Legal & controls
Item 3 and Item 9A as filed · every verdict is the registrant’s own sentence, printed below it · a filing that fails an extraction gate reads “not extracted”
| Fiscal year | Filed | Item 3 | ICFR | disclosure controls | material weakness | Filing |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-12-31 | 2026-03-26 | described here | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · One opposition filed by Pixium Vision SA (“Pixium”) in the European Patent Office (the “EPO”) challenged the validity of a European patent owned by Cortigent. The Company elected to not maintain the patent and it was subsequently abandoned by the EPO in February 2025. As a result, this opposition is no longer pending. Although the abandonment may impact our ability to enforce patent protection in Europe with respect to Cortigent’s neurostimulation technology, we do not believe that it will have a material effect on our ability to manufacture and sell our products, or otherwise have a material effect on Cortigent’s operations. As described in the Company’s 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2020, the Company had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) for a proposed business combination with Pixium Vision SA (“Pixium”). In response to a press release by Pixium dated March 24, 2021, and subsequent communications between us and Pixium, our Board of Directors determined that the business combination with Pixium was not in the best interest of our stockholders. On April 1, 2021, we gave notice to Pixium that we were terminating the MOU between the parties and seeking an ami… Item 9A · ICFR · Based upon the results of this testing we have concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was effective as of the end of the period covered by this Form 10-K. Item 9A · disclosure controls · As of December 31, 2025, management has concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective based upon testing of our key internal controls. | ||||||
| 2024-12-31 | 2025-03-31 | described here | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · Three oppositions filed by Pixium Vision are pending in the European Patent Office, each challenging the validity of a European patent owned by Cortigent. The outcomes of the challenges are not certain, however, if successful, they may affect our ability to block competitors from utilizing Cortigent’s neurostimulation patented technology. We believe a successful challenge will not have a material effect on our ability to manufacture and sell our products, or otherwise have a material effect on Cortigent’s neurostimulation operations. As described in the Company’s 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2020, the Company had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) for a proposed business combination with Pixium Vision SA (“Pixium”). In response to a press release by Pixium dated March 24, 2021, and subsequent communications between us and Pixium, our Board of Directors determined that the business combination with Pixium was not in the best interest of our shareholders. On April 1, 2021, we gave notice to Pixium that we were terminating the MOU between the parties and seeking an amicable resolution of termination amounts that may be due, however no assurance can be given tha… Item 9A · ICFR · Based upon the results of this testing we have concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was effective as of the end of the period covered by this Form 10-K. Item 9A · disclosure controls · As of December 31, 2024, management has concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective based upon testing of our key internal controls. | ||||||
| 2023-12-31 | 2024-03-26 | described here | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · Three oppositions filed by Pixium Vision are pending in the European Patent Office, each challenging the validity of a European patent owned by Cortigent. The outcomes of the challenges are not certain, however, if successful, they may affect our ability to block competitors from utilizing Cortigent’s neuromodulation patented technology. We believe a successful challenge will not have a material effect on our ability to manufacture and sell our products, or otherwise have a material effect on Cortigent’s neuromodulation operations. As described in the Company’s 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2020, the Company had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) for a proposed business combination with Pixium Vision SA (“Pixium”). In response to a press release by Pixium dated March 24, 2021, and subsequent communications between us and Pixium, our Board of Directors determined that the business combination with Pixium was not in the best interest of our shareholders. On April 1, 2021, we gave notice to Pixium that we were terminating the MOU between the parties and seeking an amicable resolution of termination amounts that may be due, however no assurance can be given that… Item 9A · ICFR · Based upon the results of this testing we have concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was effective as of the end of the period covered by this Form 10-K. Item 9A · disclosure controls · As of December 31, 2023, management has concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective based upon testing of our key internal controls. | ||||||
| 2022-12-31 | 2023-03-31 | described here | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · Three oppositions filed by Pixium Vision are pending in the European Patent Office, each challenging the validity of a European patent owned by us. The outcomes of the challenges are not certain, however, if successful, they may affect our ability to block competitors from utilizing our patented technology. We believe a successful challenge will not have a material effect on our ability to manufacture and sell our products, or otherwise have a material effect on our operations. As described in the Company’s 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2020, the Company had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) for a proposed business combination with Pixium Vision SA (“Pixium”). In response to a press release by Pixium dated March 24, 2021, and subsequent communications between us and Pixium, our Board of Directors determined that the business combination with Pixium was not in the best interest of our shareholders. On April 1, 2021, we gave notice to Pixium that we were terminating the MOU between the parties and seeking an amicable resolution of termination amounts that may be due, however no assurance can be given that an amicable resolution will be reached. We accrued $1,0… Item 9A · ICFR · Based upon the results of this testing we have concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was effective as of the end of the period covered by this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Item 9A · disclosure controls · As of December 31, 2022, management has concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective based upon testing of our key internal controls. | ||||||
| 2021-12-31 | 2022-03-29 | described here | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · Three oppositions filed by Pixium Vision are pending in the European Patent Office, each challenging the validity of a European patent owned by us. The outcomes of the challenges are not certain, however, if successful, they may affect our ability to block competitors from utilizing our patented technology. We believe a successful challenge will not have a material effect on our ability to manufacture and sell our products, or otherwise have a material effect on our operations. As described in the Company’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2020, the Company had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) for a proposed business combination with Pixium Vision SA (“Pixium”). In response to a press release by Pixium dated March 24, 2021, and subsequent communications between us and Pixium, our Board of Directors determined that the business combination with Pixium was not in the best interest of our shareholders. On April 1, 2021, we gave notice to Pixium that we were terminating the MOU between the parties and seeking an amicable resolution of termination amounts that may be due, however no assurance can be given that an amicable resolution will be reached. We accrued… Item 9A · ICFR · Based upon the results of this testing we have concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was effective as of the end of the period covered by this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Item 9A · disclosure controls · As of December 31, 2021, management has concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective based upon testing of our key internal controls. | ||||||
5 of 5 annual reports on record have their filing text cached on this host; the rest are listed with their EDGAR link and no extraction, because this surface never fetches from SEC on a page load.
- Item 3 and Item 9A are located in the filing HTML already cached on this host and read with the same line-anchored item matcher and largest-gap body disambiguation the filing-narrative pass uses for Item 1A and Item 7 — no fetch, no model, no summarization.
- A heading is accepted as a section only when it is not a table-of-contents row (a trailing page number), not a quoted reference in prose, and names its own section; the span must then clear a per-item length band and carry readable text after the heading. Anything that fails a gate is served as 'not extracted' with the reason — never as a default value.
- An effectiveness conclusion is read only from a sentence that names its own control set (disclosure controls and procedures, or internal control over financial reporting) and states an outcome. Conditional sentences — the standard limitations paragraph and forward-looking remediation language — are excluded, because they are hypotheses rather than conclusions.
- When a filing's own sentences disagree — an effective conclusion beside an unremediated material-weakness disclosure, or two conclusions of opposite sign — no verdict is asserted. A wrong 'controls were effective' reading is worse than no reading.
- Every verdict is shown beside the verbatim sentence it was read from. The excerpt is the filing's own words, capped at 1,200 characters; the filing itself is one link away.