond to Zephyr Valve treatment.

The Chartis System has been validated in multiple randomized controlled clinical trials to predict likely responders to the Zephyr Valve treatment.

The Chartis System offers a physiologic technique for measuring collateral ventilation and complements non-invasive estimates of fissure completeness. Other methods, such as using fissure analysis as a proxy measurement of collateral ventilation allows detection of an incomplete boundary between the lobes but does not measure how much air is flowing across this gap. Without assessment by the Chartis System, physicians may treat a lobe that has collateral ventilation, which will likely not respond to valve treatment, or unnecessarily rule out a patient who could have potentially benefitted from valve treatment.

For example, in one early study not sponsored by us that treated patients with a broad range of fissure completeness, approximately 60% of patients who had fissure completeness of 80-90% in the treated lobe had a successful procedure. If a physician was using only quantitative computed tomography (QCT) and a 90% fissure completeness cutoff to select patients, the physician would inappropriately screen out patients in the 80-90% completeness range that could benefit from valve treatment. In that same study, only 72% of patients with a fissure completeness of 90-100% had successful volume reduction in the target lobe. By comparison, patients selected using the Chartis System in four randomized controlled clinical trials had a success rate of 84%, 88%, 89% and 90%. Thus, while

Table of Contents

quantitative fissure analysis is an important tool for non-invasively screening out ineligible lobes, we believe it is insufficient for identifying responders to treatment with high accuracy.

Treatment Steps

The following graphic illustrates the typical treatment steps associated with our solution.

Clinical Trials and Results

The safety, effectiveness and clinical benefits of the Zephyr Valve in patients selected using the Chartis System have been evaluated in multiple randomized controlled clinical trials that have collectively evaluated approximately 450 patients in Austria, Belgium, Brazil, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States. The results of our LIBERATE study, which served as the basis for the FDA approval of our PMA application, were published in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine in 2018 and met all its primary and secondary effectiveness endpoints. In addition, over 100 scientific articles have been published on the clinical benefits of Zephyr Valves, including multiple meta-analyses, review articles, cost-effectiveness analyses and risk-benefit analyses.

Four randomized controlled clinical trials using the Chartis System to select eligible patients (with little to no collateral ventilation) have been completed comparing the treatment of severe emphysema patients with Zephyr Valves with medical management versus medical management alone (which may include drug therapy, pulmonary rehabilitation and supplemental oxygen). All four studies demonstrated statistically and clinically significant benefits across a broad range of endpoints, including measures of lung function, exercise capacity, and quality of life. Patients who received the Zephyr Valve treatment together with medical management experienced increased lung function, a better quality of life and increased exercise capacity—they could walk farther, could do more daily life activities, such as walking, gardening, and getting ready in the morning, with less shortness of breath. This was due in part to the high rate of procedural success in deflating the target lobe of the lung, ranging from 84-90% in the studies. When the target lobe was properly occluded and isolated from airflow, trapped air in that lobe escaped only through the Zephyr Valves until the lobe volume was reduced. The remaining lobes were then able to expand more fully and work more efficiently, improving overall lung function. Additionally, studies have evaluated the impact of Zephyr Valves on the BODE Index, showing magnitudes of improvement that have been associated with survival benefits.

We are following patients enrolled in the LIBERATE study for up to five years for safety and effectiveness (FEV1) assessments. We have also established a patient registry to collect additional data on the safety and effectiveness of the Zephyr Valve (FEV1) in the United States. We have established a similar registry in France.

Summary of Key Clinical Results

Table of Contents

As seen in the table below, the results from multiple randomized clinical trials have consistently shown statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefits of Zephyr Valves across multiple measures of effectiveness.

Improvement in:

_______________

┬ Difference between Zephyr Valve and control groups

* Per protocol, all other values listed are intention to treat (ITT)

** Data included in FDA-approved instructions for use (IFU)

The complications of treatment with Zephyr Valves can include but are not limited to pneumothorax, worsening of COPD symptoms, hemoptysis, pneumonia, dyspnea and, in rare cases, death. The most common side effect of Zephyr Valve placement is a pneumothorax, which is the collapse of a lung due to an air leak inside the lung. Pneumothoraces are believed to be a direct result of rapid shifts in air volume in the chest as the target lobe deflates and the neighboring lobe expands. A pneumothorax typically requires placement of a chest tube to manage the air leak. While most pneumothoraces can be readily managed with standard medical care, in rare cases they can be life-threatening, particularly if left untreated. In the event the pneumothorax does not resolve with standard management, one or more valves can be removed to re-inflate the lung; these are typically replaced later when the pneumothorax has resolved. In clinical trials, pneumothoraces occurred in 18-34% of patients treated with the Zephyr Valve, and in the LIBERATE Study, 17% of the pneumothorax events required no intervention and resolved on their own. Patients who have had their pneumothoraces successfully treated had comparable outcomes to those who did not experience a pneumothorax, other than that their hospital stays were extended by approximately a week compared to the three nights for patients without pneumothoraces.

Further, our current products are contraindicated, and therefore should not be used, in certain patients, including patients (i) for whom bronchoscopic procedures are contraindicated, (ii) with evidence of active pulmonary infection, (iii) with known allergies to Nitinol (nickel-titanium) or its constituent metals (nickel or titanium) or silicone, (iv) who have not quit smoking or (v) with large bullae encompassing greater than 30% of either lung.

Summary of the LIBERATE Study (Pivotal IDE Study)

LIBERATE, our pivotal study, was a multicenter, multinational, randomized controlled trial of Zephyr Valves in patients with heterogeneous emphysema and little to no collateral ventilation. The study was conducted between October 2013 and September 2017, and the results were published in May 2018 in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.

Key inclusion criteria were emphysema patients with heterogeneous disease (≥15 difference in destruction scores between the target and adjacent lobes), ex-smokers between 40 and 75 years of age, with post-bronchodilator (BD) forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) between 15% and 45% predicted, Total Lung Capacity (TLC) greater than 100% predicted, residual volume (RV) equal to or greater than 175% predicted, diffuse capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide equal to or greater than 20% predicted, a Six-Minute Walk Distance (6MWD) between 100 and 500 meters after a supervised pulmonary rehabilitation program and little to no collateral ventilation. Patients with two or more COPD exacerbations requiring hospitalization in the last year, two or more instances of

Table of Contents

pneumonia in the last year, uncontrolled pulmonary hypertension, myocardial infarction or congestive heart failure in prior six months, and prior lung transplantation, LVRS, bullectomy or lobectomy were excluded from the study.

The Chartis System was used to confirm that all 190 patients had little to no collateral ventilation and would be likely responders to the Zephyr Valve treatment, and were evaluated initially at six months with follow-up for an additional six months.

One hundred ninety patients with hyperinflation were randomized two-to-one for Zephyr Valves plus medical management (Zephyr Valve Group) or medical management alone (which may include drug therapy, pulmonary rehabilitation and supplemental oxygen) (Control Group) (128 Zephyr Valves patients: 62 Control Group patients) and followed for 12 months. Patients in the Zephyr Valve Group had Zephyr Valves placed in the target lobe to achieve lobar occlusion. Both the Zephyr Valve Group and Control Group patients continued to receive optimal medical management according to current clinical practice. Following their 12-month evaluation, the Control Group patients had an option to receive Zephyr Valve treatment, of which 47 out of 59 (80%) elected to do so. The LIBERATE study had high patient retention with 94% of patients completing follow-up for evaluation for 12 months.

The primary effectiveness endpoint was the percentage of patients enrolled in the Zephyr Valve Group who met the threshold of ≥15% improved FEV1 as compared to the Control Group at 12 months.

The secondary effectiveness endpoints included standard validated assessments commonly used in COPD studies:

1)FEV1, a measure of lung function: Difference between the Zephyr Valve Group and the Control Group in absolute change from baseline for FEV1 at 12 months;

2)6MWD, a measure of exercise capacity: Difference between the Zephyr Valve Group and Control Group in absolute change from baseline for 6MWD at 12 months; and

3)St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), a measure of quality of life: Difference between the Zephyr Valve Group and Control Group in absolute change from baseline for SGRQ score at 12 months.

Other endpoints included additional measures of lung function, exercise capacity, breathlessness and quality of life. Adverse events and serious adverse events were evaluated for the Treatment Period (day of procedure to 45 days), and Long-Term Period (46 days after procedure to 12 months) to assess safety.

Table of Contents

Results

Effectiveness

The study met its primary and secondary endpoints at 12 months.

In the Zephyr Valve Group, 47.7% of patients achieved an FEV1 improvement of ≥15% from baseline to 12 months compared to 16.8% of patients in the Control Group (p<0.001).

Figure shows the primary endpoint of FEV1 Responders (FEV1 improvement of ≥15%) at 12 months

The absolute change in FEV1 showed significantly greater mean improvement (improved forced expiratory volume) in the Zephyr Valve Group compared to the Control Group (Δ Zephyr Valve - Control = +0.106L, p<0.001); the 6MWD showed significantly greater mean improvement (increased distance walked) in the Zephyr Valve Group compared to the Control Group (Δ Zephyr Valve - Control = +39.31 meters, p=0.002), and the SGRQ showed significantly greater mean improvement (score reduction) in the Zephyr Valve Group compared to the Control Group (Δ Zephyr Valve - Control = −7.05, p=0.004).

Figure above presents secondary endpoints as mean changes ± standard error of the mean (SEM) from baseline to 12 months for the Zephyr Valve and Control Groups

Table of Contents

Target lobe volume reduction was successfully achieved with 84% of patients having volume reductions of 350 mL or greater, where 350 mL lobe volume reduction is considered to be the Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID). Across a broad range of effectiveness endpoints, patients in the Zephyr Valve Group showed a substantially higher rate of clinically meaningful benefits when compared to patients in the Control Group, with responder rates ranging from 42-62% for individual measures.

73% of patients in the Zephyr Valve Group had a clinically meaningful response to at least one of FEV1, 6MWD and SGRQ score. Responder rates based on the individual MCID for the various endpoints at 12 months are shown in the figure below.

Figure above shows Responder rates based on individual MCID for various endpoints at 12 months

Table of Contents

Safety

The safety of the treatment with Zephyr Valves was assessed by comparing adverse event profiles of patients in the Zephyr Valve Group and Control Group occurring over two time periods: Treatment Period (day of procedure to 45 days) and the Longer-Term Period (46 days after procedure to 12 months). Serious adverse events included pneumothorax, COPD exacerbation, pneumonia, respiratory failure and death.

Treatment Period0 to 45 days Longer-Term Period46 days to 12 months

There were a higher number of serious adverse events in the Zephyr Valve Group compared to the Control Group during the Treatment Period. The most common serious adverse events in the Zephyr Valve Group versus the Control Group during the Treatment Period were pneumothorax and COPD exacerbations.

The majority of pneumothoraces (76%) occurred within three days following a bronchoscopy procedure. Four deaths occurred in the Treatment Period in the Zephyr Valve Group and none in the Control Group. Three of the four deaths were deemed by the investigators to be definitely related to treatment with Zephyr Valves and the remaining one was deemed by the investigators to be probably related to treatment with Zephyr Valves. Each patient that died experienced pneumothorax, with three deaths directly attributed to the pneumothorax and the fourth death the result of respiratory failure after the pneumothorax had resolved. In order to more closely monitor patients, the study protocol was subsequently amended to keep patients in the hospital for five nights. Based on the full study data, current practice is to keep patients in hospital for a minimum of three nights post-treatment. Post-hoc analysis has helped us identify risk factors for the group of patients at higher risk of having a complex pneumothorax event (complex pneumothorax defined as requiring removal of all valves or resulting in death) should one occur. Such high-risk patients include those who are not treated in the most diseased lobe and have greater than 60% destruction of the untreated lung. All four patients who experienced a pneumothorax and died were within this high-risk group. Further, all four pneumothorax events occurred in subjects that were not treated in the most diseased lobe and had more than 60% emphysema destruction in the contralateral lung. This learning is incorporated in our physician training program for physicians to identify such high-risk patients and to consider alternative targets or other risk mitigation strategies. During the Longer-Term Period, there was one death (0.8%) in the Zephyr Valve Group from a COPD exacerbation, deemed by the investigators not to be related to treatment with Zephyr Valves, and one cardiac arrhythmia death in the Control Group (1.6%).

Patients who experienced a pneumothorax following treatment with Zephyr Valves and whose pneumothorax had been resolved, experienced meaningful clinical benefit once they recovered from the pneumothorax event, with benefits comparable to patients who did not experience such pneumothorax events.

In the Longer-Term Period, the Zephyr Valve Group showed a non-statistically meaningful trend towards a reduction in COPD exacerbations requiring hospitalization and statistically significant reductions in respiratory failure events.

Table of Contents

There were a number of secondary bronchoscopy procedures (consistent with study protocol) either to adjust a valve or to manage adverse events. There were 11 adjustment procedures in 11 patients following verification of lobar occlusion from the HRCT-assessment at 45-days. There were 21 procedures purely for valve removal (related to an adverse event) in 17 patients, and ten valve replacement procedures in eight patients (valve replacement procedures could entail simultaneous removal and replacement, or replacement for a valve previously removed). Five patients experienced a pneumothorax event following a valve adjustment procedure. See also Part I, Item 1A, “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Business and Strategy—Use of the Zephyr Valve involves risks and may result in complications, including pneumothorax or death, and is contraindicated in certain patients, which may limit adoption and negatively affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.”

Additional Post Hoc Analysis of LIBERATE Data

In July 2020, Dransfield et al. published a post hoc analysis of patient reported outcomes (PRO) from the LIBERATE trial which found that patients with severe emphysema and hyperinflation who achieve lung volume reduction following treatment with Zephyr Valves experience moderate to large improvements in multidimensional scores for breathlessness, activity, and psychosocial parameters that may permit re-engagement in activities of daily living out to at least 12 months. Patients treated with the Zephyr Valves also reported experiencing significantly more days when their symptoms were “better” and fewer days that were “worse” over 12 months compared to the control group. The authors concluded that interruption of the downward spiral of symptom-induced inactivity, muscle deconditioning, and ensuing weakness allows patients to experience improved activity, feeling of well-being, more confidence, and a better quality of life.

Summary of the TRANSFORM Study

The TRANSFORM study was a company-sponsored, multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial of Zephyr Valve treatment in patients with heterogeneous severe emphysema and little to no collateral ventilation conducted at 17 study sites in Europe. The study was conducted between January 2014 and April 2017, and the results were published in September 2017 in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.

Key inclusion criteria were severe emphysema patients with heterogeneous disease (≥10 difference in destruction scores between the target and adjacent lobes), ex-smokers over 40 years of age, with post- BD FEV1 between 15% and 45% predicted, TLC greater than 100% predicted, RV equal to or greater than 180% predicted, and a 6MWD

Table of Contents

between 100 and 450 meters and little to no collateral ventilation. Patients with two or more COPD exacerbations requiring hospitalization in the last year, known pulmonary hypertension, myocardial infarction or other cardiovascular events in prior six months, and prior lung transplantation, LVRS, bullectomy or lobectomy were excluded from the study. Eligible patients were randomly assigned at a 2:1 ratio into either the Zephyr Valve treatment plus medical management (Zephyr Valve Group) or medical management alone (which may include drug therapy, pulmonary rehabilitation and supplemental oxygen) (Control Group) (65 Zephyr Valve patients: 32 Control Group patients).

The Chartis System was used to confirm that all 97 patients had little to no collateral ventilation and would be likely responders to the Zephyr Valve treatment, and were evaluated initially at six months with follow-up for an additional six months.

Patients in both groups were observed at 45-day, three-month and six-month periods. Patients in the Control Group were required to complete a minimum six-month follow-up. Following their six-month evaluation, the Control Group patients had an option to receive Zephyr Valve treatment, if eligible, which is commercially available in Europe, or remain in the Control Group for an additional six months. Only two Control Group patients elected to continue for an additional six months and the other patients opted to seek Zephyr Valve treatment commercially.

The primary effectiveness endpoint was the percentage of patients in the Zephyr Valve Group meeting the MCID of ≥12% improved post- BD FEV1 at three months post-treatment compared to the percentage of patients in the Control Group.

Other endpoints included additional measures of lung function, exercise capacity, breathlessness, hyperinflation, health status and quality of life measures. Adverse events and serious adverse events were evaluated for the Treatment Period (day of procedure to 45 days) and Longer-Term Period (46 days from procedure day to six months).

Results

Effectiveness

The study met its primary and secondary endpoints at three months.

Table of Contents

At three months, 55% of patients on an ITT basis and 67% of patients on a per protocol (PP) basis achieved a ≥12% change in FEV1 from baseline, compared to 6.5% for the ITT and 6.7% for the PP patients in the Control Group (p<0.001 for both). This was statistically superior to medical management alone.

Figure above shows the responder rate (primary endpoint) for the Intention-to-Treat and Per Protocol Populations at three months

The study met its secondary endpoints, with durable and statistically significant benefits in favor of the Zephyr Valve Group out to six months across multiple measures. Lung function assessed by FEV1 showed a 29% (p<0.001) improvement in the Zephyr Valve Group over the Control Group, exercise capacity assessed by 6MWD improved by 79 meters (p<0.001), quality of life assessed by the SGRQ score improved by 6.5 points (p=0.031), hyperinflation assessed by a decrease in residual volume improved by 670 mL (p=0.002), and health status assessed by the BODE Index improved by 1.75 points (p<0.001). Target lobe volume reduction was successfully achieved with 90% of patients having volume reductions of greater than MCID.

Table of Contents

Figures above show the improvements over time for FEV1, 6MWD, SGRQ, RV, and BODE Index out to six months.

Safety

At six months, 47.7% patients in the Zephyr Valve Group compared to 9.4% patients in the Control Group (p<0.001) had a respiratory related serious adverse event, with most events occurring within 45 days of the procedure. In the Zephyr Valve Group, there were 13 pneumothorax events in 13 patients (20%) during the 45-day Treatment Period (p=0.004). None of the other respiratory serious adverse events were statistically different between groups during the same period. Over the longer term (46 days through six months), there was no difference in respiratory serious adverse events between groups. There was one death in the Zephyr Valve Group due to an in-hospital cardiac arrest as a complication of a pneumothorax and was deemed by the investigator to be related to treatment with Zephyr Valves. See also “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Business and Strategy—Use of the Zephyr Valve involves risks and may result in complications, including pneumothorax or death, and is contraindicated in certain patients, which may limit adoption and negatively affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.”

Summary of the IMPACT Study

The IMPACT Study was a company sponsored, multicenter, randomized, controlled clinical trial of Zephyr Valves in patients with severe homogeneous emphysema at eight investigational sites in Europe. The study was conducted between August 2014 and March 2017, and the results of the primary endpoint at three months were published in August 2016 in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.

Table of Contents

Key inclusion criteria were emphysema patients with homogeneous disease (<15 difference in destruction scores between the target and adjacent lobes), ex-smokers over 40 years of age, with post- BD FEV1 between 15% and 45% predicted, TLC greater than 100% predicted, RV equal to or greater than 200% predicted, a 6MWD equal to or greater than 150 meters and little to no collateral ventilation. Patients with three or more COPD exacerbations requiring hospitalization in the last year, known pulmonary hypertension, myocardial infarction or other relevant cardiovascular events in prior six months, and prior LVR or LVRS, and greater than 20% difference in perfusion between the left and right lung were excluded from the study. Eligible patients were randomly assigned at a 1:1 ratio into either the Zephyr Valve procedure plus medical management (Zephyr Valve Group) or medical management alone (which may include drug therapy, pulmonary rehabilitation and supplemental oxygen) (Control Group) (43 Zephyr Valve patients: 50 Control Group patients).

The Chartis System was used to confirm that all 93 patients had little to no collateral ventilation and would be likely responders to the Zephyr Valve treatment, and were evaluated initially at six months with follow-up for an additional six months.

The primary effectiveness endpoint was the percentage change in FEV1 at three months relative to baseline in the Zephyr Valve Group, compared to the Control Group.

Other endpoints included additional measures of lung function, exercise capacity and quality of life measures. Adverse events and serious adverse events were evaluated for the Treatment Period (day of procedure to 30 days), and Long-Term Period (31 days after procedure to six months).

Results

Effectiveness

The study met its primary effectiveness endpoint. The mean percent change in FEV1 (L) from baseline to three months in the Zephyr Valve Group was an increase of 15.3% compared to a decrease of 3.4% in the Control Group. The mean group difference for the change in FEV1 from baseline to three months was 18.8 ± 22.1% (mean ± SD; p <0.001). Similar changes were observed in the ITT population. The mean percent change in FEV1 (L) from baseline to three months in the Zephyr Valve Group was an increase of 13.7% compared to a decrease of 3.2% in the Control Group. The mean group difference (Zephyr Valve - Control) for the change in FEV1 from baseline to three-months was 17.0 ± 21.4% (mean ± SD; p <0.001).

Table of Contents

Figure above shows the percent change of FEV1 from baseline (primary endpoint) for the ITT groups at three months

The study also met its secondary outcomes. There were statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements from baseline in the Zephyr Valve Group versus the Control Group at three months and six months with differences between the Zephyr Valve Group and Control Group for FEV1 (120 mL at 3 months and 120 mL at six months; p<0.001), RV (480 mL at three months and 430 mL at six months; p=0.011 and p=0.015, respectively), 6MWD (40 meters at three months and 28 meters at six months; p=0.002 and p=0.0156, respectively), SGRQ score (-9.6 at three months and -7.5 at six months; p<0.001), and Modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) Dyspnea Scale scores (-0.6 at three months and -0.4 at six months; p=0.01 and p=0.048, respectively). Target lobe volume reduction was successfully achieved with 89% of patients having volume reductions of greater than MCID.

Figure above presents secondary endpoints as mean changes ± SEM from baseline to six months for the Zephyr Valve and Control Groups

Safety

There were a higher number of respiratory serious adverse events in the Zephyr Valve Group compared to the Control Group during the Treatment Period (day of procedure to 30 days; 44.2% patients versus 2.0% patients). The

Table of Contents

most common respiratory serious adverse events in the Zephyr Valve Group versus the Control Group during the Treatment Period were pneumothorax in 23.3% versus 0.0%, respectively; and COPD exacerbations in 14.0% versus 2.0% patients, respectively. All pneumothoraces were managed using standard techniques that included chest tube placement and careful observation. There were a comparable number of serious respiratory adverse events in the Zephyr Valve Group compared to the Control Group during the Longer-Term Period (31 days to six months; 34.9% patients versus 26.0% patients, respectively).

The most common respiratory adverse events in the Zephyr Valve Group versus Control Group during the Longer-Term Period were COPD exacerbations in 18.6% versus 20.0% patients, respectively; dyspnea in 4.7% versus 0.0% patients, respectively; pneumothorax in 4.7% versus 0.0% patients, respectively; pneumonia in 2.3% versus 4.0% patients, respectively; and hypercapnia in 0.0% versus 6.0% patients, respectively. There were no deaths in the Zephyr Valve Group and two deaths in the Control Group that occurred in the Longer-Term Period. There was one death in the Zephyr Valve Group that occurred beyond 12-months after the Zephyr Valve implantation following severe COPD exacerbation after an abdominal surgery and was not related to treatment with Zephyr Valves. See also Part I, Item 1A, “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Business and Strategy—Use of the Zephyr Valve involves risks and may result in complications, including pneumothorax or death, and is contraindicated in certain patients, which may limit adoption and negatively affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.”

Summary of the STELVIO Study

The STELVIO study was an independent, non-company sponsored, randomized, controlled clinical trial conducted at a single center in the Netherlands that evaluated68 patients with severe emphysema and hyperinflation. The study was conducted between June 2011 and November 2014, and the results of the primary endpoint were published in November 2015 in TheNew England Journal of Medicine.

Key inclusion criteria were severe emphysema patients with heterogeneous and homogeneous disease, ex-smokers over 35 years of age, with post- BD FEV1 less than 60% predicted, TLC greater than 100% predicted, RV greater than 150% predicted, dyspnea score of equal to or greater than two on the mMRC Dyspnea Scale, a 6MWD equal to or greater than 140 meters, and little to no collateral ventilation. Key exclusion criteria were prior LVRS, lung transplantation or lobectomy and evidence of other disease that may compromise survival or would interfere with completion of study. Eligible patients were randomly assigned at a 1:1 ratio to either Zephyr Valve treatment plus medical management (Zephyr Valve Group) or medical management alone (which may include drug therapy, pulmonary rehabilitation and supplemental oxygen) (Control Group) (34 Zephyr Valve patients: 34 Control Group patients).

The Chartis System was used to confirm that all 68 patients had little to no collateral ventilation and would be likely responders to the Zephyr Valve treatment, and were evaluated initially at six months with follow-up for an additional six months.

The primary outcome measures included differences between groups for changes in FEV1, Forced Vital Capacity (FVC) and 6MWD from baseline to six months.

Secondary outcome measures, among patients who completed the study, were improvements from baseline to six months in FEV1, FVC, 6MWD, SGRQ score and other health related measures.

Results

Effectiveness

The study met its primary and secondary effectiveness outcomes.

There were significantly greater improvements in the Zephyr Valve Group than in the Control group from baseline to six months with a between group increase in FEV1 of 140 mL (95% confidence interval (CI), 55 to 225), in FVC of 347 mL (95% CI, 107 to 588), in the 6MWD of 74 m (95% CI, 47 to 100) (p<0.01 for all comparisons). The data

Table of Contents

are depicted in the figure and table below. Target lobe volume reduction was successfully achieved with 88% of patients having volume reductions of greater than MCID.

Figure above presents the co-primary endpoints as mean changes with 95% confidence intervals from baseline to six months for the Zephyr Valve and Control Groups

STELVIO was also the first randomized trial that evaluated outcomes in patients with homogeneous disease versus heterogeneous disease and showed that both groups benefited from treatment with Zephyr Valves. In general, the clinical outcomes after Zephyr Valve treatment were lower in the homogeneous patients compared to the heterogeneous patients but were still clinically meaningful (i.e., were greater than the MCID for each measure).

Homogeneous EmphysemaN=29 Heterogeneous EmphysemaN=22

SGRQ score (points) -13 -19

In subsequent follow-up of patients in the STELVIO study, these results were shown to be durable to at least one year. Furthermore, the BODE index at one year showed an improvement from baseline of -1.13 points (95% CI, -1.5 to -0.7; p <0.001); a reduction of more than one point in the BODE Index being associated with a decrease in mortality.

Safety

Over the six months, there were 23 serious adverse events in the Zephyr Valve Group, as compared with five in the Control group (p<0.001). Serious treatment related adverse events in the Zephyr Valve Group included pneumothorax (18% of patients) and events requiring valve replacement (12%) or removal (15%). There was one

Table of Contents

death in the Zephyr Valve Group due to end-stage COPD with respiratory failure 58 days after treatment which was deemed by the investigator to be unrelated to treatment with Zephyr Valves.

There was one death during the six-month to 12-month period in the Zephyr Valve Group due to a myocardial infarction (313 days after treatment) unrelated to treatment with Zephyr Valves. In the Control Group, there were two deaths recorded at 160 and 267 days after the screening visit, both due to COPD progression. See also Part I, Item 1A, “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Business and Strategy—Use of the Zephyr Valve involves risks and may result in complications, including pneumothorax or death, and is contraindicated in certain patients, which may limit adoption and negatively affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.”

Other Clinical Trials

The VENT study was a multicenter randomized clinical trial conducted in the mid-2000s by Emphasys Medical evaluating the safety and effectiveness of the Zephyr Valve. The study enrolled 321 patients in the United States. While the study showed statistically significant improvement in FEV1 and 6MWD (co-primary endpoints), these were only clinically significant in a post hoc subset of patients that had complete fissures (a surrogate for absence of collateral ventilation) and lobar occlusion. The study did not meet its primary endpoints.

The BeLieVeR-HIFi study was a single center randomized, controlled, independent, non-company-sponsored study conducted in the early 2010s that enrolled 50 patients with complete fissures and severe heterogeneous emphysema. Patients were randomized to treatment with Zephyr Valves and medical management or a sham procedure and medical management. While Chartis assessment was performed to assess collateral ventilation prior to the procedure, inclusion in the study was based on visual assessment of complete fissures. The study showed clinical benefit in the Zephyr Valve treated patients although the outcomes were better in patients in whom collateral ventilation was ruled out using the Chartis System.

We are not aware of any prospective data regarding survival rates of patients who have undergone endobronchial valve treatment. There are two survival studies, however, that retrospectively evaluate patients treated with endobronchial valves. These studies compared survival rates between patients with significant volume reduction in the treated lobe (also called atelectasis) against those who did not have atelectasis. In one study, the patient population consisted of 449 patients with either heterogeneous or homogeneous emphysema five years following treatment with Zephyr Valves or other endobronchial valves. The majority of patients in this study were treated with Zephyr Valves. The results of this study suggested that patients with atelectasis were approximately 45% more likely to survive than patients without. Another study of 19 patients with only heterogeneous emphysema ten years following treatment with Zephyr Valves suggested that patients with atelectasis were approximately 166% more likely to survive than patients without atelectasis. We believe these studies are relevant because treatment with Zephyr Valves is intended to cause atelectasis in poorly functioning, hyperinflated lobes of the lung. In addition, the results of these studies add to the body of evidence showing the benefits of atelectasis in patients with severe

Table of Contents

emphysema and hyperinflation, including the potential for increased survival rates when compared to valve treatment without atelectasis.

Our Commercial Strategy

We have established a stepwise approach to market development which centers on active engagement across three key stakeholders in addressing severe emphysema: hospitals, physicians and patients.

We sell Zephyr Valves primarily through a direct sales force that engages with pulmonologists in the United States, Europe and Asia Pacific. Zephyr Valves are typically implanted by an interventional pulmonologist at a hospital, and patients are often evaluated in a multi-disciplinary team approach that includes other lung physicians, radiologists, respiratory therapy specialists or surgeons. Our sales personnel work closely with these stakeholders to ensure quality outcomes. We offer an in-depth training program developed in conjunction with leading global thought leaders and the largest pulmonary society in the United States. Our sales personnel work with hospitals to leverage their existing resources to efficiently establish and market Zephyr Valves as a service line. Our sales territory managers also call on community physicians and pulmonary rehabilitation centers to raise awareness of Zephyr Valves as a treatment option.

We seek to recruit sales territory managers with strong sales backgrounds, with direct experience developing markets with new technologies and an understanding of medical device reimbursement and the prior authorization process. In the United States, our territory managers are managed by region directors. We plan to expand our commercial organization, recruiting and training talented sales territory managers in existing and new markets in the United States to help facilitate further adoption and broaden awareness of Zephyr Valves. We believe investing in a scalable, efficient direct sales force and continuing the development of our marketing efforts will help us broaden adoption of our solution in order to drive revenue growth.

Our strategy is to identify territories with high unmet need, identify leading hospitals and work with champions of our solution to build emphysema centers of excellence. We believe there is a significant growth opportunity for hospitals to provide high quality comprehensive diagnosis and treatment for advanced COPD patients. We believe

Table of Contents

we can efficiently serve the United States market, focusing on approximately 500 high volume hospitals, of which we currently cover a small fraction.

We intend to continue to promote awareness of our solution through training and educating physicians, pulmonary rehabilitation centers, key opinion leaders and various medical societies on the proven clinical benefits of Zephyr Valves. We continue to develop our relationships with credible third parties, such as our partnership with the American College of Chest Physicians, on continuing medical education-accredited training and with the COPD Foundation on patient and physician education. We also intend to continue helping physicians in their outreach to patients and other healthcare providers. In addition, we intend to continue to publish additional clinical data in various industry and scientific journals, online and through presentations at various industry conferences. We believe that many patients who suffer from severe emphysema are eager for a minimally invasive option such as the Zephyr Valve. We also plan to continue building patient awareness through our direct-to-patient marketing initiatives, which include advertising, social media and online education. We also intend to continue helping physicians in their outreach to patients and other healthcare providers.

The objective of this outreach is to bring patients to our website, where they can find educational materials on Zephyr Valves, determine if they may be eligible, find contact information for physicians in their area and sign up for support and news.

We conduct our international business through direct sales in markets with established reimbursement and substantial market potential, and through a distributor-based sales model in smaller markets or markets where we are still developing reimbursement.

Our strategy is to offer limited distribution and develop champions of our solution in high potential markets, and as reimbursement becomes available, change from a distributor-based sales model to a direct sales model. We have successfully followed this approach in most markets outside the United States in which we sell and we anticipate following a similar approach in the future.

Third-Party Reimbursement

There are three key components for reimbursement in the United States: (1) coding, (2) payment and (3) coverage. Our patient access team is responsible for all aspects of our reimbursement processes and initiatives. In the United States, our solution is reimbursed based on established Category I CPT and ICD-10 PCS codes and associated APC and MS-DRG payment groupings.

Coding

In the United States, we sell our products to hospitals. These customers in turn bill various third-party payors, such as commercial payors and government agencies, for the cost required to treat each patient.

Third-party payors require physicians and hospitals to identify the items and services for which they are seeking reimbursement by using standard codes for both physician and facility payments. “Coding” refers to distinct numeric and alphanumeric billing codes that are used by healthcare providers to report the provision of medical services procedures and the use of supplies for specific patients to payors. CPT codes are published by the American Medical Association and are used to report medical services and procedures performed by or under the direction of physicians. Medicare generally pays physicians for services based on submission of a claim using one or more specific CPT codes. Physician payment for procedures may vary according to site of service. Hospitals are reimbursed for inpatient procedures based on MS‐DRG classifications derived from patient demographic information and ICD-10-CM diagnosis and ICD-10 PCS codes that describe the patient’s diagnoses and procedures performed during the hospital stay.

Table of Contents

Payment

Payment refers to the amount paid to providers for specific procedures and supplies. Physician reimbursement under Medicare generally is based on a defined fee schedule (Physician Fee Schedule) through which payment amounts are determined by the relative values of the service rendered. Medicare provides reimbursement to our hospital customers as a lump sum intended to cover all costs under a single MS-DRG payment. Reimbursement from commercial payors is typically based on a similar methodology but rates vary depending on the procedure performed, the hospital, the commercial payor, contract terms and other factors.

These ICD-10 PCS codes map to the MS-DRG classifications for Major Chest Procedures, with national average reimbursement rates between $12,000 and $32,000, for the year 2020, depending on co-morbidities and complications. MS‐DRG classifications calibrate payment for groups of services based on the severity of a patient’s illness and clinical cohesiveness of care. One single MS‐DRG payment is intended to cover all hospital costs associated with treating a patient during his or her hospital stay, while physician charges associated with performing medical procedures are reimbursed to physicians through a different payment system based on the codes they submit. Payment for Zephyr Valve is expected to, on average, be sufficient to cover costs of the procedure.

If a patient is positive for collateral ventilation following an assessment by the Chartis System, the patient is typically discharged the same day and the procedure therfore billed as an outpatient procedure. The CPT code used to provide payment for the Chartis procedure, for patients who do not receive the Zephyr Valve due to collateral ventilation, maps to an Ambulatory Payment Classification, with a national average payment of $5,823. If a patient receives the Zephyr Valve, there is no separate reimbursement for the Chartis System procedure; rather, the provider receives payment for the endobronchial valve procedures as described above.

The national Medicare average payment for physicians performing the endobronchial valve procedure is generally consistent with other complex bronchoscopic procedures.

Commercial Payor and Government Program Coverage

Coverage refers to decisions made by commercial third-party payors and government programs as to whether or not to provide their members access to and pay for specific procedures and related supplies, and if so, what conditions, such as specific diagnoses and clinical indications, are covered. Commercial payors typically base coverage decisions on reviews of clinical evidence presented in published peer-reviewed medical literature.

A majority of our patients are Medicare-eligible beneficiaries. Without a national coverage determination (NCD) or a local coverage determination (LCD), Medicare claims are processed by Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs), which assess coverage under Medicare’s reasonable and necessary standard. We estimate that roughly 75% of the potential Zephyr Valve patient population are Medicare/Medicaid beneficiaries of which approximately 25% have managed Medicare/Medicaid and the remaining 50% have traditional fee-for-service Medicare/Medicaid. Approximately 25% of the potential Zephyr Valve patient population is under third-party commercial payor policies. A key element of our strategy remains to broaden our coverage by private third-party payor policies.

Commercial payors such as Aetna, Humana, Health Care Service Corporation, and Highmark have issued positive coverage policies for the Zephyr Valve, and United Healthcare no longer considers the procedure unproven or experimental. We continue to engage with commercial payors to establish positive national coverage policies by highlighting our compelling and robust clinical data, unique patient selection tools, favorable cost profile to more invasive options, increased patient demand and support from global treatment recommendations for the management of COPD and emphysema.

Prior Authorization Approval Process

A second key element of our reimbursement strategy includes leveraging our patient reimbursement support team and knowledge of the published data to assist patients and physicians in obtaining appropriate prior authorization approvals in advance of treatment for payers that require it. We believe our patient reimbursement support team is

Table of Contents

highly effective in working with patients and physicians to obtain appropriate prior authorizations for the Zephyr Valve treatment even when a non-coverage policy exists. We believe patients and providers will continue to benefit from support through the prior authorization process until widespread coverage is established across most commercial payors.

Reimbursement Outside of the United States

Outside of the United States, reimbursement levels vary significantly by country and by patient. Reimbursement is obtained from a variety of sources, including government sponsors, hospital budgets or private health insurance plans, or combinations thereof. We have established reimbursement access in countries across Europe and Asia Pacific, including Australia, Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands, South Korea, the United Kingdom and other countries.

Research, Development and Clinical Programs

Our research and development team continues to design, develop and test new innovations to improve patient outcomes and expand our addressable market. We also work with external vendors in the design and testing of new technologies.

Since the early development of the Zephyr Valve, our company has produced a stream of innovations to increase the success rate of using the Zephyr Valve. This includes innovations in our airway sizing and delivery catheters, the introduction of new sizes of Zephyr Valves, improvements to the user interface of the Chartis System to accommodate a variety of anesthesia options and the StratX Platform to assist with patient selection and procedure planning.

We have had discussions with the FDA regarding expanding the Zephyr Valve indication to include the management of persistent air leaks. We believe there are approximately 7,000 patients who suffer from a persistent air leak per year in the United States that could benefit from treatment with Zephyr Valves.

Our pipeline of products that we are currently considering includes innovations in image analysis to support advanced patient selection and optimize patient outcomes, catheter technologies to improve valve deliverability and reduce procedure time and the AeriSeal system for addressing the needs of severe emphysema patients who are not eligible for Zephyr Valves due to collateral ventilation. In December 2020, AeriSeal received designation as a Breakthrough Device by the FDA. The breakthrough designation will provide prioritized and potentially accelerated review by the FDA, and provides eligibility for Medicare Coverage of Innovation Technology (MCIT), a rule which enables receipt of Medicare coverage as early as the same day as FDA market authorization for breakthrough devices and provides coverage for four years.

AeriSeal is a polymerizing sealant that can be delivered via a bronchoscope to a targeted region of the lung to reduce volume in the treated area. We intend to submit an IDE to the FDA for commencing a clinical trial with the AeriSeal system. We have only conducted initial feasibility research on AeriSeal to date. We believe that positive results from this clinical trial would enable the treatment of patients with collateral ventilation, which would complement the screening of patients for Zephyr Valves. We have secured CE mark and Therapeutic Goods Administration approval in Australia for AeriSeal and have completed initial feasibility research. We further have funded a feasibility study using AeriSeal to expand the number of patients that can be treated with Zephyr Valves and are exploring additional studies. If successfully developed and approved, AeriSeal could further expand the addressable market of our solution.

For the years ended December 31, 2020 and December 31, 2019, we incurred research and development expenses, including our clinical trials, of $7.5 million and $6.0 million, respectively.

Table of Contents

Competition

Our industry is highly competitive and subject to rapid change from the introduction of new products and technologies and other activities of industry participants.

We are positioning our solution as an alternative to existing treatments of severe emphysema. These treatments include medical management, other minimally invasive treatments, LVRS and lung transplantations. The major competitive products include the Spiration Valve System (Olympus Corporation) and the InterVapor System (Broncus Medical, Inc.; not approved for use in the United States). The Spiration Valve System is an endobronchial technology designed to offer patients with severe emphysema a minimally invasive treatment option for lung volume reduction by redirecting air away from diseased areas of the lung to healthier tissue so that patients may breathe easier. Like Zephyr Valves, the Spiration Valve System is indicated to treat patients with heterogeneous emphysema; however, the Spiration Valve System is contraindicated for patients with homogeneous emphysema. We believe our solution competes favorably with the Spiration Valve System for several reasons, including the strength of our published clinical data, differentiated patient selection tools and our comprehensive technical and reimbursement support. InterVapor System offers a non-surgical and non-implant therapy developed for lung disease including emphysema and lung cancer where vapor ablation is simply the application of heated pure water to tissue.

Some of our current or future competitors may have several competitive advantages, including established relationships with pulmonologists who commonly treat patients with emphysema, significantly greater name recognition and significantly greater sales and marketing resources.

In addition to competing for market share, we also compete against these companies for personnel, including qualified sales and other personnel that are necessary to grow our business.

We believe the principal competitive factors in our market include the following:

•patient outcomes and adverse event rates;

•product safety, reliability and durability;

•patient experience;

•effective marketing to and education of patients, physicians and hospitals;

•acceptance by treating physicians and referral sources;

•physician learning curve;

•ease-of-use and reliability;

•patient recovery time and level of discomfort;

•economic benefits and cost savings;

•availability of coverage and adequate reimbursement; and

•strength of clinical evidence.

In addition to existing competitors, other companies may acquire or in-license competitive products and could directly compete with us. These competitors may also try to compete with us on price both directly, through rebates and promotional programs to high volume physicians and coupons to patients, and indirectly, through attractive product bundling with complementary products that offer convenience and an effectively lower price compared to

Table of Contents

the total price of purchasing each product separately. Larger competitors may also be able to offer greater customer loyalty benefits to encourage repeat use of their products and finance a sustained global advertising campaign to compete with commercialization efforts of our products. Our competitors may seek to discredit our products by challenging our short operating history or relatively limited number of scientific studies and publications. Smaller companies could also launch new or enhanced products and services that we do not offer and that could gain market acceptance quickly. Additionally, certain of our competitors may challenge our intellectual property, may develop additional competing or superior technologies and processes and compete more aggressively and sustain that competition over a longer period of time than we could. Our technologies and products may be rendered obsolete or uneconomical by technological advances or entirely different approaches developed by one or more of our competitors. As more companies develop new intellectual property in our market, there is the possibility of a competitor acquiring patents or other rights that may limit our ability to update our technologies and products which may impact demand for our products.

Intellectual Property

We rely on a combination of patent, copyright, trademark and trade secret laws and confidentiality and invention assignment agreements to protect our intellectual property rights. As of December 31, 2020, we had 39 patent families in force worldwide. As of December 31, 2020, we had rights to 60 issued United States patents, 17 pending United States patent applications, 133 issued foreign patents and 13 pending foreign patent applications. Our most material foreign patents issued and patent applications pending are in the European Union, France, Germany, Japan and the United Kingdom. Our patents cover aspects of our current Zephyr Valve, loading system, airway sizing, EDC, Chartis System, AeriSeal and future product concepts. The term of individual patents depends on the legal term for patents in the countries in which they are granted. In most countries, including the United States, the patent term is generally 20 years from the earliest claimed filing date of a nonprovisional patent application in the applicable country. Our patents expire between 2021 and 2038. We have applied to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) seeking an extension for the term of a material Zephyr Valve patent from 2023 to 2027 under the Patent Term Extension which allows additional term to be added to a patent to compensate for the FDA approval process. Once a patent expires, the protection ends, and an invention enters the public domain; that is, anyone can commercially exploit the invention without infringing the patent.

There is no active patent litigation involving any of our patents and we have not received any notices claiming that our activities infringe a third party’s patent.

We cannot guarantee that patents will be issued from any of our pending applications or that, if patents are issued, they will be of sufficient scope or strength to provide meaningful protection for our technology. Notwithstanding the scope of the patent protection available to us, a competitor could develop treatment methods or devices that are not covered by our patents. Furthermore, numerous United States and foreign-issued patents and patent applications owned by third parties exist in the fields in which we are developing products. Because patent applications can take many years to publish, there may be applications unknown to us, which may later result in issued patents that our existing or future products or technologies may be alleged to infringe.

There has been substantial litigation regarding patent and other intellectual property rights in the medical device industry. In the future, we may need to engage in litigation to enforce patents issued or licensed to us, to protect our trade secrets or know-how, to defend against claims of infringement of the rights of others or to determine the scope and validity of the proprietary rights of others. Litigation could be costly and could divert our attention from other functions and responsibilities. Furthermore, even if our patents are found to be valid and infringed, a court may refuse to grant injunctive relief against the infringer and instead grant us monetary damages or ongoing royalties. Such monetary compensation may be insufficient to adequately offset the damage to our business caused by the infringer’s competition in the market. Adverse determinations in litigation could subject us to significant liabilities to third parties, require us to seek licenses from third parties or could prevent us from manufacturing, selling or using the product accused of infringement, any of which could severely harm our business. See Part I, Item 1A, “Risk Factors—Risks Related to our Intellectual Property” for additional information regarding these and other risks related to our intellectual property portfolio and their potential effect on us.

Table of Contents

We also rely upon trademarks to build and maintain the integrity of our brand. As of December 31, 2020, we had eight registered trademark filings, some of which may apply to multiple countries, and several pending trademark applications in various countries.

We also rely, in part, upon unpatented trade secrets, know-how and continuing technological innovation, and licensing arrangements, to develop and maintain our competitive position. We protect our proprietary rights through a variety of methods, including confidentiality and assignment agreements with suppliers, employees, consultants and others who may have access to our proprietary information.

Cross-Licensing Agreement with Spiration/Olympus

In January 2005, Emphasys Medical (Emphasys), a company we later acquired, entered into a cross-license agreement (Spiration Cross-License) with Spiration, Inc. (Spiration) (later acquired by Olympus Medical Systems Corp.). Since both companies were developing products in the same field, they entered into this agreement to minimize the risk of intellectual property disputes in the future and their associated cost. When we acquired Emphasys in 2009, we became the successor-in-interest to Emphasys’ rights under the Spiration Cross-License. Under the agreement, each company non-exclusively licensed the other party to make, have made (solely for such other party), sell, offer for sale, import and export specific products under their respective patent portfolio at that time that covers such products or a method of use thereof. The license granted to us by Spiration is limited to devices where the outer perimeter of the device seals with the airway wall and the device allows fluid flow only through one or more openings in the device radially inward of such outer perimeter. It does not give us a license under Spiration’s patent rights to valve devices that allow fluid flow only between the outer perimeter of the device and the airway wall. Similarly, the license granted to Spiration by us is limited to devices that allow fluid flow only between the outer perimeter of the device and the airway wall. It does not give Spiration a license under our patent rights to make or sell valve devices where the outer perimeter of the device seals with the airway wall and the device allows fluid flow only through one or more openings in the device radially inward of such outer perimeter. The licenses cannot be sublicensed. Furthermore, each license also includes a covenant not to sue the other party for infringement with respect to specified product elements, designs and features. The Spiration Cross-License can be terminated by either party upon 60 days’ written notice to the other in the event certain patents are no longer owned by the other party or such patents are no longer in force; provided, that, the parties are required to negotiate in good faith during such 60-day notice period to attempt to enter into a replacement cross-license prior to such termination. Neither party may assign or otherwise transfer the Spiration Cross-License without the written consent of the other party, except in connection with certain change-of-control transactions. We do not have any relationship with Spiration other than with respect to this cross-license agreement.

Manufacturing and Supply

We manufacture all our products — valves, delivery catheters, balloon catheters and the Chartis System console — at our headquarters located at 700 Chesapeake Drive, Redwood City, California 94063 where we lease approximately 25,000 square feet of space. Our lease terminates on July 31, 2025. This facility supports production and distribution operations, including manufacturing, quality control, raw material and finished goods storage. We have manufactured all our products at this facility for over 10 years and to date we have manufactured over 80,000 Zephyr Valves. We also store finished goods at other facilities in Redwood City, California where we lease approximately 8,000 square feet and 17,000 square feet of space under lease agreements that terminates on May 31, 2024 and September 30, 2024, respectively. There is a mutual early termination option starting November 30, 2021 on the 8,000 square feet of space.

We rely on a combination of in-house processing and third-party suppliers for raw materials and components. We have supply agreements with a few critical suppliers while procuring most of our materials on a purchase order basis. Suppliers are routinely evaluated based on industry standards including on-site audits, as required, to be approved. We have a strict change control policy with our suppliers to ensure that no design or process changes are made without our prior approval. Based on our prior experience with such suppliers to manufacture products for commercialization both inside and outside the United States, we believe these suppliers are capable of continuing to meet our specifications and maintaining quality. Several components used in our devices rely on single source

Table of Contents

suppliers and we routinely prioritize, evaluate and qualify backup sources. We typically maintain several months of product in inventory however if one or more of our single source suppliers were to encounter a manufacturing issue or chooses to end supply, we estimate that some of our custom components could take between one and two years to qualify a second source supplier in all markets. The manufacture of AeriSeal, which is still in development, is completely outsourced to a contract manufacturer. The StratX Platform’s QCT service is currently outsourced as well. We host the customer-facing web portal for the StratX Platform’s QCT service while using a third-party cloud service provider to direct CT scan uploads from customers to qualified radiological image analysis providers.

We perform the final assembly, inspection, testing, packaging and product release testing for the Zephyr Valve, the EDC and Chartis System at our headquarters in Redwood City. These products are sterilized using ethylene oxide at a qualified sterilization supplier in Los Angeles, California. In the United States, we generally ship products from our third party logistics provider in Memphis, Tennessee and our facilities in Redwood City to our direct sales territory managers, who deliver these products to our hospital customers. Once they are trained and proficient in the procedure, we may also sell our products directly to our hospital customers. Internationally, we ship our products to a qualified third-party logistics provider in the Netherlands who, in turn, may either ship directly to our customers in Europe, Australia and other international markets on a consignment basis or directly to our sales territory managers in these countries who then sell these products to our customers. We also ship from our Redwood City facilities to distributors in Asia Pacific and other international markets.

Our manufacturing and distribution operations are subject to regulatory requirements of the FDA’s QSR for medical devices sold in the United States, set forth in 21 CFR part 820, and the EU’s Medical Device Directive (MDD) or Medical Device Regulation (MDR) for medical devices marketed in the European Union. We are also subject to applicable local regulations relating to the environment, waste management and health and safety matters, including measures relating to the release, use, storage, treatment, transportation, discharge, disposal, sale, labeling, collection, recycling, treatment and remediation of hazardous substances.

The FDA monitors compliance with the QSR through periodic inspections of our facilities, which may include inspection of our suppliers’ facilities as well. Our European Union Notified Body, British Standards Institute (BSI), monitors compliance with the MDD requirements through both annual scheduled audits and periodic unannounced audits of our manufacturing facilities as well as our contract third-party suppliers’ facilities.

Our failure, or the failure of our third-party suppliers, to maintain acceptable quality requirements could result in the shutdown of our manufacturing operations or the recall of our products. If one of our suppliers fails to maintain acceptable quality requirements, we may have to qualify a new supplier, which could adversely affect manufacturing of our products and result in manufacturing delays as well as have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition.

Our quality management system in our Redwood City manufacturing facility is currently ISO 13485:2016 certified, MDD certified and licensed by the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Food and Drug Branch. Our manufacturing facility is an FDA-registered medical device establishment. BSI will audit our facility to the MDR during 2021.

The FDA conducted a total of two establishment inspections of our manufacturing facility in 2014 and 2016. We believe that we are in compliance, in all material respects, with all applicable FDA and QSR requirements.

Manufacturing of the materials and components of our products are provided by approved suppliers, all of which are single source suppliers of key components, sub-assemblies and materials. The suppliers for the products are evaluated, qualified and approved through a stringent supplier management program, which includes various evaluations, assessments, qualifications, validations, testing and inspection to ensure the supplier can meet acceptable quality requirements. We implement a strict change control policy with our key suppliers to ensure that no component or process changes are made without our prior approval.

Order quantities and lead times for components purchased from suppliers are based on our forecasts derived from historical demand and anticipated future demand. Lead times for components may vary depending on the size of the

Table of Contents

order, time required to manufacture and test the components, specific supplier requirements and current market demand for the components, sub-assemblies and materials. We perform assembly, testing, inspection and final product release activities for our products.

Government Regulation

United States Food and Drug Administration

Our products and operations are subject to extensive and ongoing regulation by the FDA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 and its implementing regulations (FDCA), as well as other federal and state regulatory bodies in the United States. The laws and regulations govern, among other things, product design and development, pre-clinical and clinical testing, manufacturing, packaging, labeling, storage, record keeping and reporting, clearance or approval, marketing, distribution, promotion, import and export and post-marketing surveillance.

Unless an exemption applies, each new or significantly modified medical device we seek to commercially distribute in the United States will require either a premarket notification to the FDA requesting permission for commercial distribution under Section 510(k) of the FDCA, also referred to as a 510(k) clearance, or approval from the FDA of a PMA application. Both the 510(k) clearance and PMA processes can be resource intensive, expensive and lengthy, and require payment of significant user fees, unless an exemption is available.

Device Classification

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 includes devices with the lowest risk to the patient and are those for which safety and effectiveness can be reasonably assured by adherence to a set of FDA regulations, referred to as the General Controls for Medical Devices (General Controls), which require compliance with the applicable portions of the QSR, facility registration and product listing, reporting of adverse events and malfunctions, and as appropriate, truthful and non-misleading labeling 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.

Class II devices are those that are subject to the General Controls, and special controls as deemed necessary by the FDA to ensure the safety and effectiveness of the device (Special Controls). These Special Controls can include performance standards, patient registries, FDA guidance documents 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.

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 novel and 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. Through the PMA application process, the applicant must submit data and information demonstrating reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use to the FDA’s satisfaction. Accordingly, a PMA application typically includes, but is not limited to, extensive technical information regarding device design and development, pre-clinical and clinical trial data, manufacturing information, labeling and financial disclosure information for the clinical investigators in device studies. The PMA application must provide valid scientific evidence that demonstrates to the FDA’s satisfaction a reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use.

Table of Contents

The Zephyr Valve is a Class III device that has received FDA PMA approval.

The Investigational Device Exemption Process

In the United States, absent certain limited exceptions, human clinical trials intended to support medical device clearance or approval require an IDE application. Some types of studies deemed to present “non-significant risk” are deemed to have an approved IDE once certain requirements are addressed and Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval is obtained. If the device presents a “significant risk” to human health, as defined by the FDA, the sponsor must submit an IDE application to the FDA and obtain IDE approval prior to commencing the human clinical trials. The IDE application must be supported by appropriate data, such as animal and laboratory testing results, showing that it is safe to test the device in humans and that the testing protocol is scientifically sound. The IDE application must be approved in advance by the FDA for a specified number of subjects. Generally, clinical trials for a significant risk device may begin once the IDE application is approved by the FDA and the study protocol and informed consent are approved by appropriate IRBs at the clinical trial sites. There can be no assurance that submission of an IDE application will result in the ability to commence clinical trials, and although the FDA’s approval of an IDE application allows clinical testing to go forward for a specified number of subjects, it does not bind the FDA to accept the results of the trial as sufficient to prove the product’s safety and effectiveness, even if the trial meets its intended success criteria.

All clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with the FDA’s IDE regulations that govern investigational device labeling, prohibition of promotion, recordkeeping, and reporting and monitoring responsibilities of study sponsors and study investigators. Clinical trials must further comply with the FDA’s good clinical practice regulations for IRB approval and for informed consent and other human subject protections. Required records and reports are subject to inspection by the FDA. The results of clinical testing may be unfavorable, or, even if the intended safety and effectiveness success criteria are achieved, may not be considered sufficient for the FDA to grant marketing approval or clearance of a product. The commencement or completion of any clinical trial may be delayed or halted, or be inadequate to support approval of a PMA application, for numerous reasons, including, but not limited to, the following:

•the FDA or other regulatory authorities do not approve a clinical trial protocol or a clinical trial, or place a clinical trial on hold;

•patients do not enroll in clinical trials at the rate expected;

•patients do not comply with trial protocols;

•patient follow-up is not at the rate expected;

•patients experience adverse events;

•patients die during a clinical trial, even though their death may not be related to the products that are part of the trial;

•device malfunctions occur with unexpected frequency or potential adverse consequences;

•side effects or device malfunctions of similar products already in the market that change the FDA’s view toward approval of new or similar PMAs or result in the imposition of new requirements or testing;

•IRBs and third-party clinical investigators may delay or reject the trial protocol;

•third-party clinical investigators decline to participate in a trial or do not perform a trial on the anticipated schedule or consistent with the clinical trial protocol, investigator agreement, investigational plan, good clinical practices, the IDE regulations, or other FDA or IRB requirements;

Table of Contents

•third-party investigators are disqualified by the FDA;

•we or third-party organizations do not perform data collection, monitoring and analysis in a timely or accurate manner or consistent with the clinical trial protocol or investigational or statistical plans, or otherwise fail to comply with the IDE regulations governing responsibilities, records and reports of sponsors of clinical investigations;

•third-party clinical investigators have significant financial interests related to us or our study such that the FDA deems the study results unreliable, or we or third-party clinical investigators fail to disclose such interests;

•regulatory inspections of our clinical trials or manufacturing facilities, which may, among other things, require us to undertake corrective action or suspend or terminate our clinical trials;

•changes in government regulations or administrative actions;

•the interim or final results of the clinical trial are inconclusive or unfavorable as to safety or effectiveness; or

•the FDA concludes that our trial design is unreliable or inadequate to demonstrate safety and effectiveness.

The PMA Approval Process

Following receipt of a PMA application, the FDA conducts an administrative review to determine whether the application is sufficiently complete to permit a substantive review. If it is not, the agency will refuse to file the PMA. If it is, the FDA will accept the application for filing and begin the review. The FDA, by statute and by regulation, has 180 days to review a filed PMA application, although the review of an application more often occurs over a significantly longer period of time. During this review period, the FDA may request additional information or clarification of information already provided, and the FDA may issue a major deficiency letter to the applicant, requesting the applicant’s response to deficiencies communicated by the FDA. The FDA considers a PMA or PMA supplement to have been voluntarily withdrawn if an applicant fails to respond to an FDA request for information (for example, a major deficiency letter) within a total of 360 days. Before approving or denying a PMA, an FDA advisory committee may review the PMA at a public meeting and provide the FDA with the committee’s recommendation on whether the FDA should approve the submission, approve it with specific conditions, or not approve it. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions.

Prior to approval of a PMA, the FDA may conduct inspections of the clinical trial data and clinical trial sites, as well as inspections of the manufacturing facility and processes. Overall, the FDA’s review of a PMA application generally takes between one and three years, but may take significantly longer. The FDA can delay, limit or deny approval of a PMA application for many reasons, including:

•the device may not be shown safe or effective to the FDA’s satisfaction;

•the data from pre-clinical studies or clinical trials may be found unreliable or insufficient to support approval;

•the manufacturing process or facilities may not meet applicable requirements; and

•changes in FDA approval policies or adoption of new regulations may require additional data.

If the FDA evaluation of a PMA is favorable, the FDA will issue either an approval letter, or an approvable letter, the latter of which usually contains a number of conditions that must be met in order to secure final approval of the PMA. When and if those conditions have been fulfilled to the satisfaction of the FDA, the agency will issue a PMA

Table of Contents

approval letter authorizing commercial marketing of the device, subject to the conditions of approval and the limitations established in the approval letter. If the FDA’s evaluation of a PMA application or manufacturing facilities is not favorable, the FDA will deny approval of the PMA or issue a not approvable letter. The FDA also may determine that additional tests or clinical trials are necessary, in which case the PMA approval may be delayed for several months or years while the trials are conducted and data is submitted in an amendment to the PMA, or the PMA is withdrawn and resubmitted when the data are available. The PMA process can be expensive, uncertain and lengthy and a number of devices for which the FDA approval has been sought by other companies have never been approved by the FDA for marketing.

New PMA applications or PMA supplements are required for modification to the manufacturing process, equipment or facility, quality control procedures, sterilization, packaging, expiration date, labeling, device specifications, ingredients, materials or design of a device that has been approved through the PMA process. PMA supplements often require submission of the same type of information as an initial PMA application, except that the supplement is limited to information needed to support any changes from the device covered by the approved PMA application and may or may not require as extensive technical or clinical data or the convening of an advisory panel, depending on the nature of the proposed change.

In approving a PMA application, as a condition of approval, the FDA may also require some form of post-approval study (PAS) or post-market surveillance, whereby the applicant conducts a follow-up study or follows certain patient groups for a number of years and makes periodic reports to the FDA on the clinical status of those patients when necessary to protect the public health or to provide additional or longer term safety and effectiveness data for the device. We are subject to certain PAS requirements under our PMA for the Zephyr Valve. PAS reports for the Zephyr Valve Registry study are required every six months for the first two years of the study and annually thereafter. PAS reports for the LIBERATE extension study are required annually. The FDA may also require post-market surveillance for certain devices cleared under a 510(k) notification, such as implants or life-supporting or life-sustaining devices used outside a device user facility. The FDA may also approve a PMA application with other post-approval conditions intended to ensure the safety and effectiveness of the device, such as, among other things, restrictions on labeling, promotion, sale, distribution and use.

Pervasive and Continuing Regulation

After a device is placed on the market, numerous regulatory requirements continue to apply. These include:

•the FDA’s QSR, which requires manufacturers, including their suppliers, to follow stringent design, testing, control, documentation and other quality assurance procedures during all aspects of the manufacturing process;

•labeling regulations and FDA prohibitions against the promotion of products for uncleared, unapproved or off-label uses;

•medical device reporting regulations, which require 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 the malfunction were to recur;

•medical device recalls, which require that manufacturers report to the FDA any recall of a medical device, provided the recall was initiated to either reduce a risk to health posed by the device, or to remedy a violation of the FDCA caused by the device that may present a risk to health; and

•post-market surveillance regulations, which apply when necessary to protect the public health or to provide additional safety and effectiveness data for the device.

We have registered with the FDA as a medical device manufacturer and have obtained a manufacturing license from the CDPH. The FDA and CDPH have broad post-market and regulatory enforcement powers. We are subject to unannounced inspections by the FDA and the Food and Drug Branch of CDPH to determine our compliance with

Table of Contents

the QSR and other regulations, and these inspections may include the manufacturing facilities of our third-party suppliers. Additionally, our Notified Body, the BSI, regularly inspects our manufacturing, design and operational facilities to ensure ongoing ISO 13485 compliance in order to maintain our CE mark. Failure to comply with applicable regulatory requirements can result in enforcement action by the FDA or other regulatory bodies, which may include any of the following sanctions:

•warning letters, fines, injunctions, consent decrees and civil penalties;

•repair, replacement, refunds, recall or seizure of our products;

•operating restrictions, partial suspension or total shutdown of production;

•refusing our requests for 510(k) clearance or PMA approval of new products, new intended uses or modifications to existing products;

•withdrawing 510(k) clearance or PMA approvals that have already been granted; and

•criminal prosecution.

European Union

Our portfolio of products is regulated in the European Union as a medical device per the European Union Medical Devices Directive (Council Directive 93/42/EEC) (MDD) and, starting on May 26, 2021, the Medical Device Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2017/745) (MDR). The MDD and MDR set out the basic regulatory framework for medical devices in the European Union. The system of regulating medical devices operates by way of a certification for each medical device. Each certified device is marked with the CE mark which shows that the device has a Certificate de Conformité. There are national bodies known as Competent Authorities in each member state which oversee the implementation of the MDD or MDR within their jurisdiction. The means for achieving the requirements for the CE mark vary according to the nature of the device. Devices are classified in accordance with their perceived risks, similar to the United States system. The class of a product determines the conformity assessment required before the CE mark can be placed on a product. Conformity assessments for our products are carried out as required by the MDD or MDR. Each member state can appoint Notified Bodies within its jurisdiction. If a Notified Body of one member state has issued a Certificat de Conformité, the device can be sold throughout the European Union without further conformance tests being required in other member states. The CE mark is contingent upon continued compliance with the applicable regulations and the quality system requirements of the ISO 13485 standard. Our current CE mark is issued by BSI under the MDD. We will obtain a CE mark under the MDR prior to the expiration of the existing CE certificate.

Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH), established federal protection for the privacy and security of health information. Under HIPAA, the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), has issued regulations to protect the privacy and security of PHI used or disclosed by “Covered Entities,” including certain healthcare providers, health plans and healthcare clearinghouses, and their respective “Business Associates” that create, receive, maintain or transmit individually identifiable health information for or on behalf of a covered entity as well as their covered subcontractors, with respect to safeguarding the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information. HIPAA also regulates standardization of data content, codes and formats used in healthcare transactions and standardization of identifiers for health plans and certain healthcare providers. The HIPAA privacy regulations protect medical records and other PHI by limiting their use and release, giving patients the right to access their medical records and limiting most disclosures of health information to the minimum amount necessary to accomplish an intended purpose. The HIPAA security standards require the adoption of administrative, physical and technical safeguards and the adoption of written security policies and procedures. In addition, HIPAA requires Covered Entities to execute Business Associate Agreements with their Business

Table of Contents

Associates and subcontractors who provide services for or on behalf of Covered Entities. Business Associates have a corresponding obligation to maintain appropriate Business Associate Agreements under HIPAA. In addition, companies that would not otherwise be subject to HIPAA may become contractually obligated to follow HIPAA requirements through agreements with Covered Entities and Business Associates, and some of our customers may require us to agree to these provisions.

In addition, various states, such as California and Massachusetts, have implemented similar privacy laws and regulations, such as the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, that impose restrictive requirements regulating the use and disclosure of health information and other personally identifiable information. In addition to fines and penalties imposed upon violators, some of these state laws also afford private rights of action to individuals who believe their personal information has been misused. California’s patient privacy laws, for example, provide for penalties of up to $250,000 and permit injured parties to sue for damages. The interplay of federal and state laws may be subject to varying interpretations by courts and government agencies, creating complex compliance issues and potentially exposing us to additional expense, adverse publicity and liability. The compliance requirements of these laws, including additional breach reporting requirements, and the penalties for violation vary widely, and new privacy and security laws in this area are evolving. Requirements of these laws and penalties for violations vary widely.

If we or our operations are found to be in violation of HIPAA, HITECH or their implementing regulations, and similar state laws, we may be subject to significant penalties, including civil, criminal and administrative penalties, fines, imprisonment and exclusion from participation in federal or state healthcare programs, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations. In addition, HITECH created four new tiers of civil monetary penalties, amended HIPAA to make civil and criminal penalties directly applicable to Business Associates, and gave state attorneys general new authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce the federal HIPAA laws and seek attorney’s fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions.

U.S. Federal, State and Foreign Fraud and Abuse Laws

The federal and state governments have enacted, and actively enforce, a number of laws to address fraud and abuse in federal healthcare programs. Our business is subject to compliance with these laws.

Anti-Kickback Statutes

The federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits persons from knowingly and willfully soliciting, offering, receiving or providing remuneration, directly or indirectly, in exchange for or to induce either the referral of an individual, or the furnishing or arranging for a good or service, for which payment may be made under a federal healthcare program, such as Medicare or Medicaid. A person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it to have committed a violation.

The definition of “remuneration” has been broadly interpreted to include anything of value, including, for example, gifts, certain discounts, the furnishing of free supplies, equipment or services, credit arrangements, payment of cash and waivers of payments. Several courts have interpreted the statute’s intent requirement to mean that if any one purpose of an arrangement involving remuneration is to induce referrals of federal healthcare covered businesses, the statute has been violated. Violations of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute may result in civil monetary penalties up to $100,000 for each violation, plus up to three times the remuneration involved. Violations can also result in criminal penalties, including criminal fines of up to $100,000 and imprisonment of up to ten years. Similarly, violations can result in exclusion from participation in government healthcare programs, including Medicare and Medicaid. Additionally, the intent standard under the federal Anti-Kickback Statute was amended by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Affordable Care Act) to a stricter standard such that a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation. Further, the Affordable Care Act codified case law that 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 civil False Claims Act (FCA).

Table of Contents

There are a number of statutory exceptions and regulatory “safe harbors” protecting some common activities from prosecution, but the exceptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly and require strict compliance to offer protection. The failure of a transaction or arrangement to fit precisely within one or more safe harbors does not necessarily mean that it is illegal or that prosecution will be pursued. However, conduct and business arrangements that do not fully satisfy an applicable safe harbor may result in increased scrutiny by government enforcement authorities such as the HHS Office of the Inspector General (OIG).

Many states have adopted laws similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute. Some of these state prohibitions apply to referral of recipients for healthcare products or services reimbursed by any source, not only government healthcare programs, and may apply to payments made directly by the patient.

Government officials have focused their enforcement efforts on the marketing of healthcare services and products, among other activities, and recently have brought cases against companies, and certain individual sales, marketing and executive personnel, for allegedly offering unlawful inducements to potential or existing customers in an attempt to procure their business.

Federal False Claims Laws

The federal false claims laws, including the FCA, imposes liability on any person or entity that, among other things, knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment by afederal healthcare program. The qui tam provisions of the FCA allow a private individual to bring actions on behalf of the federal government alleging that the defendant has violated the FCA and to share in any monetary recovery. In addition, various states have enacted false claims laws analogous to the FCA, and many of these state laws apply where a claim is submitted to any third-party payor and not only a federal healthcare program.

When an entity is determined to have violated the FCA, it may be required to pay up to three times the actual damages sustained by the government, plus significant civil fines and penalties. As part of a settlement, the government may require the entity to enter into a corporate integrity agreement, which imposes certain compliance, certification and reporting obligations. There are many potential bases for liability under the FCA. Liability arises, primarily, when an entity knowingly submits, or causes another to submit, a false claim for reimbursement to the federal government. The federal government has used the FCA to assert liability on the basis of kickbacks, or in instances in which manufacturers have provided billing or coding advice to providers that the government considered to be inaccurate. In these cases, the manufacturer faces liability for “causing” a false claim. In addition, the federal government has prosecuted companies under the FCA in connection with off-label promotion of products. Our activities, including those relating to the reporting of discount and rebate information and other information affecting federal, state and third-party reimbursement of our products (such as our patient reimbursement support programs) and the sale and marketing of our products, may be subject to scrutiny under these laws.

While we are unaware of any current matters, we are unable to predict whether we will be subject to actions under the FCA or a similar state law, or the impact of such actions. However, the costs of defending such claims, as well as any sanctions imposed, could significantly affect our financial performance.

Civil Monetary Penalties

The Civil Monetary Penalty Act of 1981 imposes penalties against any person or entity that, among other things, is determined to have presented or caused to be presented a claim to a federal healthcare program that the person knows or should know is for an item or service that was not provided as claimed or is false or fraudulent, or offering or transferring remuneration to a federal healthcare beneficiary that a person knows or should know is likely to influence the beneficiary’s decision to order or receive items or services reimbursable by the government from a particular provider or supplier.

Table of Contents

Open Payments

The Physician Payments Sunshine Act (Open Payments), enacted as part of the Affordable Care Act, requires certain pharmaceutical, medical device and medical supply manufacturers covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program to report annually to CMS: payments and transfers of value to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists, and chiropractors) and teaching hospitals, and applicable manufacturers and group purchasing organizations, as well as to report annually ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members. Failure to submit required information may result in civil monetary penalties of $11,052 per failure up to an aggregate of $165,786 per year (or up to an aggregate of $1.105 million per year for “knowing failures”), for all payments, transfers of value or ownership or investment interests that are not timely, accurately and completely reported in an annual submission, and may result in liability under other federal laws or regulations. Effective January 1, 2022, these reporting obligations will extend to include payments and other transfers of value made in the previous year to physician assistants, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, anesthesiologist assistants, certified registered nurse anesthetists and certified nurse midwives. We are subject to Open Payments and the information we disclose may lead to greater scrutiny, which may result in modifications to established practices and additional costs. Additionally, similar reporting requirements have also been enacted on the state level domestically, and an increasing number of countries worldwide either have adopted or are considering similar laws requiring transparency of interactions with healthcare professionals.

Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) prohibits any United States individual or business from paying, offering or authorizing payment or offering of anything of value, directly or indirectly, to any foreign official, political party or candidate for the purpose of influencing any act or decision of the foreign entity in order to assist the individual or business in obtaining or retaining business. The FCPA also obligates companies whose securities are listed in the United States to comply with accounting provisions requiring us to maintain books and records that accurately and fairly reflect all transactions of the corporation, including international subsidiaries, if any, and to devise and maintain an adequate system of internal accounting controls for international operations.

International Laws

In Europe, various countries have adopted anti-bribery laws providing for severe consequences in the form of criminal penalties and significant fines for individuals or companies committing a bribery offense. Violations of these anti-bribery laws, or allegations of such violations, could have a negative impact on our business, results of operations and reputation.

For instance, in the United Kingdom, under the U.K. Bribery Act of 2010 (Bribery Act), a bribery occurs when a person offers, gives or promises to give a financial or other advantage to induce or reward another individual to improperly perform certain functions or activities, including any function of a public nature. Bribery of foreign public officials also falls within the scope of the Bribery Act. An individual found in violation of the U.K. Bribery Act of 2010, faces imprisonment of up to ten years. In addition, the individual can be subject to an unlimited fine, as can commercial organizations for failure to prevent bribery.

There are also international privacy laws that impose restrictions on the access, use and disclosure of health information. All of these laws may impact our business. Our failure to comply with these privacy laws or significant changes in the laws restricting our ability to obtain required patient information could significantly impact our business and our future business plans.

United States Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services

Medicare is a federal program administered by CMS through Medicare Administrative Contractors. Available to individuals age 65 or over, and certain other individuals, the Medicare program provides, among other things, healthcare benefits that cover, within prescribed limits, the major costs of most medically necessary care for such individuals, subject to certain deductibles and copayments.

Table of Contents

CMS has established guidelines for the coverage and reimbursement of certain products and procedures by Medicare. In general, in order to be reimbursed by Medicare, a healthcare procedure furnished to a Medicare beneficiary must be reasonable and necessary for the diagnosis or treatment of an illness or injury, or to improve the functioning of a malformed body part. The methodology for determining coverage status and the amount of Medicare reimbursement varies based upon, among other factors, the setting in which a Medicare beneficiary received healthcare products and services. Any changes in federal legislation, regulations and policy affecting CMS coverage and reimbursement relative to the procedure using our products could have a material effect on our performance. While no NCD or LCD exists for endobronchial valves currently, CMS could develop an NCD, or one or more Medicare contractors could develop an LCD that either restricts coverage or restricts the patient population deemed appropriate for the treatment.

CMS also administers the Medicaid program, a cooperative federal/state program that provides medical assistance benefits to qualifying low income and medically needy persons. State participation in Medicaid is optional, and each state is given discretion in developing and administering its own Medicaid program, subject to certain federal requirements pertaining to payment levels, eligibility criteria and minimum categories of services. The coverage, method and level of reimbursement vary from state to state and is subject to each state’s budget restraints. Changes to the availability of coverage, method orlevel of reimbursement for relevant procedures may affect future revenue negatively if reimbursement amounts are decreased or discontinued.

All CMS programs are subject to statutory and regulatory changes, retroactive and prospective rate adjustments, administrative rulings, interpretations of policy, intermediary determinations, and government funding restrictions, all of which may materially increase or decrease the rate of program payments to healthcare facilities and other healthcare providers, including those paid for Zephyr Valve treatments.

United States Health Reform

Changes in healthcare policy could increase our costs and subject us to additional regulatory requirements that may interrupt commercialization of our current and future products. Changes in healthcare policy could increase our costs, decrease our revenue and impact sales of and reimbursement for our current and future products. The Affordable Care Act substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers, and significantly impacts our industry. The United States and some foreign jurisdictions are considering or have enacted a number of legislative and regulatory proposals to change the healthcare system in ways that could affect our ability to sell our products profitably. Among policy makers and payors in the United States and elsewhere, there is significant interest in promoting changes in healthcare systems with the stated goals of containing healthcare costs, improving quality or expanding access. Current and future legislative proposals to further reform healthcare or reduce healthcare costs may limit coverage of or lower reimbursement for the procedures associated with the use of our products. The cost containment measures that payors and providers are instituting and the effect of any healthcare reform initiative implemented in the future could impact our revenue from the sale of our products.

LUNG US Equity

LUNG · 10-K · period ended 2020-12-31

ITEM 1. BUSINESS

LUNG US Equity☆

LUNG · 10-K · period ended 2020-12-31

ITEM 1. BUSINESS

LUNG US Equity