Item 1A. Risk Factors.

Summary of Risk Factors

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

Operational, Strategic and Business Risks

Regulatory, Legal and Cybersecurity Risks

Intellectual Property Risks

Financial and Market Risks and Risks Related to Owning Our Common Stock

Risk Factors.

Our operations and financial results are subject to various risks and uncertainties including those described below. You should consider carefully the risks and uncertainties described below, in addition to other information contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including our audited consolidated financial statements and related notes. The risks and uncertainties described below are not the only ones we face. Additional risks and uncertainties that we are unaware of, or that we currently believe are not material, may also become important factors that adversely affect our business. If any of the following risks or others not specified below materialize, our business, financial condition, and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected. In that case, the trading price of our common stock could decline.

Operational, Strategic and Business Risks

We have a history of losses, and as our costs increase, we expect to incur significant losses for the foreseeable future and may not be able to generate sufficient revenues to achieve or sustain profitability.

We have incurred net losses since our inception. For the years ended December 31, 2020, 2019, and 2018 we had net losses of $41.3 million, $25.1 million, and $19.9 million, respectively. As of December 31, 2020, we had an accumulated deficit of $181.9 million. To date, we have not generated sufficient revenues to achieve profitability, and we may never achieve or sustain profitability. In addition, we expect to continue to incur net losses for the foreseeable future, and we expect our accumulated deficit to continue to increase as we focus on scaling our business and operations. Our efforts to sustain and grow our business may be more costly than we expect, and we may not be able to increase our revenues sufficiently to offset our higher operating expenses. Our prior losses and expected future losses have had and will continue to have an adverse effect on our stockholders’ equity and working capital. Our failure to achieve and sustain profitability in the future would negatively affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows, and could cause the market price of our common stock to decline.

If we are unable to increase sales of our current services or successfully develop and commercialize other services or products, or if we are unable to execute our sales and marketing strategy for our services or unable to gain sufficient acceptance in the market, we may fail to generate sufficient revenues to achieve profitability and sustain our business.

We currently derive substantially all of our revenues from sales of our services. We began offering our services through our Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (“CLIA”)-certified, College of American Pathologists (“CAP”)-accredited, and state-licensed laboratory in 2013. We are in varying stages of research and development for other services and products that we may offer. If we are unable to increase sales of our existing services or successfully develop and commercialize other services and products, we will not generate sufficient revenues to become profitable.

In addition, as a growing genomics company, we have engaged in targeted sales and marketing activities for our services. Although we have had revenues from sales of our services since 2013, our services may never gain significant acceptance in the marketplace and therefore may never generate substantial revenues or permit us to become profitable. We will need to further establish and grow the market for our services through the expansion of our current relationships and development of new relationships with biopharmaceutical customers. Gaining acceptance in medical communities can be supported by, among other things, publications in leading peer-reviewed journals of results from studies using our services. The process of publication in leading medical journals is subject to a peer review process and peer reviewers may not consider the results of our studies sufficiently novel or worthy of publication. Failure to have our studies published in peer-reviewed journals would limit the adoption of our services.

Our ability to successfully market our services that we have developed, and may develop in the future, will depend on numerous factors, including:

• the recruitment, hiring, and retention of our commercial team personnel;

• our ability to continue to fund sales and marketing activities;

• whether our services are considered superior to those of our competitors;

• our success enforcing and defending intellectual property rights and claims.

Failure to achieve broad market acceptance of our services would materially harm our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

Our operations and employees face risks related to health crises, such as the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, that could adversely affect our financial condition and operating results. The COVID-19 pandemic could materially affect our operations, including at our headquarters in the San Francisco Bay Area, which is currently subject to restrictive orders, and the business or operations of our customers or other third parties with whom we conduct business.

Our business could be adversely impacted by the effects of a health crisis, such as the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, that could cause significant disruption in the operations of our customers and third-party suppliers upon whom we rely. Our laboratory facilities (other than the facilities being developed for our use in Shanghai, China), executive team, and most of our employees are located in the San Francisco Bay Area. In the event of a health crisis that becomes widespread in or around the San Francisco Bay Area, we may proactively, or be ordered by government officials to, take precautionary measures such as suspending our lab operations, implementing alternative work arrangements for our employees, and limiting our employees’ travel activities.

Our operations have been impacted by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. While the state and county reopening and health orders applicable to us allow for continued operation of so-called Essential Businesses, which includes certain critical healthcare operations and services, we have substantially closed our office facilities and limited access to our laboratory facilities to protect our employees and to comply with the provisions described within the orders. We provided temporary increased pay to certain laboratory personnel in the second quarter for their work during the COVID-19 pandemic. Such increased pay was not provided in the third or fourth quarters, but we may decide to resume increased pay in the future. The previous shelter-in-place order and current reopening and health orders have negatively impacted productivity, disrupted our business, and slowed research and development activities due to us limiting access to our laboratory space that would otherwise be used by our research and development group, and, to the extent such orders remain in place, they may continue to cause such effects on our operations. The reopening and health orders may disrupt the ability of our suppliers to fulfill our purchase orders in a timely manner or at all. Additionally, we are aware of increased demand in the market for certain consumables used in COVID-19 test kits. We use such consumables in our operations, and we may face difficulties in acquiring such consumables if our suppliers prioritize orders related to COVID-19. Several of our customers, including the VA MVP, were delayed in sending us samples in the second and third quarters due to the inability to collect or ship samples during the COVID-19 pandemic, and these and additional customers may be disrupted from collecting samples or sending purchase orders and samples to us in the future. Many of our customers, potential customers and potential partners have also put in place policies restricting visitors from other companies, and therefore our sales team and members of management have been unable to meet such parties in person, which may result in reduced acquisition of new customers, fewer orders from existing customers, and fewer potential partnering opportunities. If our laboratory employees were to contract COVID-19, we may significantly curtail our laboratory operations or pause operations altogether until the imminent health risk to our employees subsided. Such disruptions in our operations, and our customers’ and suppliers’ operations, may continue to adversely affect revenues and operating results.

The global COVID-19 pandemic continues to rapidly evolve and to present serious health risks. While authorities in some areas have lifted or relaxed certain of the restrictions described above, in some cases they have subsequently re-imposed various restrictions after observing an increased rate of COVID-19 cases; for example, in December 2020, state and local authorities in California reinstated shelter-in-place orders in light of the increasing rate of COVID-19 cases and shortage of intensive care unit beds across the state. Furthermore, there is no guarantee when or if all such restrictions will be eliminated, such that we and our customers, manufacturers and suppliers will be able to safely resume operations consistent with our pre-COVID-19 operations. Vaccines against COVID-19 have been approved by the FDA and other regulatory authorities, but there is uncertainty as to when these vaccines will be widely available to our employees and the population at large and how quickly and to what extent the vaccines will impact the COVID-19 pandemic.

While the extent of the impact of the current COVID-19 pandemic on our business and financial results is uncertain, a continued and prolonged public health crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic could have a material negative impact on our business, financial condition, and operating results.

If we cannot compete successfully with our competitors, we may be unable to increase or sustain our revenues or achieve and sustain profitability.

Our principal competition comes from commercial and academic organizations using established and new laboratory tests to produce information that is similar to the information that we generate for our customers. These commercial and academic organizations may not utilize our services or may not believe them to be superior to those tests that they currently use or others that are developed. Further, it may be difficult to convince our customers to use our comprehensive test rather than simpler panels provided by our competitors. For example, the information that we provide may be more challenging or require additional resources for our customers to interpret than the information provided by our competitors’ less comprehensive assays.

Some of our present or potential competitors, including Adaptive Biotechnologies Corporation, C2i Genomics, Inc., Caris Life Sciences, Inc., Covance Inc., which was acquired by Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings in February 2015, Foundation Medicine, Inc., which was acquired by Roche Holdings, Inc. in July 2018, Freenome, Inc., Genosity, Inc., Guardant Health, Inc., Inivata

Limited, Invitae Corporation, Mount Sinai Genomics, Inc. which does business under the name Sema4, Natera, Inc., NanoString Technologies, Inc., NeoGenomics, Inc., Personal Genome Diagnostics, Inc., Roche Molecular Systems, Inc., and Tempus, Inc., may have more widespread brand recognition or substantially greater financial or technical resources, development or production capacities, or marketing capabilities than we do. They may be able to devote greater resources to the development, promotion and sale of their products and services than we do or sell their products and services at prices designed to win more significant levels of market share. In addition, our present or potential competitors may be acquired by, receive investments from, or enter into other commercial relationships with larger, more well-established and well-financed companies. For example, in September 2020, Illumina, Inc. (“Illumina”) announced it had entered into an agreement to acquire GRAIL, Inc. (“GRAIL”), a company focused on early cancer detection and potentially other forms of cancer analysis using next-generation sequencing technology, which we view as a potential competitor. Others may develop lower-priced, less complex products and services that pharmaceutical companies could view as functionally equivalent to our current or planned future services which could force us to lower the price of our services and impact our operating margins and our ability to achieve and maintain profitability. In addition, companies or governments that control access to genetic testing and related services through umbrella contracts or regional preferences could promote our competitors or prevent us from performing certain services. In addition, technological innovations that result in the creation of enhanced products or diagnostic tools that are more sensitive or specific than ours may enable other clinical laboratories, hospitals, physicians, or medical providers to provide specialized products or services similar to ours in a more patient-friendly, efficient, or cost-effective manner than is currently possible. If we cannot compete successfully against current or future competitors, we may be unable to ensure or increase market acceptance and sales of our current or planned future services, which could prevent us from increasing or sustaining our revenues or achieving or sustaining profitability.

We expect that biopharmaceutical companies will increasingly focus attention and resources on the targeted and personalized cancer diagnostic sector as the potential and prevalence of molecularly targeted oncology therapies approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (the “FDA”) along with companion diagnostics increases. For example, the FDA has approved several such targeted oncology therapies that use companion diagnostics, including the anaplastic lymphoma kinase FISH test from Abbott Laboratories, Inc. for use with Xalkori® from Pfizer Inc., the BRAF kinase V600 mutation test from Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. for use with Zelboraf® from Daiichi-Sankyo/Genentech/Roche, and the BRAF kinase V600 mutation test from bioMerieux for use with Tafinlar® from GlaxoSmithKline. Since companion diagnostic tests are part of FDA labeling, non-FDA cleared tests, such as the ones we currently offer as part of our services, would be considered an off-label use and this may limit our access to this market segment. Our customers and potential customers may request, or in some cases have requested, that we consider developing and seeking FDA approval for companion diagnostic tests to accompany those customers’ therapeutic product candidates, and it may be necessary for us to do so in order to successfully compete for the business of these customers. If we do not successfully develop FDA-approved companion diagnostics, we may be at a competitive disadvantage and may be unable to increase market acceptance and sales of our other product offerings, which would prevent us from increasing or sustaining our revenues or achieving or sustaining profitability. If we were to develop one or more FDA-approved companion diagnostics, we would incur increased research and development expenses, and such activities may also divert our resources or the attention of our management and may create competing internal priorities for us.

Additionally, projects related to cancer diagnostics and particularly genomics have received increased government funding, both in the United States of America (the “U.S.”) and internationally. As more information regarding cancer genomics becomes available to the public, we anticipate that more products and services aimed at identifying treatment options will be developed and that these products and services may compete with our services. In addition, competitors may develop their own versions of our current or planned future services in countries where we did not apply for or receive patents and compete with us in those countries, including encouraging the use of their products or services by biopharmaceutical companies in other countries.

We have substantial customer concentration, with a limited number of customers accounting for a substantial portion of our revenues and accounts receivable.

Like other genomic profiling companies that sell to the pharmaceutical industry, we have substantial customer concentration. We currently derive a significant portion of our revenues from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (the “VA”) Million Veteran Program (the “VA MVP”), which accounted for 71%, 67%, and 49% of our revenues for the years ended December 31, 2020, 2019, and 2018, respectively. Our top five customers, including the VA MVP, accounted for 87%, 90, and 82% of our revenues for the years ended December 31, 2020, 2019, and 2018, respectively. There are inherent risks whenever a large percentage of revenues are concentrated with a limited number of customers. Our predictions regarding the future level of demand for our services that will be generated by these customers may be wrong. In addition, revenues from our larger customers have historically fluctuated and may continue to fluctuate based on the commencement and completion of clinical trials or other projects, the timing of which may be affected by market conditions or other factors, some of which may be outside of ourcontrol. Further, while we have long-term contractual arrangements with certain of our customers, these customers are not required to purchase a minimum number of analyses. Some of our customers have in the past suspended or terminated clinical trials or projects, received less funding than expected, experienced declining or delayed sales, or otherwise decided to reduce or eliminate their use of our services, and these and other customers may also do so in the future. As a result, we could be pressured to reduce the prices we charge for our services, which would have an adverse effect on our margins and financial position, and which would likely negatively affect our revenues and results of operations. In particular, if the VA MVP terminates our services for convenience, which it is permitted to do, such termination would have a material adverse effect on our revenues, cash position, and results of operations. Similarly, if the VA MVP was eliminated, awarded its contract to one of our competitors, further reduced the size of our contract or failed to renew our contract in the future, then our revenues, cash position, and results of operations would be materially adversely impacted. Further, if any of our other significant customers were to cease using or stop payment for our services, it would have a material adverse effect on our accounts receivable, increasing our credit

risk. The failure of these customers to pay their balances, or any customer to pay future outstanding balances, would result in an operating expense and reduce our cash flows.

We currently derive a substantial portion of our revenues from DNA sequencing and data analysis services that we provide to our largest customer, the VA MVP. If the VA MVP’s demand for and/or funding for our DNA sequencing and data analysis services is substantially reduced or if the VA MVP conducts a competitive bid process for the next contract and we do not win, our business, financial condition, operating results, and cash flows would be materially harmed.

We derive a substantial portion of our current and expected future revenues from sales of our DNA sequencing and data analysis services to the VA MVP. In September 2017, we entered into a one-year contract with three one-year option renewal periods with the VA for the VA MVP, pursuant to which we received contracted orders from the VA MVP in September 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020. This contract expired in August 2021 and does not include a renewal option. Our current task order under this contract extends through August 2021. In order for us to provide additional services to the VA MVP after August 2021, we would need to receive an additional task order before the current contract expires in September 2021, or enter into a new services agreement with the VA MVP.

The VA MVP may initiate a competitive bidding process for its next DNA sequencing and data analysis services contract. We may not win any potential new contract in such bidding process, the value of such contract or the VA MVP contracted orders thereunder may be lower than our current contract and historical contracted orders from the VA MVP, and/or the scope or nature of the services required under such new contract may change such that we are unable to serve the VA MVP in the future.

The VA MVP’s contracted orders for DNA sequencing and data analysis services have fluctuated in value over time and are subject to the availability of funding, enrollment of veterans in the VA MVP study, and the VA MVP’s continued demand for our services among other factors. For example, the VA MVP contracted order received in September 2020 has a value of up to approximately $31 million, whereas the VA MVP contracted order received in September 2019 had a value of up to approximately $38.1 million. We have no certainty that funding will be made available for our services, or that the VA MVP will award any future contracts, contract renewals or contracted orders to us. If the priorities of the VA, the VA MVP, or the U.S. government change, including in response to the COVID-19 pandemic for example, funding for our services may be limited or not available, and our business, financial condition, and operating results and cash flows would be materially harmed. Similarly, if we do not win future VA MVP contracts and renewals (whether due to being outbid by a competitor or the VA MVP’s decision to terminate for convenience or failure to renew for whatever reason), our business, financial condition, and operating results and cash flows would be materially harmed. The success of our business and our future operating results are significantly dependent on the VA MVP’s receipt of funding for use of our services and the terms of our sales to the VA MVP, including the price per sample, the number of samples and the timing of the VA MVP’s deliveries of samples. Furthermore, we only recognize revenue under our VA MVP contract upon the receipt and processing of samples, and the timing and number of VA MVP samples we receive has been and could in the future be negatively affected by factors beyond our control, which has resulted, and may result in the future, in delaying our ability to process and recognize revenue for such samples. For example, the revenue we recognized during the contract year that began in September 2019 significantly exceeded the value of the VA MVP contracted order we received in September 2019 because wecontinued to receive after such date, and subsequently processed, samples under VA MVP contracted orders that remained unfulfilled as of September 2019 due to the time required for the VA to select optimal samples from its collection for research and then provide us those samples. Therefore, period-to-period comparisons of our operating results relating to VA MVP contracted orders may not be meaningful and, even if we win a potential new VA MVP contract and order with a value comparable to that of the September 2019 contracted order, the revenue we recognize under such potential new contract and order may be less than the revenue we recognized during the 2019-2020 contract year, and may also be less than the revenue we expect to recognize during the 2020-2021 contract year because we expect during the current contract year to finish processing most or all of the samples under VA MVP contracted orders that remained unfulfilled as of September 2020, in addition to samples received under the September 2020 contracted order. The timing and number of VA MVP samples may also have been or be negatively affected by the current COVID-19 pandemic. For example, in March 2020, the VA MVP announced that it was suspending sample collection due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, we believe the COVID-19 pandemic may have been a contributing factor to the reduction in value of the September 2020 VA MVP contracted order compared to the September 2019 contracted order, as the VA MVP delayed new enrollment and also may have needed to divert resources to respond to the pandemic, and the COVID-19 pandemic may also negatively impact the value of any potential new VA MVP contract or order.

If we cannot maintain our current customer relationships, or fail to acquire new customers, our revenue prospects will be reduced. Many of our customers are biopharmaceutical companies engaged in clinical trials of new drug candidates, which trials are expensive, can take many years to complete, and have inherently uncertain outcomes.

Our customers other than the VA MVP are primarily biopharmaceutical companies that use our services to support clinical trials. Our future success is substantially dependent on our ability to maintain our customer relationships and to establish new ones. Many factors have the potential to impact our customer relations, including the type of support our customers and potential customers require and our ability to deliver it, our customers’ satisfaction with our services, and other factors that may be beyond our control. Furthermore, our customers may decide to decrease or discontinue their use of our services due to changes in research and product development plans (including as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic), failures in their clinical trials, financial constraints, or utilization of internal testing resources or tests performed by other parties, or other circumstances outside of our control.

We engage in conversations with customers regarding potential commercial opportunities on an ongoing basis in the event that one of these customers’ drug candidates is approved. There is no assurance that any of these conversations will result in a commercial agreement, or if an agreement is reached, that the resulting relationship will be successful or that clinical studies conducted as part of the engagement will produce successful outcomes. Speculation in the industry about our existing or potential relationships with biopharmaceutical companies could be a catalyst for adverse speculation about us, our services, and our technology, which can adversely affect our reputation and our business. In addition, the termination of these relationships could result in a temporary or permanent loss of revenue.

Our customers’ clinical trials are expensive, can take many years to complete, and their outcome is inherently uncertain. Failure can occur at any time during the clinical trial process. Product candidates in later stages of clinical trials may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy traits despite having progressed through pre-clinical studies and early clinical trials. Many of the biopharmaceutical companies that are our customers do not have products approved for commercial sale and are not profitable. These customers must continue to raise capital in order to continue their development programs and to potentially continue as our customers. If our customers’ clinical trials fail or they are unable to raise sufficient capital to continue investing in their clinical programs, our revenues from these customers may decrease or cease entirely, and our business may be harmed. Furthermore, even if these customers have a drug approved for commercial sale, they may not choose to use our services as a companion diagnostic with their drug, thereby limiting our potential revenues.

We rely on a limited number of suppliers, or in some cases, a sole supplier, for some of our laboratory instruments and materials, and we may not be able to find replacements or immediately transition to alternative suppliers should we need to do so.

We rely on a limited number of suppliers for sequencers and other equipment and materials that we use in our laboratory operations. For example, we rely on Illumina as the sole supplier of sequencers and various associated reagents, and as the sole provider of maintenance and repair services for these sequencers. Our master subcontractor agreement with Illumina is set to expire in August 2021, and our various pricing agreements with Illumina are set to expire on various dates up to December 2022. In September 2020, Illumina announced it had entered into an agreement to acquire GRAIL, a company focused on early cancer detection and potentially other forms of cancer analysis using next-generation sequencing technology. Any disruption in Illumina’s operations, or our inability to negotiate an extension to our agreements with Illumina on acceptable terms, or at all, or any competitive pressure resulting from Illumina’s anticipated acquisition of GRAIL, could negatively impact our supply chain and laboratory operations and our ability to conduct our business and generate revenue. Our suppliers could cease supplying these materials, reagents, and equipment at any time, or fail to provide us with sufficient quantities of materials or materials that meet our specifications. Our laboratory operations could be interrupted if we encounter delays or difficulties in securing equipment, materials, reagents, or sequencers, or if we cannot obtain an acceptable substitute. Any such interruption could significantly affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, and reputation.

We believe that there are only a few manufacturers other than Illumina that are currently capable of supplying and servicing the equipment necessary for our laboratory operations, including sequencers and various associated reagents. The use of equipment or materials provided by these replacement suppliers would require us to alter our laboratory operations. Transitioning to a new supplier would be time-consuming and expensive, would likely result in interruptions in our laboratory operations, could affect the performance specifications of our laboratory operations, or could require that we revalidate our tests. We cannot assure you that, if we were forced to replace Illumina or another supplier on which we rely, we would be able to secure alternative equipment, reagents, and other materials, and bring such equipment, reagents, and materials on line and revalidate them without experiencing interruptions in our workflow. If we encounter delays or difficulties in securing, reconfiguring, or revalidating the equipment and reagents we require for our services, our business, financial condition, results of operations, and reputation could be adversely affected.

In addition, the Device Master File that we have filed with the FDA, which is focused on the technology, quality management, and validation of our platform, specifically on its use for the development of personalized immunotherapies, is predicated on our use of specified equipment and processes, including Illumina sequencers and related equipment. The detailed information in the Device Master File is not shared with our customers, but with our permission they can reference our FDA file number in their Investigational New Drug filings with the FDA. If we were required to transition to a new supplier of sequencers or certain other equipment or processes in our laboratory, our Device Master File would need to be replaced or updated, and until such time as that occurred, customers for which we deliver services after the transition would not be able to reference our Device Master File, which would cause us to lose a competitive advantage.

We will need to invest in our infrastructure in advance of increased demand for our services, and our failure to accurately forecast demand would have a negative impact on our business and our ability to achieve and sustain profitability.

In order to execute our business model, we need to invest in scaling our infrastructure, including hiring additional personnel and expanding laboratory capacity. We will also need to purchase additional equipment, some of which can take several months or more to procure, setup, and validate, and increase our software and computing capacity to meet increased demand. There is no assurance that any of these increases in scale, expansion of personnel, equipment, software, and computing capacities, or process enhancements will be successfully implemented, or that we will have adequate space in our laboratory facilities to accommodate suchrequired expansion. We expect that much of this growth will be in advance of increased demand for our services. Our current and projected future expense levels are to a large extent fixed and are largely based on our current investment plans and our estimates of future test volume. As a result, if revenues do not meet our expectations we may not be able to promptly adjust or reduce our spending to levels commensurate with our revenues. If we fail to generate demand commensurate with our infrastructure growth or if we fail to scale our infrastructure sufficiently in advance of demand to successfully meet such demand, our business, prospects, financial condition, and results of operations could be adversely affected.

As we commercialize additional services or products, we may need to incorporate new equipment, implement new technology systems and laboratory processes, or hire new personnel with different qualifications. Failure to manage this growth or transition could result in turnaround time delays, higher costs, declining service and/or product quality, deteriorating customer service, and slower responses to competitive challenges. A failure in any one of these areas could make it difficult for us to meet market expectations for our services, and could damage our reputation and the prospects for our business.

If our facilities become damaged or inoperable, or we are required to vacate the facilities, our ability to sell and provide our services and pursue our research and development efforts may be jeopardized.

We currently derive our revenues from our genomic analysis conducted in our laboratories. We do not have any clinical reference or research and development laboratory facilities other than our facilities in Menlo Park, California, and the facilities being developed for our use in Shanghai, China. Our facilities and equipment could be harmed or rendered inoperable by natural or man-made disasters, including fires, earthquakes, flooding, and power outages, which may render it difficult or impossible for us to sell or perform our services for some period of time. Additionally, as a result of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, we have limited access to our office and laboratory facilities in Menlo Park to protect the health and safety of our employees and to comply with applicable state and local orders. Northern California has recently experienced serious fires and the San Francisco Bay Area is considered to lie in an area with earthquake risk. The inability to sell or to perform our sequencing and analysis services, disruptions in our operations, or the backlog of samples that could develop if our facilities are inoperable for even a short period of time, may result in the loss of customers or harm to our reputation or relationships with scientific or clinical collaborators, and we may be unable to regain those customers or repair our reputation or such relationships in the future. The limited access to our laboratory facilities as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted, and may in the future result, in a loss in productivity, including delays to research and development programs. Furthermore, our facilities and the equipment we use to perform our services and our research and development work could be costly and time-consuming to repair or replace.

Additionally, a key component of our research and development process involves using biological samples as the basis for the development of our services. In some cases, these samples are difficult to obtain. If the parts of our laboratory facilities where we store these biological samples were damaged or compromised, our ability to pursue our research and development projects, as well as our reputation, could be jeopardized. We carry insurance for damage to our property and the disruption of our business, but this insurance may not be sufficient to cover all of our potential losses and may not continue to be available to us on acceptable terms, if at all.

Further, if our laboratory facilities became inoperable, we would likely not be able to license or transfer our technology to other facilities with the qualifications, including state licensure and CLIA certification, that would be necessary to cover the scope of our current and our planned future services. Even if we were to find facilities with such qualifications to perform our services, they may not be available to us on commercially reasonable terms.

Our success depends on our ability to provide reliable, high-quality genomic data and analyses and to rapidly evolve to meet our customers’ needs.

Errors, including if our tests fail to accurately detect gene variants, or mistakes, including if we fail to or incompletely or incorrectly identify the significance of gene variants, could have a significant adverse impact on our business. We classify variants in accordance with guidelines that are subject to change and subject to ourinterpretation. There have also been and could in the future be flaws in the databases, third-party tools or algorithms we use, or in the software that handles automated parts of our classification protocol. If we receive poor quality or degraded samples, our tests may be unable to accurately detect gene variants or we may fail to or incompletely or incorrectly identify the significance of gene variants, which could have a significant adverse impact on our business.

Inaccurate results or misunderstandings of, or inappropriate reliance on, the information we provide to our customers could lead to, or be associated with, side effects or adverse events in patients who use our tests, including treatment-related death, and could lead to termination of our services or claims against us. A product liability or professional liability claim could result in substantial damages and be costly and time-consuming for us to defend.

Although we maintain liability insurance, including for errors and omissions and professional liability, we cannot assure you that our insurance would be sufficient to protect us from the financial impact of defending against these types of claims, or any judgments, fines, or settlement costs arising out of any such claims. Any liability claim, including an errors and omissions liability claim, brought against us, with or without merit, could increase our insurance rates or prevent us from securing insurance coverage in the future. Additionally, any liability lawsuit could cause injury to our reputation or cause us to suspend sales of our tests or cause a suspension of our license to operate. The occurrence of any of these events could have an adverse effect on our business, reputation, and results of operations.

If we cannot develop services and products to keep pace with rapid advances in technology, medicine, and science, or if we experience delays in developing such services and products, our operating results and competitive position could be harmed.

In recent years, there have been numerous advances in technologies relating to the diagnosis and treatment of cancer. Several new cancer drugs have been approved, and a number of new drugs are in pre-clinical and clinical development. There have also been advances in methods used to identify patients likely to benefit from these drugs based on analysis of biomarkers. We must continuously develop new services and products, enhance any existing services, and avoid delays in such developments and enhancements to keep pace with evolving technologies on a timely and cost-effective basis. Our current services and our planned future services and products could become obsolete unless we continually innovate and expand them to demonstrate benefit in the diagnosis, monitoring, or prognosis of patients with cancer. New cancer therapies typically have only a few years of clinical data associated with them, and much of that data may not be disclosed by the pharmaceutical company that conducted the clinical trials. This could limit our ability to develop services and products based on, for example, biomarker analysis related to the appearance or development of resistance to those therapies. If we cannot adequately demonstrate the clinical utility of our services and our planned future services and products to new treatments, sales of our services could decline, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

We are researching and developing improvements to our tests and test features on a continuous basis, but we may not be able to make these improvements on a timely basis, and even if we do, we may not realize the benefits of these efforts in our financial results.

To remain competitive, we must continually research and develop improvements to our tests or test features. However, we cannot assure you that we will be able to develop and commercialize the improvements to our tests or test features on a timely basis. Our competitors may develop and commercialize competing or alternative tests and improvements faster than we are able to do so. In addition, we must expend significant time and funds in order to conduct research and development, further develop and scale our laboratory processes, and further develop and scale our infrastructure. We may never realize a return on investment on this effort and expense, especially if our improvements fail to perform as expected. If we are not able to realize the benefits of our efforts to improve our tests or test features, it could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

Personalized cancer therapies represent new therapeutic approaches that could result in heightened regulatory scrutiny, delays in clinical development, or delays in or inability to achieve regulatory approval, commercialization, or payor coverage, any of which could adversely affect our business.

We currently work with certain companies developing personalized cancer therapies, and our future success will in part depend on our personalized cancer customers obtaining regulatory approval for and commercializing their product candidates. Because personalized cancer therapies represent a new approach to immunotherapy for the treatment of cancer and other diseases, developing and commercializing personalized cancer therapies is subject to a number of challenges.

Actual or perceived safety issues, including adoption of new therapeutics or novel approaches to treatment, may adversely influence the willingness of subjects to participate in clinical studies, or if approved by applicable regulatory authorities, of physicians to subscribe to the novel treatment mechanics. The FDA or other applicable regulatory authorities may ask for specific post-market requirements, and additional information regarding benefits or risks of our services may emerge at any time prior to or after regulatory approval.

In the EEA (and Northern Ireland) the new European Union (“EU”) In Vitro Diagnostic Device Regulation (the “IVDR”) entered into force on May 25, 2017, replacing the In-Vitro Diagnostic Directive (the “IVDD”) (and national legislation that implemented the IVDD in member states) as the primary legislation governing in-vitro diagnostic devices (“IVD”). Most requirements under the IVDR will not apply until the end of a transition period which is expected to occur on May 26, 2022. The IVDR broadens the scope of the regulation of IVDs and, amongst other things, tightens the requirements for clinical evidence and conformity assessment, increases transparency requirements, and introduces a requirement for a unique device identifier for every IVD. Under the IVDR there are four classes of IVDs, referred to as classes A, B, C, and D. IVDs are placed into a class based on their perceived risk to the patient and wider public. The main requirements of the IVDR apply regardless of the class which the relevant device falls into, and class A devices (including instruments and specimen receptacles) are the only devices that can be self-certified as meeting the requirements of the IVDR. The IVDR explicitly includes software used for diagnostic purposes in its scope. The IVDR requires pre-registration and post-market data collection to ensure that the device meets the relevant requirements. It is also notable that diagnostic and therapeutic services offered to customers in the EEA (and Northern Ireland) (whether directly or via intermediaries) by providers that are based outside the EEA will be covered by the IVDR. The IVDR will not apply to Great Britain (England, Wales and Scotland). These additional regulatory requirements are likely to increase the cost and time required in order to obtain regulatory approval for products in the EEA where such approval was already necessary, and in certain cases will introduce a new requirement to obtain regulatory approval where one did not

exist under the IVDD arrangements. Further, the IVDR may result in devices being classified in a higher risk category than would have been the case under the existing IVDD arrangements.

Physicians, hospitals, and third-party payors often are slow to adopt new products, technologies, and treatment practices that require additional upfront costs and training. Physicians may not be willing to undergo training to adopt personalized cancer therapies, may decide that such therapies are too complex to adopt without appropriate training or not cost-efficient, and may choose not to administer these therapies. Based on these and other factors, hospitals and payors may decide that the benefits of personalized cancer therapies do not or will not outweigh their costs.

The loss of key members of our executive management team could adversely affect our business.

Our success in implementing our business strategy depends largely on the skills, experience, and performance of key members of our executive management team and others in key management positions, including John West, our Chief Executive Officer, Richard Chen, our Chief Scientific Officer, and Aaron Tachibana, our Chief Financial Officer. The collective efforts of each of these persons and others working with them as a team are critical to us as we continue to develop our technologies, services, products, and research and development programs. As a result of the difficulty in locating qualified new management, the loss or incapacity of existing members of our executive management team could adversely affect our operations. If we were to loseone or more of these key employees, or if one or more of these key employees were to become unable to perform his or her duties due to contracting COVID-19, we could experience difficulties in finding qualified successors, competing effectively, developing our technologies, and implementing our business strategy. Each member of our executive management team has an employment agreement; however, the existence of an employment agreement does not guarantee retention of members of our executive management team, and we may not be able to retain those individuals. We do not maintain “key person” life insurance on any of our employees.

In addition, we rely on collaborators, consultants, and advisors, including scientific and clinical advisors, to assist us in formulating our research and development and commercialization strategy. Our collaborators, consultants, and advisors are generally employed by employers other than us and may have commitments under agreements with other entities that may limit their availability to us.

The loss or extended illness of a key employee, the failure of a key employee to perform in his or her current position, or our inability to attract and retain skilled employees could result in our inability to continue to grow our business or to implement our business strategy.

We rely on highly skilled personnel in a broad array of disciplines and if we are unable to hire, retain, or motivate these individuals, or maintain our corporate culture, we may not be able to maintain the quality of our services or grow effectively.

Our performance, including our research and development programs and laboratory operations, largely depends on our continuing ability to identify, hire, develop, motivate, and retain highly skilled personnel for all areas of our organization. Competition in our industry for qualified employees is intense, and we may not be able to attract or retain qualified personnel in the future, including bioinformatic scientists, bioinformatic engineers, software engineers, statisticians, variant curators, clinical laboratory scientists, and genetic counselors, due to the competition for qualified personnel among life science businesses, technology companies, as well as universities and public and private research institutions, particularly in the San Francisco Bay Area. All of our U.S. employees are at-will, which means that either we or the employee may terminate their employment at any time. In addition, our compensation arrangements, such as our equity award programs, may not always be successful in attracting new employees and retaining and motivating our existing employees for reasons that may include movements in our stock price. If we are not able to attract and retain the necessary personnel to accomplish our business objectives, we may experience constraints that could adversely affect our ability to scale our business and support our research and development efforts and our laboratory operations. We believe that our corporate culture fosters innovation, creativity, and teamwork. However, as our organization grows, we may find it increasingly difficult to maintain the beneficial aspects of our corporate culture. This could negatively impact our ability to retain and attract employees and our future success.

We may not be able to manage our future growth effectively, which could make it difficult to execute our business strategy.

Our expected future growth could create a strain on our organizational, administrative, and operational infrastructure, including facilities, laboratory operations, quality control, customer service, marketing and sales, and management. We may not be able to maintain the quality of or expected turnaround times for our tests, or satisfy customer demand as our test volume grows. Our ability to manage our growth properly will require us to continue to improve our operational, financial, and management controls, as well as our reporting systems and procedures. As a result of our growth, our operating costs may escalate even faster than planned, and some of our internal systems may need to be enhanced or replaced. If we are unable to manage our growth effectively, it may be difficult for us to execute our business strategy and our business could be harmed.

We may acquire businesses or assets, form joint ventures, or make investments in other companies or technologies that could harm our operating results, dilute our stockholders’ ownership, or cause us to incur debt or significant expense.

As part of our business strategy, we may pursue acquisitions of complementary businesses or assets, as well as technology licensing arrangements. We may also pursue strategic alliances that leverage our core technology and industry experience to expand our offerings or distribution, or make investments in other companies. As an organization, we have limited experience with respect to acquisitions as well as the formation of strategic alliances and joint ventures. We may not identify or complete these transactions in a timely manner, on a cost-effective basis, or at all, and we may not realize the anticipated benefits of any acquisition, technology license, strategic alliance, joint venture or investment, and their consideration may be distracting to our management or prevent us from pursuing other opportunities. In addition, we may not be able to find suitable partners or acquisition candidates, and we may not be able to complete such transactions on favorable terms, if at all. Any future such transactions by us also could result in significant write-offs, the incurrence of debt and contingent liabilities, exposure to additional liability, exposure to additional revenue concentration, additional regulatory obligations and exposure to additional potential liability, any of which could harm our operating results and future prospects. If we make any acquisitions in the future, we may not be able to integrate these acquisitions successfully into our existing business, and we could assume unknown or contingent liabilities. Integration of an acquired company or business also may require management resources that otherwise would be available for ongoing development of our existing business.

To finance any acquisitions or investments, we may choose to raise additional funds. The various ways we could raise additional funds carry potential risks. See “Financial and Market Risks and Risks Related to Owning Our Common Stock—Our inability to raise additional capital on acceptable terms in the future may limit our ability to continue to operate our business and further expand our operations.” If the price of our common stock is low or volatile, we may not be able to acquire other companies using stock as consideration. Alternatively, it may be necessary for us to raise additional funds for these activities through public or private financings. Additional funds may not be available on terms that are favorable to us, or at all.

Ethical, legal, and social concerns related to the use of genetic information could reduce demand for our tests.

Genetic testing has raised ethical, legal, and social concerns regarding privacy and the appropriate uses of the resulting information. Governmental authorities have, through the Genetic Information Nondisclosure Act, and could further, for social or other purposes, limit or regulate the use of genetic information or genetic testing or prohibit testing for genetic predisposition to certain conditions, particularly for those that have no known cure. Ethical and social concerns may also influence governmental authorities to deny or delay the issuance of patents for technology relevant to our business. Similarly, these concerns may lead patients to refuse to use, or clinicians to be reluctant to order, genetic tests even if permissible. These and other ethical, legal, and social concerns may limit market acceptance of our tests or reduce the potential markets for our tests, either of which could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, or results of operations.

Any collaboration arrangements that we have entered into or may enter into in the future may not be successful, which could adversely affect our ability to develop and commercialize our services and products.

Any current or future collaborations, including any strategic alliances or any collaborations to develop companion diagnostic tests, that we have entered or may enter into may not be successful. The success of our collaboration arrangements will depend heavily on the efforts and activities of our collaborators. Collaborations are subject to numerous risks, which include that:

If we are unable to successfully obtain rights to required third-party intellectual property rights or maintain the existing intellectual property rights we have, we may have to abandon development of that program and our business and financial condition could suffer.

Our planned expansion into China entails substantial risks.

In June 2020, we announced a partnership with a clinical genomics and life sciences company headquartered in China as a means to expand business operations into China in the near term. Our first wholly owned subsidiary was formed in Shanghai in October 2020. Our expansion and investment plans are subject to substantial risks which may include, but are not limited to: the inability to protect our intellectual property rights under Chinese law, which may not offer as high a level of protection as U.S. law; unexpectedly long negotiationperiods with Chinese suppliers and customers; quality issues related to supplies sourced from local vendors; unexpectedly high labor costs due to a tight labor supply; foreign investment restrictions; and difficulty in repatriating funds and selling or transferring assets. Our investments in China also expose us to additional foreign currency exchange risk. In addition, as tensions have escalated between the U.S. and China, we believe there is an enhanced risk that our planned investments in China may be subject to unforeseen risks or restrictions, which may include expropriation of the investments by the Chinese government. These and other risks may result in our not realizing a return on, or losing some, or all, of our planned investments in China, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and financial performance.

Personal privacy, cyber security, and data protection are becoming increasingly significant issues in China. For example, the State Council of the People’s Republic of China adopted the Regulations of the People’s Republic of China on Administration of Human Genetic Resources, which went into effect on July 1, 2019. The regulations establish a framework for the collection, preservation, utilization, and supply abroad of human genetic resources of China. The regulations also establish a framework for the use of data and other information generated from use of human genetic resources of China. The regulations also provide that foreign organizations, individuals and entities established or controlled by them are prohibited to collect or preserve China’s human genetic resources or transport them abroad. Due to the lack of detailed interpretations and implementations, it is not clear whether the agency in China responsible for enforcing the regulations will grant the necessary approvals for use by us and our partners of our NeXT Platform or our other current or future products in research or clinical projects involving China’s human genetic resources or information generated therefrom. The Chinese government separately has various regulations relating to the collection, use, storage, disclosure, and security of data, among other things. We cannot assure you that we will be able to comply with all of these regulatory requirements. Any failure to comply with relevant regulations and policies could result in significant cost and liability to us and could adversely affect our business and results of operations. Any additional new regulations or the amendment or modification of previously implemented regulations, or the failure to receive any necessary approvals for use of our products in connection with such projects, could require us and our partners to change our business plans and incur additional costs, and could limit our ability to generate revenues in China.

Expansion into international markets would subject us to increased regulatory oversight and regulatory, economic, social, health and political uncertainties, which could cause a material adverse effect on our business, financial position, and results of operations.

We may in the future expand our business and operations into international jurisdictions in which we have limited operating experience, including with respect to seeking regulatory approvals and marketing and selling products and services. For example, in June 2020, we announced our intention to expand into China. As we expand internationally, our operations in these jurisdictions may be adversely affected by general economic conditions and economic and fiscal policy, including changes in exchange rates and controls, interest rates and taxation policies, increased government regulation, social instability, local or regional health crises, and political, economic or diplomatic developments in the future. Certain jurisdictions have, from time to time, experienced instances of civil unrest and hostilities, both internally and with neighboring countries. Rioting, military activity, terrorist attacks, or armed hostilities could cause our operations in such jurisdictions to be adversely affected or suspended. We generally do not have insurance for losses and

interruptions caused by terrorist attacks, military conflicts and wars. In addition, anti-bribery and anti-corruption laws may conflict with some local customs and practices in foreign jurisdictions. Our international operations may subject us to heightened scrutiny under the FCPA, the United Kingdom (the “U.K.”) Bribery Act and similar anti-bribery laws, and could subject us to liability under such laws despite our best efforts to comply with such laws. As a result of our policy to comply with the FCPA, the U.K. Bribery Act and similar anti-bribery laws, we may be at a competitive disadvantage to competitors that are not subject to, or do not comply with, such laws. Further, notwithstanding our compliance programs, there can be no assurances that our policies will prevent our employees or agents from violating these laws or protect us from any such violations. Additionally, we cannot predict the nature, scope or impact of any future regulatory requirements that may apply to our international operations or how foreign governments willinterpret existing or new laws. Alleged, perceived, or actual violations of any such existing or future laws by us or due to the acts of others, may result in criminal or civil sanctions, including contract cancellations or debarment, and damage to our reputation, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Regulatory, Legal and Cybersecurity Risks

Our tests may be subject to regulatory action if regulatory agencies determine that our tests do not appropriately comply with statutory and regulatory requirements enforced by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and/or CLIA requirements for quality laboratory testing.

The laws and regulations governing the marketing of clinical laboratory tests are extremely complex and in many instances there are no significant regulatory or judicial interpretations of these laws and regulations. The Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (the “FDC Act”) defines a medical device to include any instrument, apparatus, implement, machine, contrivance, implant, in vitro reagent or other similar or related article, including a component, part, or accessory, intended for use in the diagnosis of disease or other conditions, or in the cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of disease, in man or other animals. Some of our tests may be considered by the FDA to be in vitro diagnostic products that are subject to regulation as medical devices. Among other things, pursuant to the FDC Act and its implementing regulations, the FDA regulates the research, testing, manufacturing, safety, labeling, storage, recordkeeping, premarket clearance or approval, marketing and promotion, and sales and distribution of medical devices in the U.S. to ensure that medical products distributed domestically are safe and effective for their intended uses. In addition, the FDA regulates the import and export of medical devices.

Although the FDA has statutory authority to assure that medical devices are safe and effective for their intended uses, the FDA has generally exercised its enforcement discretion and not enforced applicable regulations with respect to laboratory developed tests (“LDTs”), which are a subset of in vitro diagnostic devices that are intended for clinical use and designed, manufactured, and used entirely within a single laboratory. We currently market our tests as LDTs and, therefore, we believe that they are not currently subject to the FDA’s enforcement of its medical device regulations and the applicable FDC Act provisions. Despite the FDA’s historic enforcement discretion policy with respect to LDTs, in November 2017, the FDA finalized a classification order setting out the regulatory requirements that apply to certain genetic health risk tests and revised a separate classification order exempting certain carrier screening tests from FDA premarket clearance and approval requirements when certain regulatory requirements are met. None of our tests comply with these classification orders because we market our tests as LDTs that are subject to the FDA’s policy of enforcement discretion. However, the FDA may find that our tests do not fall within the definition of an LDT, and may determine that our tests are subject to the FDA’s enforcement of its medical device regulations, including the recent classification orders, and the applicable FDC Act provisions. While we believe that we are currently in material compliance with applicable laws and regulations, we cannot assure you that the FDA or other regulatory agencies would agree with our determination, and a determination that we have violated these laws, or a public announcement that we are being investigated for possible violations of these laws, could adversely affect our business, prospects, results of operations or financial condition. If the FDA determines that our tests are subject to enforcement as medical devices, we could be subject to enforcement action, including administrative and judicial sanctions, and additional regulatory controls and submissions for our tests, all of which could be burdensome. See “—Failure to comply with federal, state, and foreign laboratory licensing requirements and the applicable requirements of the FDA or any other regulatory authority, could cause us to lose the ability to perform our tests, experience disruptions to our business or become subject to administrative or judicial sanctions.”

Moreover, LDTs may in the future become subject to more onerous regulation by the FDA. A significant change in any of the laws, regulations, or policies may require us to change our business model in order to maintain regulatory compliance. At various times since 2006, the FDA has issued documents outlining its intent to require varying levels of FDA oversight of many types of LDTs. In October 2014, the FDA issued twonon-binding draft guidance documents that set forth a proposed risk-based regulatory framework that would apply varying levels of FDA oversight to LDTs. The FDA indicated that it did not intend to implement its proposed framework until the draft guidance documents are finalized. The FDA was expected to finalize its proposal for the oversight of LDTs before the end of 2016, but in November 2016, the FDA announced that it would halt finalizing of the guidance documents and continue to work with stakeholders, the incoming administration, and Congress on the approach to LDT regulation. This announcement was followed by the issuance of an information discussion paper on January 13, 2017, in which the FDA outlined a substantially revised “possible approach” to the oversight of LDTs. The discussion paper explicitly states that it is not a final version of the 2014 draft guidance and that it is not enforceable and does not represent the FDA’s “formal position.” It is unclear at this time if or when the FDA will finalize its plans to end enforcement discretion for LDTs, and even then, whether the new regulatory requirements are expected to be phased-in over time. However, the FDA may decide to regulate certain LDTs on a case-by-case basis at any time, which could result in delay or additional expense in offering our tests and tests that we may develop in the future.

Legislative proposals addressing oversight of genetic testing and LDTs have been introduced in previous Congresses, and we expect that new legislative proposals will be introduced from time to time in the future. We cannot provide any assurance that FDA regulation, including pre-market review, will not be required in the future for our tests, whether through finalization of guidance issued by

the FDA, new enforcement policies adopted by the FDA or new legislation enacted by Congress. It is possible that legislation will be enacted into law or guidance could be issued by the FDA that may result in increased regulatory burdens for us to continue to offer our tests or to develop and introduce new tests. This legislative and regulatory uncertainty exposes us to the possibility of enforcement action or additional regulatory controls and submissions for our tests, both of which could be burdensome. We cannot be certain that the FDA will not enact rules or guidance documents that could impact our ability to purchase certain materials necessary for the performance of our tests, such as products labeled for research use only. Should any of the reagents obtained by us from suppliers and used in conducting our tests be affected by future regulatory actions, our business could be adversely affected by those actions, including increasing the cost of testing or delaying, limiting, or prohibiting the purchase of reagents necessary to perform testing.

Additionally, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”), and certain state agencies regulate the performance of LDTs (as authorized under CLIA and state law, respectively). Our tests are developed in compliance with CLIA requirements. However, if our laboratory fails to comply with the prescribed quality requirements for laboratory testing or other requirements for CLIA, we could lose CLIA certification. That in turn would impact our ability to operate our laboratory and provide results to our customers, which could negatively impact our business operations.

The IVDR includes limited exemptions for LDTs, but such exemptions only apply to laboratories that are part of health institutions established in the EEA, and so any services undertaken outside of the EEA (for example at our facilities in the U.S.) will not be covered by such exemptions. In any event, such exemptions are limited in their scope, and only apply if a number of conditions are met, including that the health institution justifies that the “target patient group’s specific needs cannot be met, or cannot be met at the appropriate level of performance by an equivalent device available on the market” and do not cover devices that are manufactured on an “industrial scale”. Even where an exemption is applicable, such IVDs will still be subject to certain requirements under the IVDR. It is therefore unlikely that our tests will benefit from any exemption on the basis of being LDTs and will have to comply with the IVDR in full if we offer such tests to customers in the EEA (and Northern Ireland) (whether directly or via intermediaries).

If the FDA determines that our services are subject to enforcement as medical devices, we could incur substantial costs and time delays associated with satisfying statutory and regulatory requirements such as pre-market clearance or approval and we could incur additional expense in offering our tests and tests that we may develop in the future.

If the FDA determines that our tests and associated software do not fall within the definition of an LDT, or there are regulatory or legislative changes, we may be required to obtain premarket clearance for our tests andassociated software under Section 510(k) of the FDC Act or approval of a premarket approval application (“PMA”). We would also be subject to ongoing regulatory requirements such as registration and listing requirements, medical device reporting requirements, and quality control requirements. If our tests are considered medical devices not subject to enforcement discretion, the regulatory requirements to which our tests are subject would depend on the FDA’s classification of our tests. The FDA has issued regulations classifying over 1,700 different generic types of medical devices into one of three regulatory control categories (Class I, Class II, or Class III) depending on the degree of regulation that the FDA finds necessary to provide reasonable assurance of their safety and effectiveness. The class into which a device is placed determines the requirements that a medical device manufacturer must meet both pre- and post-market.

Generally, Class I devices do not require premarket authorization, but are subject to a comprehensive set of regulatory authorities referred to as general controls. Class II devices, in addition to general controls, generally require special controls and premarket clearance through the submission of a section 510(k) premarket notification. Class III devices are subject to general controls and special controls, and also require premarket approval prior to commercial distribution, which is a more rigorous process than premarket clearance. Under the FDC Act, a device that is first marketed after May 28, 1976 is by default a Class III device requiring premarket approval unless it is within a type of generic device class that has been classified as Class I or Class II. Even if a device falls under an existing Class II, non-exempt, device classification, the product must also be shown to be “substantially equivalent” to a legally marketed predicate device through submission of a section 510(k) premarket notification. If after reviewing a firm’s 510(k) premarket notification, the FDA determines that a device is not substantially equivalent to a legally marketed predicate device, the new device is classified into Class III, requiring premarket approval. It is possible for a manufacturer to obtain a Class I or Class II designation without an appropriate predicate by submitting a de novo request for reclassification.

The process for submitting a 510(k) premarket notification and receiving FDA clearance usually takes from three to 12 months, but it can take significantly longer and clearance is never guaranteed. The process for submitting and obtaining FDA approval of a PMA is much more costly, lengthy, and uncertain. It generally takes from one to three years or even longer and approval is not guaranteed. PMA approval typically requires extensive clinical data and can be significantly longer, more expensive and more uncertain than the 510(k) clearance process. Despite the time, effort and expense expended, there can be no assurance that a particular device ultimately will be cleared or approved by the FDA through either the 510(k) clearance process or the PMA process on a timely basis, or at all.

If our tests are considered medical devices not subject to enforcement discretion, one classification regulation that could be relevant to one or more of our tests is a recently finalized classification for genetic health risk (“GHR”) assessment tests. On April 6, 2017, in response to a de novo request for reclassification submitted by another company, the FDA issued an order classifying genetic tests known as genetic health risk assessment systems (“GHR tests”) as Class II devices subject to premarket notification and specified special controls requirements. On November 7, 2017, the FDA codified this classification at 21 C.F.R. § 866.5950. If our tests are considered medical devices that are not subject to enforcement discretion and one or more of our tests is considered to fall under the 21 C.F.R. § 866.5950 classification regulation for GHR tests, or under another Class II classification that is subject to a premarket notification requirement, we would be required to obtain marketing clearance for such tests. Further, if considered to fall under the 21 C.F.R. § 866.5950 classification for GHR tests, our tests would be required to adhere to specified special controls, such as labeling and testing specifications and information about the test to be posted on the manufacturer’s website. If any of our current or pipeline tests

are not considered by the FDA to be GHR tests or do not qualify for the limited exemption for a sponsor’s subsequent GHR tests once the assessment system has been reviewed and cleared by FDA, or if any of our tests fall under a different non-exempt classification or are unclassified, we could be required to obtain 510(k) clearance or approval of a PMA for such test in the future.

If premarket review of our tests is required, the premarket review process may involve, among other things, successfully completing additional clinical trials. If we are required to conduct premarket clinical trials, whether using prospectively acquired samples or archival samples, delays in the commencement or completion of clinicaltesting could significantly increase our product development costs, delay commercialization of any future products, and interrupt sales of our current products. Many of the factors that may cause or lead to a delay in the commencement or completion of clinical trials may also ultimately lead to delay or denial of regulatory clearance or approval. The commencement of clinical trials may be delayed due to insufficient patient enrollment, which is a function of many factors, including the size of the patient population, the concerns around genetic testing, the nature of the protocol, the proximity of patients to clinical sites, and the eligibility criteria for the clinical trial.

If we are required to conduct clinical trials, we and any third-party contractors we engage would be required to comply with good clinical practices (“GCPs”), which are regulations and guidelines enforced by the FDA, for products in clinical development. The FDA enforces these GCPs through periodic inspections of trial sponsors, principal investigators, and trial sites. If we or any third-party contractor fails to comply with applicable GCPs, the clinical data generated in clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA may require us to perform additional clinical trials before clearing or approving our marketing applications. A failure to comply with these regulations may require us to repeat clinical trials, which would delay the regulatory clearance or approval process. In addition, if these parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or obligations or meet expected deadlines, or if the quality, completeness or accuracy of the clinical data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to our clinical protocols or for other reasons, our clinical trials may have to be extended, delayed or terminated. Many of these factors would be beyond our control. We may not be able to enter into replacement arrangements without undue delays or considerable expenditures. If there are delays in testing or approvals as a result of the failure to perform by third parties, our research and development costs would increase, and we may not be able to obtain regulatory clearance or approval for our tests. In addition, we may not be able to establish or maintain relationships with these parties on favorable terms, if at all. Each of these outcomes would harm our ability to market our tests or to achieve or sustain profitability.

The FDA requires medical device manufacturers to comply with, among other things, current good manufacturing practices for medical devices, set forth in the Quality System Regulation at 21 C.F.R. Part 820, which requires manufacturers to follow elaborate design, testing, control, documentation, and other quality assurance procedures during the manufacturing process; the medical device reporting regulation, which requires that manufacturers report to the FDA if their device or a similar device they market may have caused or contributed to a death or serious injury or malfunctioned in a way that would likely cause or contribute to a death or serious injury if it were to recur; labeling regulations, including the FDA’s general prohibition against promoting products for unapproved or “off-label” uses; the reports of corrections and removals regulation, which requires manufacturers to report to the FDA if a device correction or removal was initiated to reduce a risk to health posed by the device or to remedy a violation of the FDC Act caused by the device which may present a risk to health; and the establishment registration and device listing regulation.

Moreover, there can be no assurance that any cleared or approved labeling claims will be consistent with our current claims or adequate to support continued adoption of our products. If premarket review is required for some or all of our products, the FDA may require that we stop selling our products pending clearance or approval, which would negatively impact our business. Even if our products are allowed to remain on the market prior to clearance or approval, demand for our products may decline if there is uncertainty about our products, if we are required to label our products as investigational by the FDA, or if the FDA limits the labeling claims we are permitted to make for our products. As a result, we could experience significantly increased development costs and a delay in generating additional revenues from our services, or from other services or products now in development.

In addition, any clearance or approval we obtain for our products may contain requirements for costly post-market testing and surveillance to monitor the safety or efficacy of the product. The FDA has broad post-market enforcement powers, and if unanticipated problems with our products arise, or if we or our suppliers fail to comply with regulatory requirements following FDA clearance or approval, we may become subject to enforcement actions such as:

• restrictions on manufacturing processes;

• restrictions on product marketing;

• warning letters;

• withdrawal or recall of products from the market;

• fines, restitution, or disgorgement of profits or revenue;

• suspension or withdrawal of regulatory clearances or approvals;

• limitation on, or refusal to permit, import or export of our products;

• product seizures;

• injunctions; or

• imposition of civil or criminal penalties.

Moreover, the FDA strictly regulates the promotional claims that may be made about medical devices. In particular, a medical device may not be promoted for uses that are not approved by the FDA as reflected in the device’s approved labeling. However, companies may share truthful and not misleading information that is otherwise consistent with the product’s FDA approved labeling. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant civil, criminal, and administrative penalties.

Failure to comply with federal, state, and foreign laboratory licensing requirements and the applicable requirements of the FDA or any other regulatory authority, could cause us to lose the ability to perform our tests, experience disruptions to our business, or become subject to administrative or judicial sanctions.

We are subject to CLIA, a federal law that regulates clinical laboratories that perform testing on specimens derived from humans for the purpose of providing information for the diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of disease. CLIA regulations establish specific standards with respect to personnel qualifications, facility administration, proficiency testing, quality control, quality assurance, and inspections. We have a current CLIA certificate to conduct our tests at our laboratory in Menlo Park, California. To renew this certificate, we are subject to survey and inspection every two years. Moreover, CLIA inspectors may make random inspections of our clinical reference laboratory.

We are also required to maintain a license to conduct testing in California. California laws establish standards for day-to-day operation of our clinical reference laboratory in Menlo Park, including the training and skills required of personnel and quality control. Several other states in which we operate also require that we hold licenses to test specimens from patients in those states, under certain circumstances. For example, our clinical reference laboratory is required to be licensed on a product-specific basis by New York as an out-of-state laboratory, and our products, as LDTs, must be approved by the New York State Department of Health (the “NYDOH”) on a product-by-product basis before they are offered in New York. We are subject to periodic inspection by the NYDOH and are required to demonstrate ongoing compliance with NYDOH regulations and standards. To the extent NYDOH identified any non-compliance and we are unable to implement satisfactory corrective actions to remedy such non-compliance, the State of New York could withdraw approval for our tests. Additionally, states such as Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island may also require us to maintain out-of-state licenses. Other states may have similar requirements or may adopt similar requirements in the future. Although we have obtained licenses from states where we believe we are required to be licensed, we may become aware of other states that require out-of-state laboratories to obtain licensure in order to accept specimens from the state, and it is possible that other states currently have such requirements or will have such requirements in the future. We may also be subject to regulation in foreign jurisdictions as we seek to expand international utilization of our tests or such jurisdictions adopt new licensure requirements, which may requirereview of our tests in order to offer them or may have other limitations such as restrictions on the transport of human blood necessary for us to perform our tests that may limit our ability to make our tests available outside of the U.S. Complying with licensure requirements in new jurisdictions may be expensive and/or time-consuming, may subject us to significant and unanticipated delays, or may be in conflict with other applicable requirements.

Failure to comply with applicable clinical laboratory licensure requirements may result in a range of enforcement actions, including license suspension, limitation, or revocation, directed plan of action, onsite monitoring, civil monetary penalties, and criminal sanctions as well as significant adverse publicity. Any sanction imposed under CLIA, its implementing regulations or state or foreign laws or regulations governing clinical laboratory licensure, or our failure to renew our CLIA certificate, a state or foreign license or accreditation, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations. Even if we were able to bring our laboratory back into compliance, we could incur significant expenses and potentially lose revenues in doing so.

Failure to comply with the IVDR may result in a range of enforcement actions. Penalties under the IVDR are devolved to national governments, but the IVDR requires that such measures are “effective, proportionate, and dissuasive.” Initial indications suggest that penalties for breaches of the IVDR are likely to include fines and, potentially, prison sentences.

Although we market our tests as LDTs that are currently subject to the FDA’s exercise of enforcement discretion, if we fail to operate within the conditions of that exercise of enforcement discretion, or if any of our products otherwise fail to comply with FDA regulatory requirements as enforced, we would be subject to the applicable requirements of the FDC Act and the FDA’s implementing regulations. The FDA is empowered to impose sanctions for violations of the FDC Act and the FDA’s implementing regulations, including warning letters, civil and criminal penalties, injunctions, product seizure or recall, import bans, restrictions on the conduct of our operations and total or partial suspension of production. Any of the aforementioned sanctions could cause reputational damage, undermine our ability to maintain and increase our revenues, and harm our business, financial condition, and results of operations. In particular, if we or the FDA discover that any of our products have defects that call into question the accuracy of their results, we may be required to undertake a retest of all results and analyses provided during the period relevant to the defect, or recall the affected products. The direct costs incurred in connection with such a recall in terms of management time, administrative, and legal expenses and lost revenue, together with the indirect costs to our reputation could harm our business, financial condition, and results of operations, and our ability to execute our business strategy. While we believe that we are currently in material compliance with applicable laws and regulations as currently enforced, the FDA or other regulatory agencies may not agree, and a determination that

we have violated these laws or a public announcement that we are being investigated for possible violations of these laws could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

If our security measures are compromised, or our information technology systems or those of our vendors, and other relevant third parties fail or suffer security breaches, loss or leakage of data, and other disruptions, this could result in a material disruption of our services, compromise sensitive information related to our business, harm our reputation, trigger breach notification obligations, prevent us from accessing critical information, and expose us to liability or other adverse effects to our business.

In the ordinary course of our business, we collect, process, and store proprietary, confidential, and sensitive information, including protected health information (“PHI”), personally identifiable information (“PII”), credit card and other financial information, intellectual property, trade secrets, and proprietary business information owned or controlled by ourselves or our customers, payors, and other parties. It is critical that we do so in a secure manner to maintain the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of such information. We depend on information technology and telecommunications systems for significant elements of our operations and we have installed, and expect to expand, a number of enterprise software systems that affect a broad range of business processes and functional areas, including, for example, systems handling human resources, financial reporting and controls, customer relationship management, regulatory compliance, and other infrastructure operations. We face a number of risks relative to protecting this critical information, including loss of access risk, inappropriate use or disclosure, inappropriate modification, and the risk of our being unable to adequately monitor, audit, and modify our controls over our critical information. This risk extends to the third-party vendors and subcontractors, as we have outsourced elements of our operations to third parties and as a result a number of third-party vendors and other contractors and consultants have access to our proprietary, confidential, and sensitive information.

We manage and maintain our applications and data utilizing a combination of on-site systems and cloud-based data centers. We utilize external security and infrastructure vendors to manage parts of our data centers. We also communicate sensitive data, including patient data, electronically, and through relationships with multiple third-party vendors and their subcontractors. These applications and data encompass a wide variety of business-critical information, including research and development information, patient data, commercial information, and business and financial information. Despite the precautionary measures we have taken to prevent unanticipated problems that could affect our information technology and telecommunications systems, failures or significant downtime of our information technology or telecommunications systems or those used by our third-party service providers could prevent us from conducting tests, preparing and providing reports to our customers, billing customers, collecting revenue, handling inquiries from our customers, conducting research and development activities, and managing the administrative aspects of our business. For example, in the first quarter of 2018, we experienced downtime in our information technology systems in connection with the adoption of certain new information technology, and our results of operations in the first and second quarters of 2018 were adversely affected as a result. Any disruption or loss of information technology or telecommunications systems on which critical aspects of our operations depend could have an adverse effect on our business.

Notwithstanding the implementation of security measures, given the size and complexity of our internal information technology systems and those of our third-party vendors and other contractors and consultants, and the increasing amounts of proprietary, confidential, and sensitive information that they maintain, such information technology systems are potentially vulnerable to breakdown, service interruptions, system malfunction, natural disasters, terrorism, war, and telecommunication and electrical failures, as well as security breaches from inadvertent or intentional actions by our personnel, third-party vendors, contractors, consultants, business partners, and/or other third parties, or from cyber-attacks by malicious third parties (including the deployment of harmful malware, ransomware, denial-of-service attacks, social engineering, and other means to affect service reliability and threaten the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of information), which may compromise our system infrastructure, or that of our third-party vendors and other contractors and consultants, or lead to data leakage. The risk of a security breach or disruption, particularly through accidental actions or omissions by trusted insiders, cyber-attacks or cyber intrusions, including by computer hackers, viruses, foreign governments, and cyber terrorists, has generally increased as the number, intensity, and sophistication of attempted attacks and intrusions from around the world have increased; in particular, during the COVID-19 pandemic we have observed an increase in attempted attacks against our data systems. Additionally, in connection with the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, most of our personnel are working remotely, which may increase the risk of security breaches, loss of data, and other disruptions as a consequence of more personnel accessing sensitive and critical information from remote locations. We may not be able to anticipate all types of security threats, and we may not be able to implement preventive measures effective against all such security threats. The techniques used by cyber criminals change frequently, may not be recognized until launched, and can originate from a wide variety of sources, including outside groups such as external service providers, organized crime affiliates, terrorist organizations, hostile foreign governments or agencies, or cybersecurity researchers. To the extent that any disruption or security breach were to result in a loss of, or damage to, our data or applications, or those of our third-party vendors and other contractors and consultants, or inappropriate disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, we could incur liability and reputational damage and the further development and commercialization of our services could be delayed. The costs related to significant security breaches or disruptions could be material and exceed the limits of the cybersecurity insurance we maintain against such risks. If the information technology systems of our third-party vendors and other contractors and consultants become subject to disruptions or security breaches, we may have insufficient recourse against such third parties and we may have to expend significant resources to mitigate the impact of such an event, and to develop and implement protections to prevent future events of this nature from occurring.

We cannot assure you that our data protection efforts and our investment in information technology will prevent significant breakdowns, data leakages, breaches in our systems, or those of our third-party vendors and other contractors and consultants, or other cyber incidents that could have a material adverse effect upon our reputation, business, operations, or financial condition. For example, if such an event were to occur and cause interruptions in our operations, or those of our third-party vendors and other

contractors and consultants, it could result in a material disruption of our programs and the development of our services and technologies could be delayed. Furthermore, significant disruptions of our internal information technology systems or those of our third-party vendors and other contractors and consultants, or security breaches could result in the loss, misappropriation, and/or unauthorized access, use, or disclosure of, or the prevention of access to, confidential information (including trade secrets or other intellectual property, proprietary business information, and personal information), which could result in financial, legal, business, and reputational harm to us. For example, any such event that leads to unauthorized access, use, or disclosure of personal information, including personal information regarding our customers or employees, could harm our reputation directly, compel us to comply with federal and/or state breach notification laws and foreign law equivalents, subject us to mandatory corrective action, and otherwise subject us to liability under laws and regulations that protect the privacy and security of personal information, which could result in significant legal and financial exposure and reputational damages that could potentially have an adverse effect on our business.

Although we take measures to protect sensitive data from unauthorized access, use or disclosure, our information technology and infrastructure may be vulnerable to attacks by hackers or viruses or breached due to personnel error, malfeasance, or other malicious or inadvertent disruptions. Any such breach or interruption could compromise our networks and the information stored there could be accessed by unauthorized parties, manipulated, publicly disclosed, lost, or stolen.

Any such access, breach, or other loss of information could result in legal claims or proceedings, liability under domestic or foreign privacy, data protection, and data security laws such as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) and the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (“HITECH”), and penalties. Notice of certain security breaches must be made to affected individuals, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”), and for extensive breaches, notice may need to be made to the media or state attorneys general. Such a notice could harm our reputation and our ability to compete. Although we have implemented security measures and a formal, dedicated enterprise security program to prevent unauthorized access to patient data, such data is currently accessible through multiple channels, and there is no guarantee we can protect our data from breach. Unauthorized access, loss, or dissemination could also damage our reputation or disrupt our operations, including our ability to conduct our analyses, deliver test results, process claims and appeals, provide customer assistance, conduct research and development activities, collect, process, and prepare company financial information, provide information about our tests and other patient and physician education and outreach efforts through our website, and manage the administrative aspects of our business.

Penalties for violations of these laws vary. For instance, penalties for failure to comply with a requirement of HIPAA and HITECH vary significantly, and include significant civil monetary penalties and, in certain circumstances, criminal penalties with fines up to $250,000 per violation and/or imprisonment. A person who knowingly obtains or discloses individually identifiable health information in violation of HIPAA may face a criminal penalty of up to $50,000 and up to one-year imprisonment. The criminal penalties increase if the wrongful conduct involves false pretenses or the intent to sell, transfer or use identifiable health information for commercial advantage, personal gain or malicious harm.

Further, 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. These laws and regulations are not necessarily preempted by HIPAA, particularly if a state affords greater protection to individuals than HIPAA. Where state laws are more protective, we have to comply with the stricter provisions. 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. Similarly, the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”) allows consumers a private right of action when certain personal information is subject to unauthorized access and exfiltration, theft or disclosure due to a business’ failure to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures. The interplay of federal and state laws may be subject to varying interpretations by courts and government agencies, creating complex compliance issues for us and data we receive, use and share, potentially exposing us to additional expense, adverse publicity and liability. Further, as regulatory focus on privacy issues continues to increase and laws and regulations concerning the protection of personal information expand and become more complex, these potential risks to our business could intensify. Changes in laws or regulations associated with the enhanced protection of certain types of sensitive data, such as PHI or PII, for the treatment of genetic data, along with increased customer demands for enhanced data security infrastructure, could greatly increase our cost of providing our services, decrease demand for our services, reduce our revenues and/or subject us to additional liabilities.

The actual or perceived failure by us, our customers, or vendors to comply with increasingly stringent laws, regulations and contractual obligations relating to privacy, data protection, and data security could harm our reputation, and subject us to significant fines and liability.

We are subject to numerous domestic and foreign laws and regulations regarding privacy, data protection, and data security, the scope of which is changing, subject to differing applications and interpretations and may be inconsistent among countries, or conflict with other rules. We are also subject to the terms of our contractual obligations to customers and third parties related to privacy, data protection, and data security. The actual or perceived failure by us, our customers, our vendors, or other relevant third parties to address or comply with these laws, regulations, and obligations could increase our compliance and operational costs, expose us to regulatory scrutiny, actions, fines and penalties, result in reputational harm, lead to a loss of customers, reduce the use of our services, result in litigation and liability, and otherwise cause a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

For example, the EU adopted the General Data Protection Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (“GDPR”), which imposes onerous and comprehensive privacy, data protection, and data security obligations onto data controllers and processors, including, as applicable, contractual privacy, data protection, and data security commitments, expanded disclosures to data subjects about how their personal information is used, honoring individuals’ data protection rights, limitations on retention of personal information, additional requirements pertaining to sensitive information (such as health data) and pseudonymized (i.e., key-coded) data, data breach notification requirements, and higher standards for obtaining consent from data subjects. Penalties for non-compliance with the GDPR can be significant and include fines in the amount of the greater of €20 million or 4% of global turnover and restrictions or prohibitions on data processing, which could limit our ability to do business in the EU, reduce demand for our services, and adversely impact our business and results of operations. The GDPR also provides that EU member states may introduce further conditions, including limitations, to make their own further laws and regulations limiting the processing of genetic, biometric, or health data, which could limit our ability to collect, use and share European data, or could cause our compliance costs to increase, require us to change our practices, adversely impact our business, and harm our financial condition. Assisting our customers, partners, and vendors in complying with the GDPR, or complying with the GDPR ourselves, may cause us to incur substantial operational costs or require us to change our business practices.

European privacy, data protection, and data security laws, including the GDPR, generally restrict the transfer of personal information from the U.K., EEA and Switzerland to the U.S. and most other countries unless the parties to the transfer have implemented specific safeguards to protect the transferred personal information. There is uncertainty on how to implement such safeguards and how to conduct such transfers in compliance with the GDPR, and certain safeguards may not be available or applicable with respect to some or all of the personal information processing activities necessary to research, develop and market our products and services. One of the primary safeguards allowing U.S. companies to import personal information from Europe has been certification to the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield and Swiss-U.S. Privacy Shield frameworks. However, the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield framework was invalidated in July 2020 in a decision by the Court of Justice of the EU and the Swiss-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework was declared as inadequate by the Swiss Federal Data Protection and Information Commissioner. The decision by the Court of Justice and the announcement by the Swiss Commissioner both raised questions about whether one of the primary alternatives to the Privacy Shield frameworks, the European Commission’s Standard Contractual Clauses, can lawfully be used for personal information transfers from Europe to the U.S. or most other countries. Authorities in the U.K. may similarly invalidate use of the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield and raise questions on the viability of the Standard Contractual Clauses. In November 2020, EU regulators proposed a new set of Standard Contractual Clauses, which impose additional obligations and requirements with respect to the transfer of EU personal data to other jurisdictions, which may increase the legal risks and liabilities under the GDPR and local EU laws associated with cross-border data transfers, and result in material increased compliance and operational costs. If we are unable to implement a valid solution for personal information transfers to the U.S. and other countries, we will face increased exposure to regulatory actions, substantial fines, and injunctions against processing or transferring personal information from Europe, and we may be required to increase our data processing capabilities in Europe at significant expense. Inability to import personal information from Europe to the U.S. or other countries may decrease demand for our products and services as our customers that are subject to the GDPR may seek alternatives that do not involve personal information transfers out of Europe. At present, there are few, if any, viable alternatives to the Privacy Shield and the Standard Contractual Clauses.

In addition, it is unclear whether the transfer of personal information from the EU to the U.K. will continue to remain lawful under the GDPR in light of Brexit. Pursuant to a post-Brexit trade deal between the U.K. and the EU, transfers of personal information from the EEA to the U.K. are not considered restricted transfers under the GDPR for a period of up to six months from January 1, 2021. However, unless the EU Commission makes an adequacy finding with respect to the U.K. before the end of that period, the U.K. will be considered a “third country” under the GDPR and transfers of European personal information to the U.K. will require an adequacy mechanism to render such transfers lawful under the GDPR. Additionally, although U.K. privacy, data protection and data security law is designed to be consistent with the GDPR, uncertainty remains regarding how data transfers to and from the U.K. will be regulated notwithstanding Brexit.

Regulation of privacy, data protection, and data security has also become more stringent in the U.S. New laws are also being considered at both the state and federal levels, and legislatures of states such as California have already passed and enacted privacy legislation. For example, the CCPA, which took effect on January 1, 2020, gives California residents expanded rights to access and delete their personal information, opt out of certain personal information sharing, and receive detailed information about how their personal information is used. The CCPA provides for civil penalties for violations, as well as a private right of action for data breaches that is expected to increase data breach litigation. The CCPA may increase our compliance costs and potential liability. Some observers have noted that the CCPA could mark the beginning of a trend toward more stringent state privacy, data protection and data security legislation in the U.S., which could increase our potential liability and adversely affect our business. The CCPA will be expanded substantially on January 1, 2023, when the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020 (“CPRA”) becomes fully operative. The CPRA imposes additional obligations relating to consumer data on companies doing business in California beginning January 1, 2022, with implementing regulations expected on or before July 1, 2022, and enforcement beginning July 1, 2023. The CPRA significantly modifies the CCPA and will, among other things, give California residents the ability to limit use of certain sensitive personal information, further restrict the use of cross-contextual advertising, establish restrictions on the retention of personal information, expand the types of data breaches subject to the CCPA’s private right of action, provide for increased penalties for CPRA violations concerning California residents under the age of 16, and establish a new California Privacy Protection Agency to implement and enforce the new law.

Compliance with U.S. and foreign privacy, data protection, and data security laws and regulations could cause us to incur substantial costs or require us to change our business practices and compliance procedures in a manner adverse to our business. Moreover, complying with these various laws could require us to take on more onerous obligations in our contracts, restrict our ability to

collect, use and disclose data, or in some cases, impact our ability to operate in certain jurisdictions. We typically rely on our customers to obtain valid and appropriate consents from data subjects whose genetic samples and data we process on such customers’ behalf. Given that we do not typically obtain direct consent from such data subjects and we do not audit our customers to ensure that they have obtained the necessary consents required by law, the failure of our customers to obtain consents that are valid under applicable law could result in our own non-compliance with privacy laws. Such failure to comply with U.S. and foreign privacy, data protection, and data security laws and regulations could result in government enforcement actions (which could include civil or criminal penalties), private litigation and/or adverse publicity and could negatively affect our operating results and business. Claims that we have violated individuals’ privacy rights, failed to comply with privacy, data protection, and data security laws, or breached our contractual obligations, even if we are not found liable, could be expensive and time consuming to defend, could result in adverse publicity and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

Our employees may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including noncompliance with regulatory standards and requirements, which could cause significant liability for us and harm our reputation.

We are exposed to the risk of employee fraud or other misconduct, including intentional failures to comply with government regulations, including federal and state healthcare fraud and abuse laws and regulations, to misuse information, including patient information, and to report financial information or data accurately or disclose unauthorized activities to us. Such misconduct could also involve the improper use of information obtained in the course of clinical studies, which could result in regulatory sanctions and cause serious harm to our reputation. We have a code of conduct and ethics for our directors, officers and employees, but it is not always possible to identify and deter employee misconduct, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to be in compliance with such laws or regulations. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business and results of operations, including the imposition of significant administrative, civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, imprisonment, exclusion from government healthcare programs, contractual damages, refunding of payments received by us, reputational harm, additional reporting, or oversight obligations if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or other agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with the law and curtailment or restructuring of our operations. Whether or not we are successful in defending against such actions or investigations, we could incur substantial costs, including legal fees, and divert the attention of management in defending ourselves against any of these claims or investigations.

Complying with numerous statutes and regulations pertaining to our business is an expensive and time-consuming process, and any failure to comply could result in substantial penalties.

Our operations may be subject to other extensive federal, state, local, and foreign laws and regulations, all of which are subject to change. These laws and regulations currently include, among others:

As a clinical laboratory, our business practices may face additional scrutiny from government regulatory agencies such as the Department of Justice, the HHS Office of Inspector General (the “OIG”), and CMS. Certain arrangements between clinical laboratories and referring physicians have been identified in fraud alerts issued by the OIG as implicating the Anti-Kickback Statute. The OIG has stated that it is particularly concerned about these types of arrangements because the choice of laboratory, as well as the decision to order laboratory tests, typically are made or strongly influenced by the physician, with little or no input from patients. Moreover, the provision of payments or other items of value by a clinical laboratory to a referral source could be prohibited under the Stark Law unless the arrangement meets all criteria of an applicable exception. The government has been active in enforcement of these laws as they apply to clinical laboratories.

The growth of our business and our expansion outside of the U.S. may increase the potential of violating these laws or our internal policies and procedures. The risk of our being found in violation of these or other laws and regulations is further increased by the fact that many have not been fully interpreted by the regulatory authorities or the courts, and their provisions are open to a variety of interpretations. Any action brought against us for violation of these or other laws or regulations, even if we successfully defend against it, could cause us to incur significant legal expenses and reputational harm and divert our management’s attention from the operation of our business. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of these laws and regulations, we may be subject to any applicable penalty associated with the violation, including significant administrative, civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, imprisonment, exclusion from participation in federal healthcare programs, refunding of payments received by us, integrity oversight and reporting obligations, and curtailment or cessation of our operations. Any of the foregoing consequences could seriously harm our business and our financial results.

We could be adversely affected by violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, as amended (the “FCPA”), and other worldwide anti-bribery laws.

We are subject to the FCPA, which prohibits companies and their intermediaries from making payments in violation of law to non-U.S. government officials for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business or securing any other improper advantage. Other U.S. companies in the medical device and pharmaceutical fields have faced criminal penalties under the FCPA for allowing their agents to deviate from appropriate practices in doing business with these individuals. We are also subject to similar anti-bribery laws in the jurisdictions in which we operate, including the U.K.’s Bribery Act of 2010, which also prohibits commercial bribery and makes it a crime

for companies to fail to prevent bribery. These laws are complex and far-reaching in nature, and, as a result, we cannot assure you that we would not be required in the future to alter one or more of our practices to be in compliance with these laws or any changes in these laws or the interpretation thereof. Any violations of these laws, or allegations of such violations, could disrupt our operations, involve significant management distraction, involve significant costs and expenses, including legal fees, and could result in a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition or results of operations. We could also incur severe penalties, including criminal and civil penalties, disgorgement, and other remedial measures.

If we decide to grow our business by developing in vitro diagnostic tests, we may be subject to reimbursement challenges.

The coverage and reimbursement status of newly approved or cleared laboratory tests, including our NeXT Dx test, is uncertain. If we decide to seek reimbursement for our NeXT Dx test or other in vitro diagnostic tests we may develop, and if such tests are inadequately covered by insurance or ineligible for such reimbursement, this could limit our ability to market any such future tests. The commercial success of future products in both domestic and international markets may depend in part on the availability of coverage and adequate reimbursement from third-party payors, including government payors, such as the Medicare and Medicaid programs, managed care organizations, and other third-party payors. The government and other third-party payors are increasingly attempting to contain health care costs by limiting both insurance coverage and the level of reimbursement for new diagnostic tests. As a result, they may not cover or provide adequate payment for any future in vitro diagnostic tests that we develop. These payors may conclude that our products are less safe, less effective, or less cost-effective than existing or later-introduced products. These payors may also conclude that the overall cost of using one of our tests exceeds the overall cost of using a competing test, and third-party payors may not approve any future in vitro diagnostic tests we develop for insurance coverage and adequate reimbursement.

Changes in health care policy could increase our costs, decrease our revenues, and impact sales of and reimbursement for our tests.

In March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (the “ACA”), became law. This law substantially changed the way health care is financed by both commercial payers and government payers, and significantly impacts our industry. The ACA contains a number of provisions that are expected to impact the business and operations of our customers, some of which in ways we cannot currently predict, including those governing enrollment in state and federal health care programs, reimbursement changes, and fraud and abuse, which will impact existing state and federal health care programs and will result in the development of new programs.

Among other things, the ACA:

There remain judicial and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA, as well as efforts by the former Trump administration to repeal or replace certain aspects of the ACA. Since January 2017, former President Trump signed several Executive Orders and other directives to delay the implementation of certain requirements of the ACA. Concurrently, Congress considered legislation that would repeal, or repeal and replace, all or part of the ACA. While Congress has not passed comprehensive repeal legislation, it has enacted laws that modify certain provisions of the ACA such as removing penalties, starting January 1, 2019, for not complying with the ACA’s individual mandate to carry health insurance and eliminating the implementation of certain ACA-mandated fees. On December 14, 2018, a Texas U.S. District Court Judge ruled that the ACA is unconstitutional in its entirety because the “individual mandate” was repealed by Congress as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Additionally, on December 18, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld the District Court ruling that the individual mandate was unconstitutional and remanded the case back to the District Court to determine whether the remaining provisions of the ACA are invalid as well. The U.S. Supreme Court is currently reviewing the case, although it is uncertain when or how the Supreme Court will rule. It is unclear how this decision, subsequent appeals, and other efforts to repeal and replace the ACA will impact the ACA and our business. Additional legislation may be enacted that further amends, or repeals, the ACA, which could result in lower numbers of insured individuals, reduced coverage for insured individuals and adversely affect our and our customers’ business.

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted. On August 2, 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011 was signed into law, which, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to providers by 2% per fiscal year, effective on April 1, 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, will remain in effect through 2030, with the exception of a temporary suspension from May 1, 2020 through March 31, 2021, unless additional Congressional action is taken. On January 2, 2013, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was signed into law, which, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to several providers, including hospitals, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. The Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015, enacted on April 16, 2015 (“MACRA”), repealed the formula by which Medicare made annual payment adjustments to physicians and replaced the former

formula with fixed annual updates, and established a quality payment incentive program, also referred to as the Quality Payment Program. This program provides clinicians with two ways to participate, including through the Advanced Alternative Payment Models, or APMs, and the Merit-based Incentive Payment System, or MIPS. In November 2019, CMS issued a final rule finalizing the changes to the Quality Payment Program. At this time, it is unclear how the introduction of the Quality Payment Program will impact overall physician reimbursement under the Medicare program. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors.

In April 2014, Congress passed the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 (“PAMA”), which included substantial changes to the way in which clinical laboratory services are paid under Medicare. Under PAMA, laboratories that receive the majority of their Medicare revenues from payments made under the Medicare Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule, or the Physician Fee Schedule are required to report to CMS, beginning in 2017 and every three years thereafter (or annually for “advanced diagnostic laboratory tests”), private payer payment rates and volumes for their tests. CMS will use this data to calculate a weighted median payment rate for each test, which will be used to establish revised Medicare reimbursement rates for the tests. Laboratories that fail to report the required payment information may be subject to substantial civil monetary penalties. In January 2020, CMS announced that data reporting for clinical diagnostic laboratory tests is delayed by one year. Moreover, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (“CARES”) Act, enacted in March 2020, further delays the reporting period by an additional year. Therefore, data that was originally supposed to be reported between January 1, 2020 and March 31, 2020 must now be reported between January 1, 2022 and March 31, 2022. Covered laboratories must report data from the original data collection period of January 1, 2019 through June 30, 2019. Data reporting for these tests will then resume on a three year cycle beginning in 2025. The payment rate applies to laboratory tests furnished by a hospital laboratory if the test is separately paid under the hospital outpatient prospective payment system. It is still too early to predict the full impact on reimbursement for our products in development. In addition, CMS updated the statutory phase-in provisions such that, for 2020, the rates for clinical diagnostic laboratory tests may not be reduced by more than 10% of the rates for 2019. Pursuant to the CARES Act, the statutory phase-in of payment reductions has been extended through 2024 with a 0% reduction cap for 2021 and a 15% reduction cap for each of 2022, 2023, and 2024. It is unclear what impact new quality and payment programs, such as MACRA, or new pricing structures, such as those adopted under PAMA, may have on our business, financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

Further, it is possible that additional governmental action is taken to address the COVID-19 pandemic. We also anticipate there will continue to be proposals by legislators at both the federal and state levels, regulators and private payers to reduce costs while expanding individual healthcare benefits. Certain of these changes could impose additional limitations on the prices we will be able to charge for our tests, the coverage of or the amounts of reimbursement available for our tests from payers, including commercial payers and government payers.

If we use hazardous materials in a manner that causes injury, we could be liable for resulting damages.

Our activities currently require the use of hazardous chemicals and biological material. We cannot eliminate the risk of an accidental environmental release or injury to employees or third parties from the use, storage, handling, or disposal of these materials. In the event of an environmental release or injury, we could be held liable for any resulting damages, and any liability could exceed our resources or any applicable insurance coverage we may have. Additionally, we are subject on an ongoing basis to federal, state, and local laws and regulations governing the use, storage, handling, and disposal of these materials and specified waste products. The cost of maintaining compliance with these laws and regulations may become significant and our failure to comply may result in substantial fines or other consequences, and either could negatively affect our operating results.

The 2017 tax reform law, as modified by 2020 tax legislation, and possible future changes in tax laws or regulations could adversely affect our business and financial condition.

On December 22, 2017, former President Trump signed into law comprehensive tax legislation (the “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act”) that significantly revised the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”). Future guidance from the U.S. Internal Revenue Service and other tax authorities with respect to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act may affect us, and certain aspects of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act could be repealed or modified in future legislation. For example, on March 27, 2020, the CARES Act was enacted, which includes changes to the tax provisions that benefit business entities and makes certain technical corrections to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. On June 29, 2020, California Assembly Bill 85 (AB 85) was signed into law, which suspends the use of California net operating losses and limits the use of California research tax credits for tax years beginning in 2020 and before 2023. On December 27, 2020, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, a coronavirus relief package that extended and expanded various tax provisions, was signed into law. Changes in corporate tax rates, the realization of net deferred tax assets relating to our U.S. operations, the taxation of foreign earnings, and the deductibility of expenses under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the CARES Act, or future tax reform legislation could have a material impact on the value of our deferred tax assets, could result in significant one-time charges in the current or future taxable years, and could increase our future U.S. tax expense. The foregoing items, as well as any other future changes in tax laws, could have a material adverse effect on our business, cash flow, financial condition, or results of operations. In addition, it is uncertain if and to what extent various states will conform to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the CARES Act, or any newly enacted federal tax legislation.

Our effective tax rate may fluctuate, and we may incur obligations in tax jurisdictions in excess of accrued amounts.

We are subject to taxation in numerous U.S. states and territories, as well as various non-U.S. jurisdictions. As a result, our effective tax rate is derived from a combination of applicable tax rates in the various jurisdictions that we operate. In preparing our financial statements, we estimate the amount of tax that will become payable in each jurisdiction. Nevertheless, our effective tax rate

may be different than experienced in the past due to numerous factors, including passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and the CARES Act, changes in the mix of our profitability from state to state, the results of examinations and audits of our tax filings, our inability to secure or sustain acceptable agreements with tax authorities, changes in accounting for income taxes and changes in tax laws. Any of these factors could cause us to experience an effective tax rate significantly different from previous periods or our current expectations and may result in tax obligations in excess of amounts accrued in our financial statements.

The exit of the U.K. from the EU, commonly referred to as “Brexit” could lead to regulatory divergence and require us to incur additional expenses in order to develop, manufacture, and commercialize our products and services.

Following the result of a referendum in 2016, the U.K. left the EU on January 31, 2020, commonly referred to as “Brexit.” Pursuant to the formal withdrawal arrangements agreed between the U.K. and the EU, the U.K. was subject to a transition period until December 31, 2020 (the “Transition Period”), during which EU rules continued to apply. A deal that outlines the future trading relationship between the U.K. and the EU was agreed in December 2020 and has been approved by each EU member state and the U.K.

While the deal provides for, in most cases, tariff-free trade of goods between the U.K. and the EU, there are additional non-tariff costs to such trade which did not exist prior to the end of the Transition Period. For example, a UKCA mark will be required to sell medical devices to customers in Great Britain, rather than a CE mark.

Should the U.K. or Great Britain further diverge from the EU from a regulatory perspective (for example, by not mirroring the provisions of the IVDR), tariffs could be put into place in the future. We could therefore, both now and in the future, face significant additional expenses (when compared to the position prior to the end of the Transition Period) to operate our business, which could significantly and materially harm or delay our ability to generate revenues or achieve profitability of our business. Any further changes in international trade, tariff and import/export regulations as a result of Brexit or otherwise may impose unexpected duty costs or other non-tariff barriers on us. These developments, or the perception that any of them could occur, may significantly reduce global trade and, in particular, trade between the impacted nations and the U.K. It is also possible that Brexit may negatively affect our ability to attract and retain employees, particularly those from the EU.

Intellectual Property Risks

Litigation or other proceedings or third-party claims of intellectual property infringement, misappropriation or other violations may require us to spend significant time and money, and could in the future prevent us from selling our tests or impact our stock price, any of which could have a material adverse effect.

Our commercial success will depend in part on our avoiding infringement of patents and infringement, misappropriation or other violations of other proprietary rights of third parties, including for example the intellectual property of competitors. There is extensive intellectual property litigation involving the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries and genetic sequencing technology. Our activities may be subject to claims that we infringe or otherwise violate patents owned or controlled by third parties. Numerous U.S. and foreign patents and pending patent applications exist in the genetic testing market and are owned by third parties. We cannot assure you that our operations do not, or will not in the future, infringe existing or future patents. For example, we are aware of several third-party issued U.S. patents and pending patent applications with claims relating to genetic sequencing technology and methodology that may be asserted against us and may be construed to encompass our products and services, including ACE ImmunoID and ImmunoID NeXT technology. In order to avoid infringing these third-party patents, we may find it necessary to or prudent to initiate invalidity proceedings against such patents or to obtain licenses from such third-party intellectual property holders. If we are not able to invalidate such patents or obtain or maintain a license on commercially reasonable terms and such third parties assert infringement claims against us, we may be prevented from exploiting our technology and our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects may be materially and adversely affected. We may also be unaware of patents that a third party, including for example a competitor in the genetic testing market, might assert are infringed by our business. There may also be patent applications that, if issued as patents, could be asserted against us. Patent applications in the U.S. and elsewhere are typically published approximately 18 months after the earliest filing for which priority is claimed, with such earliest filing date being commonly referred to as the priority date. Certain U.S. patent applications that will not be filed outside the U.S. can remain confidential until patents issue. Therefore, patent applications covering our products, services, or technologies could have been filed by third parties without our knowledge. Additionally, pending patent applications that have been published can, subject to certain limitations, be later amended in a manner that could cover our products, services, technologies, and their use. The scope of a patent claim is determined by an interpretation of the law, the written disclosure in a patent and the patent’s prosecution history and can involve other factors such as expert opinion. Our interpretation of the relevance or the scope of claims in a patent or apending application may be incorrect, which may negatively impact our ability to market our products and services. Further, we may incorrectly determine that our technologies, products, or services are not covered by a third-party patent or may incorrectly predict whether a third party’s pending patent application will issue with claims of relevant scope. Our determination of the expiration date of any patent in the U.S. or abroad that we consider relevant may be incorrect, which may negatively impact our ability to develop and market our products or services.

Third-party intellectual property right holders may also actively bring infringement or other intellectual property-related claims against us, even if we have received patent protection for our technologies, products, and services. Regardless of the merit of third parties’ claims against us for infringement, misappropriation or violations of their intellectual property rights, such third parties may seek and obtain injunctive or other equitable relief, which could effectively block our ability to perform our tests. Further, if a patent infringement suit were brought against us, we could be forced to stop or delay our development or sales of any tests or other activities that are the subject of such suit. Defense of these claims, even if such claims are resolved in our favor, could cause us to incur

substantial expenses and be a substantial diversion of our employee resources even if we are ultimately successful. Any adverse ruling or perception of an adverse ruling in defending ourselves could have a material adverse impact on our cash position and stock price. Such litigation or proceedings could substantially increase our operating losses and reduce the resources available for development activities or any future sales, marketing, or distribution activities. We may not have sufficient financial or other resources to conduct such litigation or proceedings adequately. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of such litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their greater financial resources and more mature and developed intellectual property portfolios.

As we continue to commercialize our tests in their current or an updated form, launch different and expanded tests and enter new markets, other competitors might claim that our tests infringe, misappropriate or violate their intellectual property rights as part of business strategies designed to impede our successful commercialization and entry into new markets. If such a suit were brought, regardless of merit, there is no assurance that a court would find in our favor on questions of infringement, validity, enforceability, or priority. Even if we are successful in defending against such a suit, we could incur substantial costs and diversion of the attention of our management and technical personnel in defending ourselves against such claims. A court of competent jurisdiction could hold that third-party patents asserted against us are valid, enforceable, and infringed, which could materially and adversely affect our ability to commercialize any products, services or technologies we may develop and any other technologies covered by the asserted third-party patents and any adverse ruling or perception of an adverse ruling in defending ourselves could have a material adverse impact on our cash position and stock price. If we are found to infringe, misappropriate or otherwise violate a third party’s intellectual property rights, and we are unsuccessful in demonstrating that such rights are invalid or unenforceable, we may be required to pay substantial damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees for willful infringement; obtain one or more licenses from third parties in order to continue developing and marketing our products and technology, which may not be available on commercially reasonable terms (if at all) or may be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors and other third parties access to the same technologies licensed to us; pay substantial royalties and other fees; and redesign any infringing tests or other activities, which may be impossible or require substantial time and monetary expenditure, or be prohibited from commercializing certain tests, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

Where we collaborate with third parties in the development of technology, our collaborators may not properly maintain or defend our intellectual property rights or may use our proprietary information in such a way as to invite litigation that could jeopardize or invalidate our intellectual property or proprietary information. Further, collaborators may infringe the intellectual property rights of third parties, which may expose us to litigation and potential liability. Also, we may be obligated under our agreements with our collaborators, licensors, suppliers and others to indemnify and hold them harmless for damages arising from intellectual property infringement by us.

If we cannot license rights to use technologies on reasonable terms, we may not be able to commercialize new products in the future.

In the future, we may identify additional third-party intellectual property we may need to license in order to engage in our business, including to develop or commercialize new products or services. However, such licenses may not be available on acceptable terms, or at all. Even if such licenses are available, we may be required to pay the licensor substantial royalties based on sales of our products and services. Such royalties are a component of the cost of our products or services and may affect the margins on our products and services. In addition, such licenses may be nonexclusive, which could give our competitors access to the same intellectual property licensed to us. If we are unable to enter into the necessary licenses on acceptable terms or at all, if any necessary licenses are subsequently terminated, if our licensors fail to abide by the terms of the licenses, if our licensors fail to prevent infringement by third parties, or if the licensed patents or other rights are found to be invalid or unenforceable, our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects could be materially and adversely affected.

If licenses to third-party intellectual property rights are or become required for us to engage in our business, the rights may be non-exclusive, which could give our competitors access to the same technology or intellectual property rights licensed to us. Moreover, we could encounter delays in the introduction of tests while we attempt to develop alternatives. Defense of any lawsuit or failure to obtain any of these licenses on favorable terms could prevent us from commercializing tests, which could materially affect our ability to grow and thus adversely affect our business and financial condition.

Developments or uncertainty in the patent statute, patent case law or U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), rules and regulations may impact the validity, scope or enforceability of our patent rights, thereby impairing our ability to protect our products.

Our patent rights, their associated costs, and the enforcement or defense of such patent rights may be affected by developments or uncertainty in the patent statute, patent case law or USPTO rules and regulations.

There are a number of recent changes to the patent laws that may have a significant impact on our ability to protect our technology and enforce our intellectual property rights. For example, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (the “AIA”) enacted within the last several years involves significant changes in patent legislation. These include provisions that affect the way patent applications will be prosecuted and may also affect patent litigation. As an example, assuming that other requirements for patentability are met, prior to March 2013, in the U.S., the first to invent the claimed invention was entitled to the patent, while outside the U.S., the first to file a patent application was entitled to the patent. On or after March 16, 2013, under the AIA, the U.S. transitioned to a first inventor to file system in which, assuming that other requirements for patentability are met, means that the party that is first to file in the U.S. generally is awarded the patent rights, regardless of whether such party invented the claimed invention first.

The AIA also includes a number of significant changes that affect the way patent applications will be prosecuted and also may affect patent litigation. These include allowing third party submission of prior art to the USPTO during patent prosecution and additional procedures to attack the validity of a patent by USPTO administered post-grant proceedings, including post-grant review, inter partes review, and derivation proceedings. Because of a lower evidentiary standard in USPTO proceedings compared to the evidentiary standard in U.S. federal courts necessary to invalidate a patent claim, a third party could potentially provide evidence in a USPTO proceeding sufficient for the USPTO to hold a claim invalid even though the same evidence would be insufficient to invalidate the claim if first presented in a district court action. Accordingly, a third party may attempt to use the USPTO procedures to invalidate our patent claims that would not have been invalidated if first challenged by the third party as a defendant in a district court action. The AIA and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

Further, the standards applied by the USPTO and foreign patent offices in granting patents are not always applied uniformly or predictably. For example, there is no uniform worldwide policy regarding patentable subject matter or the scope of claims allowable in biotechnology patents. As such, we do not know the degree of future protection that we will have on our technologies, products, and services. While we will endeavor to try to protect our technologies, products, and services with intellectual property rights such as patents, as appropriate, the process of obtaining patents is time-consuming, expensive, and sometimes unpredictable.

PSNL US Equity

PSNL · 10-K · period ended 2020-12-31

Item 1A. Risk Factors.

PSNL US Equity☆

PSNL · 10-K · period ended 2020-12-31

Item 1A. Risk Factors.

PSNL US Equity