ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS

Summary of Risk Factors

Investing in our common stock involves a high degree of risk. You should carefully review the “Risk Factors” section before you invest in shares of our common stock. Listed below are some of the more significant risks relating to an investment in our common stock.

•We have a history of losses, and we expect to incur net losses for the foreseeable future and may never achieve or sustain profitability.

•The outbreak of COVID-19 has had an adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

•Our financial results currently depend mainly on sales of our Afirma tests, and we will need to generate sufficient revenue from this and other diagnostic solutions to grow our business.

•If we are unable to grow our Percepta and Envisia sales, our business may suffer.

•We depend on a few payers for a significant portion of our revenue and if one or more significant payers stops providing reimbursement or decreases the amount of reimbursement for our tests, our revenue could decline.

•If payers do not provide reimbursement, rescind or modify their reimbursement policies, delay payments for our tests, recoup past payments, or if we are unable to successfully negotiate additional reimbursement contracts, our commercial success could be compromised.

•We may experience limits on our revenue if physicians decide not to order our tests or if patients decide not to use our tests.

•If we fail to comply with federal and state licensing requirements, we could lose the ability to perform our tests or experience disruptions to our business.

•The pending acquisition of Decipher may present many risks and we may not realize the strategic and financial goals that were contemplated at the time we entered into the Merger Agreement.

•If our general strategy of seeking growth through acquisitions and collaborations is not successful, or if we do not successfully integrate companies or assets that we acquire into our business, our prospects and financial condition will suffer.

•Our future success and international growth depends, in part, on our ability to adapt select tests to be performed on the nCounter Analysis System.

•If we are not successful in advancing our collaborations with Johnson & Johnson and others, or if our general strategy of seeking growth through such collaborations is not successful, our prospects and financial condition will suffer.

•We rely on sole suppliers for some of the reagents, equipment, and other materials used to perform our tests, and we may not be able to find replacements or transition to alternative suppliers.

•We depend on a specialized cytopathology practice to perform the cytopathology component of our Afirma test, and our ability to perform our diagnostic solution would be harmed if we were required to secure a replacement.

•Due to how we recognize revenue, our quarterly operating results are likely to fluctuate.

•We may be unable to manage our future growth effectively, which could make it difficult to execute our business strategy.

•If we are unable to support demand for our commercial tests, our business could suffer.

•Changes in healthcare policy, including legislation reforming the U.S. healthcare system, may have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and operations.

•Because of Medicare billing rules, we may not receive reimbursement for all tests provided to Medicare patients.

•If the FDA were to begin regulating those of our tests that are not currently regulated, we could incur substantial costs and delays associated with trying to obtain premarket clearance or approval.

•Obtaining marketing authorization by the FDA and foreign regulatory authorities for our diagnostic tests will take significant time and require significant research, development and clinical study expenditures and ultimately may not succeed.

•If we are unable to obtain marketing authorizations to market Prosigna in additional countries or if regulatory limitations are placed on our diagnostic kit products, our business and growth will be harmed.

Table of Contents

•We are subject to ongoing and extensive regulatory requirements, and our failure to comply with these requirements could substantially harm our business.

•If we are unable to compete successfully, we may be unable to increase or sustain our revenue or achieve profitability.

•The loss of members of our senior management team or our inability to attract and retain key personnel could adversely affect our business.

•Billing for our diagnostic tests is complex, and we must dedicate substantial time and resources to the billing process to be paid.

•If our internal sales force is less successful than anticipated, our business expansion plans could suffer and our ability to generate revenues could be diminished. In addition, we have limited history selling our molecular diagnostics tests on a direct basis and our limited history makes forecasting difficult.

•Developing new products involves a lengthy and complex process, and we may not be able to commercialize on a timely basis, or at all, other products we are developing.

•International expansion of our business exposes us to business, regulatory, political, operational, financial and economic risks associated with doing business outside of the United States.

•Security breaches, loss of data and other disruptions to us or our third-party service providers could compromise sensitive information related to our business or prevent us from accessing critical information and expose us to liability, which could adversely affect our business and our reputation.

•If we are unable to protect our intellectual property effectively, our business would be harmed.

•We may be involved in litigation related to intellectual property, which could be time-intensive and costly and may adversely affect our business, operating results or financial condition.

•If we are unable to implement and maintain effective internal control over financial reporting, investors may lose confidence in the accuracy and completeness of our reported financial information and the market price of our common stock may be negatively affected.

•Our stock price may be volatile, and you may not be able to sell shares of our common stock at or above the price you paid.

Risks Related to Our Business

We have a history of losses, and we expect to incur net losses for the foreseeable future and may never achieve or sustain profitability.

We have incurred net losses since our inception. For the year ended December 31, 2020, we had a net loss of $34.9 million and as of December 31, 2020, we had an accumulated deficit of $281.6 million. We expect to incur additional losses in the future, and we may never achieve revenue sufficient to offset our expenses. We expect to continue to devote substantially all of our resources to increase adoption of and reimbursement for our Afirma, Percepta and Envisia classifiers and Prosigna test, and the development of additional tests. We may never achieve or sustain profitability, and our failure to achieve and sustain profitability in the future could cause the market price of our common stock to decline.

The outbreak of COVID-19 has had an adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

COVID-19 has caused significant volatility in financial markets and has raised the prospect of an extended global recession. Public health problems resulting from COVID-19 and precautionary measures instituted by governments and businesses to mitigate its spread, including travel restrictions and quarantines, have contributed to a general slowdown in the global economy, adversely impacted patients, physicians, customers, suppliers, third-party contract manufacturers, and collaboration partners, and disrupted our operations. Changes in our operations in response to COVID-19 or employee illnesses resulting from the pandemic may result in inefficiencies or delays, including in sales and product development efforts and additional costs related to business continuity initiatives, that cannot be fully mitigated through succession planning, employees working remotely or teleconferencing technologies. The cumulative incidence rate of COVID-19 cases in the United States reported to the CDC increased from 0.2 million at March 31, 2020 to 2.6 million at June 30, 2020, and to 7.2 million at September 30, 2020. During the second half of March 2020, we experienced a significant decline in the volume of samples received. Our monthly reported genomic volumes reached a low point in April 2020. Following the April 2020 low point, sequential monthly total reported genomic volume increased in both May and June 2020. As a result of the impact on our volumes, we reported a significant decline in sequential and year-over-year revenue for the quarter ended June 30, 2020. For

Table of Contents

the second half of 2020, our total reported genomic volume, relative to the same period of the prior year, increased 3%, principally from an increase in reported genomic volume for both our Afirma GSC and Envisia Genomic Classifier tests, offset by a decline in our Percepta GSC. As of December 31, 2020, the cumulative incidence rate of COVID-19 cases in the United States was approximately 19.7 million, and the FDA has issued Emergency Use Authorizations, or EUAs, for two vaccines. We expect federal, state and local agencies to continue to take steps to combat the virus and to reduce the incidence of new cases. We believe these actions negatively impact our volumes and revenue and limit our ability to reliably forecast our test volumes and levels of revenue.

COVID-19 and related governmental reactions have had and may continue to have a negative impact on our business, liquidity, results of operations, and stock price due to the occurrence of some or all of the following events or circumstances among others:

•We may not be able to manage our business effectively due to key employees becoming ill, working from home inefficiently and being unable to travel to our facilities.

•We and our customers, suppliers, third-party contract manufacturers, and collaboration partners may be prevented from operating worksites, including manufacturing facilities, due to employee illness or reluctance to appear at work and “stay-at-home” regulations.

•Interruptions in manufacturing (including the sourcing of reagents or supplies) and shipment of our products. According to Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center, daily COVID-19 test volume increased from less than approximately 0.2 million tests per day in April 2020 to between 0.8 million and 1.0 million tests per day in the first half of October 2020. We believe the rapid increase in daily testing volumes is consuming reagents and supplies otherwise available to genomic testing companies like ours across the United States. In October, we experienced supply chain disruptions in the supply of plastic materials used in the processing of samples. When not limited by the expiration date of products and when we feel it reasonable and feasible to do so, we are taking steps to increase our level of supplies and inventory reserves, to develop alternative sources of supply and to implement procedures to mitigate the impact on our supply chain or our ability to process samples in our laboratories. Though we are in regular contact with our key suppliers, we do not have, nor expect to have, the necessary insight into our vendors’ supply chain issues that we may need to know to effectively mitigate the impact to our business. Though we attempt to mitigate the impact to our business, these interruptions in manufacturing (including the sourcing of reagents or supplies) may negatively impact our test volumes or levels of revenue.

•Reduced patient demand for, or provider capacity to deliver, diagnostic testing and elective procedures generally.

•Disruptions of the operations of our third-party contract manufacturers and suppliers, which could impact our ability to purchase components at efficient prices and in sufficient amounts.

•We may need to raise capital, and if we raise capital by issuing equity securities, our common stock may be diluted.

•The market price of our common stock may drop or remain volatile.

•We may incur significant employee health care costs under our insurance programs.

The extent of the impact of COVID-19 on our business and financial results will depend largely on future developments, including the deployment and long-term efficacy of vaccines and ongoing infection rate surges, the impact on capital and financial markets and the related impact on the financial circumstances of patients, physicians, suppliers, third-party contract manufacturers, and collaboration partners, all of which are highly uncertain and cannot be predicted. This situation is changing rapidly, and additional impacts may arise that we are not aware of at this time.

Our financial results currently depend mainly on sales of our Afirma tests, and we will need to generate sufficient revenue from this and other diagnostic solutions to grow our business.

Most of our revenue to date has been derived from the sale of our Afirma tests, which are used in the diagnosis of thyroid cancer. Over the next few years, we expect to continue to derive a substantial portion of our revenue from sales of our Afirma tests. In the third quarter of 2017, we began recognizing revenue from the sale of our Percepta test, used in the diagnosis of lung

Table of Contents

cancer. We also launched our Envisia test to help improve the diagnosis of interstitial lung disease, specifically IPF, and began recognizing revenue from Envisia in the second quarter of 2019. In December 2019, we acquired the rights to the Prosigna test from NanoString Technologies, Inc. and commenced marketing and selling Prosigna test kits to U.S. and international customers. Once genomic tests are clinically validated and commercially available for patient testing, we must continue to develop and publish evidence that our tests are informing clinical decisions in order for them to receive positive coverage decisions by payers. Without coverage policies, our tests may not be reimbursed and we will not be able to recognize revenue. We cannot guarantee that tests we commercialize will gain and maintain positive coverage decisions and therefore, we may never realize revenue from tests we commercialize. In addition, we are in various stages of research and development for other diagnostic solutions that we may offer, but there can be no assurance that we will be able to identify other diseases that can be effectively addressed or, if we are able to identify such diseases, whether or when we will be able to successfully commercialize solutions for these diseases and obtain the evidence and coverage decisions from payers. If we are unable to increase sales and expand reimbursement for our Afirma, Percepta, Envisia and Prosigna tests, or develop and commercialize other solutions, our revenue and our ability to achieve and sustain profitability would be impaired, and the market price of our common stock could decline.

If we are unable to grow our Percepta and Envisia sales, our business may suffer.

We have focused on developing a robust pulmonology business, led by our Percepta and Envisia products. Although these products have not contributed the majority of our revenue to date, we expect them to grow and become an increasingly important component of our business and results of operations. In 2021, we plan to introduce a nasal swab test for early lung cancer detection which, together with our Percepta Genomic Atlas and the Percepta GSC, we expect to form a comprehensive lung cancer portfolio that we believe may improve lung cancer diagnosis and treatment decisions. However, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, pulmonologists have been focused on treatment planning and care for COVID-19 patients and we believe fewer bronchoscopy procedures have been performed where Percepta and Envisia brushings and biopsies have been taken and sent to us for genomic testing. There can be no assurance that physicians will perform bronchoscopy procedures or send brushings or biopsies to us in sufficient volumes for our revenue to recover to pre-pandemic levels or to meet our projections. Additionally, we anticipate expanding the reach of our lung cancer tests to international markets through the distribution of the nCounter Analysis System; if our distribution of this platform is unsuccessful, or if our products are not widely adopted international, our business and results of operations may be adversely affected.

We depend on a few payers for a significant portion of our revenue and if one or more significant payers stops providing reimbursement or decreases the amount of reimbursement for our tests, our revenue could decline.

Revenue for tests performed on patients covered by Medicare and UnitedHealthcare Group was 24% and 11%, respectively, of our revenue for the year ended December 31, 2020, compared with 26% and 11%, respectively, for the year ended December 31, 2019. The percentage of our revenue derived from significant payers is expected to fluctuate from period to period as our revenue fluctuates, as additional payers provide reimbursement for our tests or if one or more payers were to stop reimbursing for our tests or change their reimbursed amounts. Effective January 2012, Palmetto GBA, the regional Medicare Administrative Contractor, or MAC, that handled claims processing for Medicare services over our jurisdiction at that time, issued coverage and payment determinations for our Afirma Classifiers now covered by Noridian Healthcare Solutions, the current MAC for our jurisdiction, through the Molecular Diagnostics Services Program, or MolDX program, administered by Palmetto GBA, under a Local Coverage Determination, or LCD.

Noridian Healthcare Solutions issued an LCD for Percepta effective for services performed on or after May 2017. This coverage policy requires us to establish and maintain a Certification and Training Registry program and make Percepta available only to certain Medicare patients through physicians who participate in this program. Failure by us or physicians to comply with the requirements of the Certification and Training Registry program could lead to loss of Medicare coverage for Percepta, which could have an adverse effect on our revenue.

We submitted the dossier of clinical evidence needed to obtain Medicare coverage for the Envisia Genomic Classifier through the MolDX technical assessment process in 2018, and received notice of Medicare coverage for the classifier in the first quarter of 2019, with an effective date of April 1, 2019.

An LCD was issued for Prosigna by Palmetto GBA in August 2015, which has been in effect since October 1, 2015.

Table of Contents

On a five-year rotational basis, Medicare requests bids for its regional MAC services. Any future changes in the MAC processing or coding for Medicare claims for the Afirma, Percepta or Envisia classifiers, or for Prosigna, could result in a change in the coverage or reimbursement rates for such products, or the loss of coverage, and could also result in increased difficulties in obtaining and maintaining coverage for future products.

On March 1, 2015, an American Medical Association Current Procedural Terminology code, or CPT code, 81545 for the Afirma GEC was issued. On January 1, 2018, the Medicare Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule payment rate for the Afirma classifier increased from $3,220 to $3,600. This rate is based on the volume-weighted median of private payer rates based on final payments made between January 1 and June 30, 2016, which we reported to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, in 2017 as required under the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014, or PAMA. In December 2019, through the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2020, Congress delayed the next data reporting period from 2020 to 2021 for final payments made between January 1 and June 30, 2019, extending the applicability of the payment rates based on 2017 reporting by one year through December 31, 2021. In March 2020, through the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security, or CARES Act, Congress further delayed the next reporting period to 2022 for final payments made between January 1 and June 30, 2019, extending the applicability of the payment rates based on 2017 reporting through December 31, 2022.

As a result of the transition from Afirma GEC to Afirma GSC, a new CPT Category I code (81546) was established for the Afirma classifier, effective January 1, 2021. This code went through the national payment determination process for Medicare in 2020, through which CMS priced 81546 at the same rate of $3,600 as 81545. New CPT Proprietary Laboratory Analyses, or PLA, codes have also been established for Afirma Xpression Atlas (0204U) and Afirma MTC (0208U), effective October 1, 2020. CMS has priced 0204U at the same rate of $2,919.60 as CPT 81455. The new payment rates for 81546 and 0204U became effective January 1, 2021. CMS did not price 0208U, and instead assigned the code to the “gapfilling” process, under which the individual MACs will set the payment rate for the test in 2021 based on the following four factors: 1) charges for the test and routine discounts to charges; 2) resources required to perform the test; 3) payment amounts determined by other payers; and 4) charges, payment amounts, and resources required for other tests that may be comparable or otherwise relevant. The median of payment rates set by the MACs (determined by locality) will set the payment rate for 0208U beginning in 2022. There is no assurance that the gapfilling process will not result in a lower than expected payment rate for 0208U.

After 81546 is priced, we expect the volume-weighted median of private payer rates for final payments made from January through June 2019 under 81545 to be reported in January through March 2022 under 81546. We expect the weighted median of these rates to set the payment rate for the Afirma classifier (under 81546) from January 1, 2023 through December 31, 2025. There can be no assurance that the Afirma or Prosigna rates (or the rates for Afirma Xpression Atlas or Afirma MTC) will not decrease during this or a subsequent reporting cycle under PAMA.

We submit claims to Medicare for Percepta using an unlisted code under the MolDX program. A specific CPT code assigned to Percepta may be required to go through the national payment determination process, and there can be no assurance that the Medicare payment rate Percepta receives through this process will not be lower than its current rate. There can also be no assurance that the Medicare payment rate for Percepta will not be reduced when it is set based on the volume-weighted median of private payer rates when we are required to report private payer rates for Percepta under PAMA.

We currently submit claims to Medicare for Envisia using an unlisted code under the MolDX program. A specific CPT code (81554) was assigned to Envisia, effective January 1, 2021. We applied for New ADLT designation for Envisia, and the test was approved as a New ADLT on September 17, 2020. Effective October 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021, the Medicare payment rate for Envisia will be set at $5,500, the “actual list charge” for the test. Veracyte will report private payer rates for Envisia from March 1, 2021 through March 31, 2021, reflecting final payments between October 1, 2020 and February 28, 2021. The volume-weighted median of these reported rates will set the payment rate for Envisia from July 1, 2021 through December 31, 2022, after which Envisia will be priced based on private payer rates collected and reported annually. Insofar as the actual list charge of $5,500 substantially exceeds the reported private payer rates (by more than 30%), CMS will have the ability to recoup excess payments (above 130% of the reported private payer rate) made during the initial nine-month payment period. There can be no assurance that the Medicare payment rate for Envisia will not be reduced when it is set based on the volume-weighted median of private payer rates when we are required to report private payer rates for Envisia under PAMA, or that CMS will not recoup amounts paid for Envisia based on the difference between the actual list charge and the volume-weighted median of private payer rates reported by Veracyte.

Moreover, federal Medicare funding and state budgets are limited and have been placed under tremendous strain in recent years, which is likely to be further exacerbated as a result of reduced tax receipts and greater deficit spending as a result of the

Table of Contents

COVID-19 pandemic. Such budgetary pressures may force Medicare or state agencies to reduce payment rates or change coverage policies. If there is a decrease in the Medicare or other payers’ payment rates for our tests, our revenue from Medicare and such payers will decrease and the payment rates for some of our commercial payers may also decrease if they tie their allowable rates to the Medicare rates. These changes could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Although we have entered into contracts with certain third-party payers that establish in-network allowable rates of reimbursement for our Afirma tests, payers may suspend or discontinue reimbursement at any time, may require or increase co-payments from patients, or may reduce the reimbursement rates paid to us. Reductions in private payer amounts could decrease the Medicare payment rates for our tests under PAMA. In addition, private payers have begun requiring prior authorization for molecular diagnostic tests. Potential reductions in reimbursement rates or increases in the difficulty of achieving payment could have a negative effect on our revenue.

If payers do not provide reimbursement, rescind or modify their reimbursement policies, delay payments for our tests, recoup past payments, or if we are unable to successfully negotiate additional reimbursement contracts, our commercial success could be compromised.

Physicians might not order our tests unless payers reimburse a substantial portion of the test price. There is significant uncertainty concerning third-party reimbursement of any test incorporating new technology, including our tests. Reimbursement by a payer may depend on a number of factors, including a payer’s determination that these tests are:

•not experimental or investigational;

•pre-authorized and appropriate for the specific patient;

•cost-effective;

•supported by peer-reviewed publications; and

•included in clinical practice guidelines.

Since each payer makes its own decision as to whether to establish a coverage policy or enter into a contract to reimburse our tests, seeking these approvals is a time-consuming and costly process.

We do not have a contracted rate of reimbursement with some payers for our tests. Without a contracted rate for reimbursement, our claims are often denied upon submission, and we must appeal the claims. The appeals process is time consuming and expensive, and may not result in payment. In cases where there is no contracted rate for reimbursement, there is typically a greater patient co-insurance or co-payment requirement which may result in further delay or decreased likelihood of collection. Payers may attempt to recoup prior payments after review, sometimes after significant time has passed, which would impact future revenue.

We expect to continue to focus substantial resources on increasing adoption, coverage and reimbursement for the Afirma, Percepta, and Envisia classifiers, Prosigna and any other future tests we may develop. We believe it will take several years to achieve coverage and contracted reimbursement with a majority of third-party payers. We cannot predict whether, under what circumstances, or at what payment levels payers will reimburse for our tests. Also, payer consolidation is underway and creates uncertainty as to whether coverage and contracts with existing payers will remain in effect. Finally, if there is a decrease in the Medicare payment rates for our tests, the payment rates for some of our commercial payers may also decrease if they tie their allowable rates to the Medicare rates. Reductions in private payer amounts could decrease the Medicare payment rates for our tests under PAMA. Our failure to establish broad adoption of and reimbursement for our tests, or our inability to maintain existing reimbursement from payers, will negatively impact our ability to generate revenue and achieve profitability, as well as our future prospects and our business.

We may experience limits on our revenue if physicians decide not to order our tests.

If we are unable to create or maintain demand for our tests in sufficient volume, we may not become profitable. To generate demand, we will need to continue to educate physicians about the benefits and cost-effectiveness of our tests through

Table of Contents

published papers, presentations at scientific conferences, marketing campaigns and one-on-one education by our sales force. In addition, our ability to obtain and maintain adequate reimbursement from third-party payers will be critical to generating revenue. Moreover, many patients have been deferring elective procedures and medical visits as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, and we have experienced, and expect to continue to experience, a significant reduction in patient demand or physician recommendations, which has and may continue to adversely affect our business.

The Afirma genomic classifier is included in most physician practice guidelines in the United States for the assessment of patients with thyroid nodules. However, historical practice recommended a full or partial thyroidectomy in cases where cytopathology results were indeterminate to confirm a diagnosis. Our lung products are not yet integrated into practice guidelines and physicians may be reluctant to order tests that are not recommended in these guidelines. The Prosigna test is included in practice guidelines in the United States and internationally but faces competition from other products. Because our Afirma, Percepta and Envisia testing services are performed by our certified laboratory under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988, or CLIA, rather than by the local laboratory or pathology practice, pathologists may be reluctant to support our testing services as well. Guidelines that include our tests currently may subsequently be revised to recommend another testing protocol, and these changes may result in physicians deciding not to use our tests. Lack of guideline inclusion could limit the adoption of our tests and our ability to generate revenue and achieve profitability. To the extent international markets have existing practices and standards of care that are different than those in the United States, we may face challenges with the adoption of our tests in international markets.

We may experience limits on our revenue if patients decide not to use our tests.

Some patients may decide not to use our tests because of price, all or part of which may be payable directly by the patient if the patient’s insurer denies reimbursement in full or in part. There is a growing trend among insurers to shift more of the cost of healthcare to patients in the form of higher co-payments or premiums, and this trend is accelerating which puts patients in the position of having to pay more for our tests. We expect to continue to see pressure from payers to limit the utilization of tests, generally, and we believe more payers are deploying costs containment tactics, such as pre-authorization and employing laboratory benefit managers to reduce utilization rates. Implementation of provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act, collectively the ACA, has also resulted in increases in premiums and reductions in coverage for some patients. In addition, judicial challenges to and Congressional efforts to repeal the ACA could result in an increase in uninsured patients. These events may result in patients delaying or forgoing medical checkups or treatment due to their inability to pay for our tests, which could have an adverse effect on our revenue. Many patients have been deferring elective procedures and medical visits as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, and we have experienced, and may continue to experience, a significant reduction in patient demand, which has and may continue to adversely affect our business.

If we fail to comply with federal and state licensing requirements, we could lose the ability to perform our tests or experience disruptions to our business.

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 mandate specific personnel qualifications, facilities administration, quality systems, inspections, and proficiency testing. CLIA certification is also required for us to be eligible to bill state and federal healthcare programs, as well as many private third-party payers. To renew these certifications, we are subject to survey and inspection every two years. Moreover, CLIA inspectors may make random inspections of our clinical reference laboratories. If fail to maintain CLIA certificates in our South San Francisco, California or Austin, Texas laboratory locations, we would be unable to bill for services provided by state and federal healthcare programs, as well as many private third-party payers, which may have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We are also required to maintain state licenses to conduct testing in our laboratories. California, New York, and Texas, among other states’ laws, require that we maintain a license and comply with state regulation as a clinical laboratory. Other states may have similar requirements or may adopt similar requirements in the future. In addition, both of our clinical laboratories are required to be licensed on a test-specific basis by New York State. We have received approval for the Afirma, Percepta and Envisia tests. We will be required to obtain approval for other tests we may offer in the future. If we were to lose our CLIA certificate or California license for our South San Francisco laboratory, whether as a result of revocation, suspension or limitation, we would no longer be able to perform our molecular tests, which would eliminate our primary source of revenue and harm our business. If we fail to meet the state licensing requirements for our Austin laboratory, we would need to move the

Table of Contents

receipt and storage of fine needle aspirations, or FNAs, as well as the slide preparation for cytopathology, to South San Francisco, which could result in a delay in processing tests during that transition and increased costs. If we were to lose our licenses issued by New York or by other states where we are required to hold licenses, we would not be able to test specimens from those states. New tests we may develop may be subject to new approvals by regulatory bodies such as New York State, and we may not be able to offer our new tests until such approvals are received.

The pending acquisition of Decipher may present many risks and we may not realize the strategic and financial goals that were contemplated at the time we entered into the Merger Agreement.

Risks we may face in connection with the pending acquisition and subsequent integration of Decipher include:

•The closing of the acquisition could be delayed or not consummated, including in the event that the closing conditions are not satisfied or waived or we or Decipher terminate the Merger Agreement;

•We may not realize the benefits we expect to receive from the transaction, such as anticipated synergies and an enhanced menu of genomic tests;

•The closing conditions to the acquisition may not be satisfied or waived, including that the expiration or termination of the applicable waiting period may not be satisfied or waived under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, as amended;

•We may have difficulties managing Decipher’s products and tests or retaining key personnel from Decipher;

•The acquisition may not further our business strategy as we expected, we may not successfully integrate Decipher as planned, there could be unanticipated adverse impacts on Decipher’s business, or we may otherwise not realize the expected return on our investments, which could adversely affect our business or operating results and potentially cause impairment to assets that we record as a part of an acquisition including intangible assets and goodwill;

•The Merger Agreement does not provide for post-closing indemnification protection related to pre-closing Decipher operations and, therefore, we may incur unforeseen costs as a result of Decipher’s pre-closing activities, over which we have limited control, including Decipher’s breach of the covenants contained in the Merger Agreement;

•Our operating results or financial condition may be adversely impacted by (i) claims or liabilities related to Decipher’s business including, among others, claims from U.S. or international regulatory or other governmental agencies, terminated employees, current or former customers or business partners, or other third parties; (ii) pre-existing contractual relationships of Decipher that we would not have otherwise entered into, the termination or modification of which may be costly or disruptive to our business; (iii) unfavorable accounting treatment as a result of Decipher’s practices; and (iv) intellectual property claims or disputes;

•Decipher was not required to maintain an internal control infrastructure that would meet the standards of a public company, including the requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. The costs that we may incur to implement such controls and procedures may be substantial and we could encounter unexpected delays and challenges in this implementation. In addition, we may discover significant deficiencies or material weaknesses in the quality of Decipher’s financial and disclosure controls and procedures;

•Decipher operates in segments of the diagnostic market that we have less experience with, including urology, and our further expansion of operations into these areas could present various integration challenges and result in increased costs and other unforeseen challenges; and

•We may fail to identify or assess the magnitude of certain liabilities, shortcomings or other circumstances prior to acquiring Decipher, which could result in unexpected litigation or regulatory exposure, unfavorable accounting treatment, a diversion of management’s attention and resources, and other adverse effects on our business, financial condition, and operating results.

Table of Contents

If our general strategy of seeking growth through acquisitions and collaborations is not successful, or if we do not successfully integrate companies or assets that we acquire into our business, our prospects and financial condition will suffer.

As an element of our growth strategy, we may pursue opportunities to license assets or purchase companies or assets that we believe would complement our current business or help us expand into new markets. For example, in December 2019, we acquired the nCounter Analysis System and Prosigna test from NanoString, and we may pursue additional acquisitions of complementary businesses or assets as part of our business strategy. There can be no assurance that we will successfully integrate the assets acquired from such acquisitions into our existing business, in general, or that our exclusive worldwide license to the nCounter Analysis System for in vitro diagnostic use granted by NanoString will allow us to expand our international reach as anticipated. This and any future acquisitions made by us also could result in significant write-offs or the incurrence of debt and contingent liabilities, any of which could harm our operating results. Integration of acquired companies or businesses we may acquire in the future also may require management resources that otherwise would be available for ongoing development of our existing business. 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.

To finance any acquisitions or investments, we have previously issued and may choose in the future to issue shares of our stock as consideration, which would dilute the ownership of our stockholders. If the price of our common stock is low or volatile, we may not be able to acquire other companies for stock. 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. If these funds are raised through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, dilution to our stockholders could result. Our Loan and Security Agreement with Silicon Valley Bank contains covenants that could limit our ability to sell debt securities or obtain additional debt financing arrangements, which could affect our ability to finance acquisitions or investments other than through the issuance of stock.

Our future success and international growth depends, in part, on our ability to adapt select tests to be performed on the nCounter Analysis System.

Our strategy to expand into international markets depends on our ability to successfully distribute the nCounter Analysis System, adapt our menu of diagnostic tests for the platform, and secure necessary regulatory approvals. Currently, the Prosigna breast cancer assay is the only commercially-available test on the platform. If we are not able to adapt our other current or future genomic classifiers to be performed on the nCounter Analysis System, or if the nCounter Analysis System fails to be competitive against other diagnostic tests, our prospects for growth could suffer. In addition, to the extent international markets have existing practices and standards of care that are different than those in the United States, we may face challenges with the adoption of the nCounter Analysis System in international markets.

If we are not successful in advancing our collaborations with Johnson & Johnson and others, our prospects and financial condition will suffer.

We have previously entered into technology licensing and collaboration arrangements, such as our collaborations with Johnson & Johnson in December 2018, with Acerta Pharma, the hematology research and development arm of AstraZeneca, in December 2019, with CareDx in May 2020 and our investment in MAVIDx in July 2020, reflecting important elements of our business strategy. We also may pursue additional strategic alliances that leverage our core technology and industry experience to expand our offerings or distribution, or make investments in other companies. However, we have limited experience with respect to the formation of strategic alliances and joint ventures. There can be no assurance that we will successfully 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 technology license, strategic alliance, joint venture or investment.

We rely on sole suppliers for some of the reagents, equipment and other materials used to perform our tests, and we may not be able to find replacements or transition to alternative suppliers.

We rely on sole suppliers for critical supply of reagents, equipment and other materials that we use to perform our tests and for the manufacture of the nCounter Analysis System for diagnostic use and Prosigna test kits sold to customers. We also purchase components used in our sample collection kits from sole-source suppliers. Some of these items are unique to these suppliers and vendors. In addition, we utilize a sole source to assemble and distribute our sample collection kits. We rely on

Table of Contents

NanoString for the supply of the nCounter Analysis System for diagnostic use and Prosigna test kits. While we have developed alternate sourcing strategies for these materials and vendors, we cannot be certain whether these strategies will be effective or the alternative sources will be available when we need them. Moreover, the supply of key reagents and testing materials has been severely challenged by the COVID-19 pandemic. In October 2020, we experienced supply chain disruptions in the supply of plastic materials used in the processing of samples, although this has not resulted in delays in our ability to timely return test results. If these suppliers can no longer provide us with the materials we need to perform the tests and for our sample collection kits, if the materials do not meet our quality specifications or are otherwise unusable, if we cannot obtain acceptable substitute materials, or if we elect to change suppliers, an interruption in test processing or system and test kit deliveries could occur, we may not be able to deliver patient reports and we may incur higher one-time switching costs. Any such interruption may significantly affect our future revenue, cause us to incur higher costs, and harm our customer relationships and reputation. In addition, in order to mitigate these risks, we maintain inventories of these supplies at higher levels than would be the case if multiple sources of supplies were available. If our test volume decreases or we switch suppliers, we may hold excess supplies with expiration dates that occur before use which would adversely affect our losses and cash flow position. As we introduce any new test, we may experience supply issues as we ramp test volume. Moreover, the COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted supply chains globally, and could adversely affect our ability to source essential reagents, equipment and other materials in a timely manner or at all.

We depend on a specialized cytopathology practice to perform the cytopathology component of our Afirma test, and our ability to perform our diagnostic solution would be harmed if we were required to secure a replacement.

We rely on Thyroid Cytopathology Partners, or TCP, to provide cytopathology professional diagnoses on thyroid FNA samples pursuant to a pathology services agreement. Pursuant to this agreement, as amended, TCP has the exclusive right to provide our cytopathology diagnoses on FNA samples at a fixed price per test. Until February 2019, TCP also previously subleased a portion of our facility in Austin, Texas. Our agreement with TCP is effective through October 31, 2022, and thereafter automatically renews every year unless either party provides notice of intent not to renew at least 12 months prior to the end of the then-current term.

If TCP were not able to support our current test volume or future increases in test volume or to provide the quality of services we require, or if we were unable to agree on commercial terms and our relationship with TCP were to terminate, our business would be harmed until we were able to secure the services of another cytopathology provider. There can be no assurance that we would be successful in finding a replacement that would be able to conduct cytopathology diagnoses at the same volume or with the same high-quality results as TCP. Locating another suitable cytopathology provider could be time consuming and would result in delays in processing Afirma tests until a replacement was fully integrated with our test processing operations.

Due to how we recognize revenue, our quarterly operating results are likely to fluctuate.

We recognize test revenue upon delivery of the patient report to the prescribing physician based on the amount we expect to ultimately realize. We determine the amount we expect to ultimately realize based on payer reimbursement history, contracts, and coverage. Upon ultimate collection, the amount received is compared to the estimates and the amount accrued is adjusted accordingly. We cannot be certain as to when we will receive payment for our diagnostic tests, and we must appeal negative payment decisions, which delays collections. Should judgments underlying estimated reimbursement change or be incorrect at the time we accrued such revenue, our financial results could be negatively impacted in future quarters. As a result, comparing our operating results on a period-to-period basis may not be meaningful. You should not rely on our past results as an indication of our future performance. In addition, these fluctuations in revenue may make it difficult for us, for research analysts and for investors to accurately forecast our revenue and operating results. If our revenue or operating results fall below expectations, the price of our common stock would likely decline.

We may be unable to manage our future growth effectively, which could make it difficult to execute our business strategy.

In addition to the need to scale our testing capacity, future growth, including our transition to a multi-product company with international operations, will impose significant added responsibilities on management, including the need to identify, recruit, train and integrate additional employees with the necessary skills to support the growing complexities of our business. Rapid and significant growth may place strain on our administrative, financial and operational infrastructure. Our ability to manage our business and growth will require us to continue to improve our operational, financial and management controls, reporting systems and procedures. We have implemented an internally-developed data warehouse, which is critical to our

Table of Contents

ability to track our diagnostic services and patient reports delivered to physicians, as well as to support our financial reporting systems. The time and resources required to optimize these systems is uncertain, and failure to complete optimization in a timely and efficient manner could adversely affect our operations. 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.

If we are unable to support demand for our commercial tests, our business could suffer.

As demand for our tests grows, we will need to continue to scale our testing capacity and processing technology, expand customer service, billing and systems processes and enhance our internal quality assurance program. We will also need additional certified laboratory scientists and other scientific and technical personnel to process higher volumes of our tests. We cannot assure you that any increases in scale, related improvements and quality assurance will be successfully implemented or that appropriate personnel will be available. Failure to implement necessary procedures, transition to new processes or hire the necessary personnel could result in higher costs of processing tests, quality control issues or inability to meet demand. There can be no assurance that we will be able to perform our testing on a timely basis at a level consistent with demand, or that our efforts to scale our operations will not negatively affect the quality of test results. If we encounter difficulty meeting market demand or quality standards, our reputation could be harmed and our future prospects and our business could suffer.

Changes in healthcare policy, including legislation reforming the U.S. healthcare system, may have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and operations.

The ACA, enacted in March 2010, made changes that significantly affected the pharmaceutical and medical device industries and clinical laboratories. Along with the now-repealed 2.3% excise tax on the sale of certain medical devices sold outside of the retail setting, other significant measures contained in the ACA include, for example, coordination and promotion of research on comparative clinical effectiveness of different technologies and procedures, initiatives to revise Medicare payment methodologies, such as bundling of payments across the continuum of care by providers and physicians, and initiatives to promote quality indicators in payment methodologies. The ACA also includes significant new fraud and abuse measures, including required disclosures of financial arrangements with physician customers, lower thresholds for violations and increasing potential penalties for such violations.

In the beginning of 2017, the U.S. Congress and the Administration took actions to repeal the ACA and indicated an intent to replace it with another act and efforts to challenge, repeal or amend the ACA are ongoing. We cannot predict if, or when, the ACA will be repealed or amended, and cannot predict the impact that an amendment or repeal of the ACA will have on our business.

In addition to the ACA, various healthcare reform proposals have also periodically emerged from federal and state governments. For example, in February 2012, Congress passed the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, which in part reset the clinical laboratory payment rates on the Medicare Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule, or CLFS, by 2% in 2013. In addition, under the Budget Control Act of 2011, which is effective for dates of service on or after April 1, 2013, Medicare payments, including payments to clinical laboratories, are subject to a reduction of 2% due to the automatic expense reductions (sequester) until fiscal year 2024. In March 2020, Congress passed the CARES Act, which suspended the 2% reduction in Medicare fee-for-service payments from May 1, 2020 through December 31, 2020. To account for this temporary suspension, the legislation also extends the effect of sequestration by a year (now through fiscal year 2030). Reductions resulting from the Congressional sequester are applied to total claims payment made; however, they do not currently result in a rebasing of the negotiated or established Medicare or Medicaid reimbursement rates. In December 2020, Congress passed the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021, or CAA, which extended the suspension through March 31, 2021.

State legislation on reimbursement applies to Medicaid reimbursement and managed Medicaid reimbursement rates within that state. Some states have passed or proposed legislation that would revise the reimbursement methodology for clinical laboratory payment rates under those Medicaid programs. For example, effective July 2015, California’s Department of Health Care Services implemented a new rate methodology for clinical laboratories and laboratory services. This methodology involves the use of a range of rates that fell between zero and 80% of the calculated California-specific Medicare rate and the calculation of a weighted average (based on units billed) of such rates.

We cannot predict whether future healthcare initiatives will be implemented at the federal or state level or in countries outside of the United States in which we may do business, or the effect any future legislation or regulation will have on us. The taxes imposed by the new federal legislation, cost reduction measures and the expansion in the role of the U.S. government in

Table of Contents

the healthcare industry may result in decreased revenue, lower reimbursement by payers for our tests or reduced medical procedure volumes, all of which may adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. In addition, sales of our tests outside the United States subject our business to foreign regulatory requirements and cost-reduction measures, which may also change over time.

Ongoing calls for deficit reduction at the federal government level and reforms to programs such as the Medicare program to pay for such reductions may affect the pharmaceutical, medical device and clinical laboratory industries. Currently, clinical laboratory services are excluded from the Medicare Part B co-insurance and co-payment as preventative services. Any requirement for clinical laboratories to collect co-payments from patients may increase our costs and reduce the amount ultimately collected.

CMS bundles payments for clinical laboratory diagnostic tests together with other services performed during hospital outpatient visits under the Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System. CMS currently maintains an exemption for molecular pathology tests from this bundling provision. It is possible that this exemption could be removed by CMS in future rule making, which might result in lower reimbursement for tests performed in this setting.

PAMA includes a substantial new payment system for clinical laboratory tests under the CLFS. Under PAMA, laboratories that receive the majority of their Medicare revenues from payments made under the CLFS and the Physician Fee Schedule would report on a triennial basis (or annually for ADLTs), private payer rates and volumes for their tests with specific CPT codes based on final payments made during a set data collection period (the first of which was January 1 through June 30, 2016). We believe that PAMA and its implementing regulations are generally favorable to us. We reported to CMS the data required under PAMA before the March 31, 2017 deadline. The new payment rate for the Afirma genomic classifier based on the volume-weighted median of private payer rates took effect January 1, 2018, increasing from $3,220 to $3,600 through December 31, 2020. In December 2019, through the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2020, Congress delayed the next data reporting period from 2020 to 2021 for final payments made between January 1 and June 30, 2019, extending the applicability of the current rate for Afirma through December 31, 2021. In March 2020, through the CARES Act, Congress further delayed the next reporting period to 2022 for final payments made between January 1 and June 30, 2019, extending the applicability of the payment rates based on 2017 reporting through December 31, 2022. We expect the weighted median of the rates for final payments made between January 1 and June 30, 2019 to set the payment rate for the Afirma classifier from January 1, 2023 through December 31, 2025. There can be no assurance that the payment rate for Afirma or Prosigna will not decrease in the future or that the payment rates for Afirma Xpression Atlas, Afirma MTC, or Percepta will not be adversely affected by the PAMA law and regulations.

Our Envisia classifier was approved by CMS as a New ADLT on September 17, 2020. The initial payment rate (for a period not to exceed nine months) under PAMA for a new ADLT (an ADLT for which payment has not been made under the CLFS prior to January 1, 2018) will be set at the “actual list charge” for the test as reported by the laboratory. Insofar as the actual list charge substantially exceeds private payer rates reported in March 2021 (by more than 30%), CMS will have the ability to recoup excess payments made during the initial nine-month payment period. Subsequently, Envisia will be priced based on private payer rates collected and reported annually. We can determine whether to seek ADLT status for our tests, but there can be no assurance that our tests will be designated ADLTs or that the payment rates for our tests, including Envisia, will not be adversely affected by such designation.

There have also been recent and substantial changes to the payment structure for physicians, including those passed as part of the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015, or MACRA, which was signed into law on April 16, 2015. MACRA created the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System which, beginning in 2019, more closely aligns physician payments with composite performance on performance metrics similar to three existing incentive programs (i.e., the Physician Quality Reporting System, the Value-based modifier program and the Electronic Health Record Meaningful Use program) and incentivizes physicians to enroll in alternative payment methods. At this time, we do not know whether these changes to the physician payment systems will have any impact on orders or payments for our tests.

In December 2016, Congress passed the 21st Century Cures Act, which, among other things, revised the process for LCDs. Additionally, effective June 11, 2017, a MAC is required to, among other things, publish a summary of the evidence that it considered when developing an LCD, including a list of sources, and an explanation of the rationale that supports the MAC’s determinations. In October 2018, CMS issued additional guidance revising the requirements for the development of LCDs. We cannot predict whether these revisions will delay future LCDs and result in impeded coverage for our test products, which could have a material negative impact on revenue.

Table of Contents

In December 2020, in its enactment of the CAA, Congress enacted the No Surprises Act. This law, which takes effect January 1, 2022, prohibits an out-of-network provider from billing a patient at an amount in excess of the in-network cost sharing for services furnished with respect to a visit at certain in-network health care facilities. The law establishes an independent dispute resolution process between the provider and the payer to determine the appropriate payment rate to the provider. As written, the No Surprises Act may apply to laboratory tests furnished by an independent laboratory with respect to a hospital visit. The law establishes a notice and consent exception that generally does not apply to laboratory tests, although it allows for the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, to apply the exception to certain advanced tests. Details on the applicability of the No Surprises Act, any applicability of the notice and consent exception to advanced tests, and the rules governing the independent dispute resolution process may be determined in rulemaking and subregulatory guidance from HHS, the Department of Labor, and the Department of the Treasury in 2021. The No Surprises Act, and regulations and subregulatory guidance promulgated thereunder, could limit our ability to achieve payment in full for our testing services.

Because of Medicare billing rules, we may not receive reimbursement for all tests provided to Medicare patients.

Under previous Medicare billing rules, hospitals were required to bill for our tests when performed on Medicare beneficiaries who were hospital outpatients at the time of tissue specimen collection when these tests were ordered less than 14 days following the date of the patient's discharge.

Effective January 1, 2018, CMS revised its billing rules to allow the performing laboratory to bill Medicare directly for molecular pathology tests performed on specimens collected from hospital outpatients, even when those tests are ordered less than 14 days after the date of discharge, if certain conditions are met. We believe that our Afirma, Percepta, and Envisia classifiers, along with Prosigna, should be covered by this policy. Accordingly, we bill Medicare for these tests when we perform them on specimens collected from hospital outpatients and meet the conditions set forth in CMS's revised billing rules.

This change does not apply to tests performed on specimens collected from hospital inpatients. We will continue to bill hospitals for tests performed on specimens collected from hospital inpatients when the test was ordered less than 14 days after the date of discharge.

In the CY 2020 Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System Proposed Rule, CMS solicited comments on potential revisions to these billing rules that could have impacted our ability to bill Medicare directly for our Afirma, Percepta, and Envisia classifiers, as well as for Prosigna, when performed on specimens collected from hospital outpatients. Although these changes were not finalized, if CMS makes similar changes in the future, it could negatively impact our business.

In addition, we must maintain CLIA compliance and certification to sell our tests and be eligible to bill for diagnostic services provided to Medicare beneficiaries.

If the FDA were to begin regulating those of our tests that are not currently regulated, we could incur substantial costs and delays associated with trying to obtain premarket clearance or approval.

Clinical laboratory tests have long been subject to comprehensive regulations under CLIA, as well as by applicable state laws. Most laboratory developed tests, or LDTs, are not currently subject to regulation under the FDA's enforcement discretion policy, although reagents, instruments, software or components provided by third parties and used to perform LDTs may be subject to regulation. While the FDA maintains its authority to regulate LDTs, it has chosen to exercise its enforcement discretion not to enforce the premarket review and other applicable medical device requirements for LDTs. We believe that the Afirma, Percepta and Envisia classifiers are LDTs that fall under the FDA's enforcement discretion policy. In October 2014, the FDA issued draft guidance, entitled "Framework for Regulatory Oversight of LDTs," proposing a risk-based framework of oversight and a phased-in enforcement of premarket review requirements for most LDTs. In 2016, the FDA announced that it would not be finalizing the guidance.

In January 2017, the FDA issued a "Discussion Paper on Laboratory Developed Tests" following input it received from multiple stakeholders who had commented on its 2014 draft guidance. The FDA specifically states in its Discussion Paper that the proposals contained in the document do not represent a final version of the LDT draft guidance documents and are only designed to provide a possible approach to spark further dialogue. The suggested LDT framework could grandfather many types of LDTs without requiring new premarket review or quality management requirements but would subject some

Table of Contents

grandfathered tests to adverse event and malfunction reporting requirements. It also suggests a four-year phased implementation of the premarket review requirements for some types of tests. In a December 2018 statement, the FDA said that there is a need for “a unified approach to the regulation of in vitro clinical tests to protect patient safety, support innovation, and keep pace with the rapidly evolving technology that’s helping us find new treatments for disease.” The FDA listed key principles of an approach it would support.

In March 2017, a draft bill on the regulation of LDTs, entitled "The Diagnostics Accuracy and Innovation Act", or DAIA, was released for discussion. In December 2018, the sponsors of DAIA released a new version of the legislation called the “Verifying Accurate, Leading-edge IVCT Development Act", or VALID Act. The VALID Act proposes a risk-based approach to regulate LDTs and creates a new in vitro clinical test category, which includes LDTs, and a regulatory structure under the FDA. As proposed, the bill would create a precertification program for lower risk tests not otherwise required to go through premarket review. It would grandfather existing tests but would allow the FDA to subject otherwise grandfathered tests to premarket review under certain conditions. We cannot predict whether this draft bill will become legislation and cannot quantify the effect of this draft bill on our business. The HHS issued a public statement on August 9, 2020 purporting to rescind FDA’s policies regarding the premarket review of LDTs. According to the HHS statement, FDA will not require premarket review of LDTs unless it first engages in notice-and-comment rulemaking. Questions remain regarding the scope of the HHS statement’s applicability and whether other FDA regulatory requirements may apply to LDTs. It is also unclear to what extent the HHS policy statement will be affected by the change in Administration following the U.S. general election in November 2020. There is no guarantee that the HHS statement will not be revised, that legislation reforming the federal government’s regulation of LDTs will not be passed, or that LDTs will otherwise continue to be able to operate without first receiving FDA premarket review. How the HHS statement as well as future legislation by federal and state governments and actions by the FDA will impact the industry remain unclear.

If the FDA were to require us to seek clearance or approval for our existing tests or any of our future products for clinical use, we may not be able to obtain such approvals on a timely basis, or at all. While we believe our Afirma, Percepta and Envisia classifiers would likely qualify for the “grandfathered” tests treatment, there can be no assurance of what the FDA might ultimately require if it issues a rule. If premarket reviews are required, our business could be negatively impacted if we are required to stop selling our products pending their clearance or approval. In addition, the launch of any new products that we develop could be delayed by the implementation of future FDA regulations. The cost of complying with premarket review requirements, including obtaining clinical data, could be significant. In addition, future regulation by the FDA could subject our business to further regulatory risks and costs. Failure to comply with applicable regulatory requirements of the FDA could result in enforcement action, including receiving untitled or warning letters, fines, injunctions, or civil or criminal penalties. Any such enforcement action would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and operations. In addition, our sample collection containers are listed as Class I devices with the FDA. If the FDA were to determine that they are not Class I devices, we would be required to file 510(k) applications and obtain FDA clearance to use the containers, which could be time consuming and expensive.

Some of the materials we use for our tests and that we may use for future tests are labeled for research-use only, or RUO, or investigational-use only, or IUO. In November 2013, the FDA finalized guidance regarding the sale and use of products labeled RUO or IUO. Among other things, the guidance advises that the FDA continues to be concerned about distribution of research or investigational-use only products intended for clinical diagnostic use and that the manufacturer’s objective intent for the product’s intended use will be determined by examining the totality of circumstances, including advertising, instructions for clinical interpretation, presentations that describe clinical use, and specialized technical support, surrounding the distribution of the product in question. The FDA has advised that if evidence demonstrates that a product is inappropriately labeled for research or investigational-use only, the device would be considered misbranded and adulterated within the meaning of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, or FDC Act. Some of the reagents, instruments, software or components obtained by us from suppliers for use in our products are currently labeled as RUO or IUO. If the FDA were to determine that any of these reagents, instruments, software or components are improperly labeled RUO or IUO and undertake enforcement actions, some of our suppliers might cease selling these reagents, instruments, software or components to us, and any failure to obtain an acceptable substitute could significantly and adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, including increasing the cost of testing or delaying, limiting or prohibiting the purchase of reagents, instruments, software or components necessary to perform testing.

Table of Contents

Obtaining marketing authorization by the FDA and foreign regulatory authorities for our diagnostic tests will take significant time and require significant research, development and clinical study expenditures and ultimately may not succeed.

Before we begin to label and market some of our products for use as clinical diagnostics in the United States, unless an exemption applies, we are required to obtain clearance from the FDA by submitting a premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FDC Act or 510(k), or approval from the FDA by submitting a premarket approval, or PMA. We may also be able to obtain marketing authorization through a De Novo classification process rather than through a PMA if the 510(k) pathway is not available. In September 2013, Prosigna obtained FDA 510(k) clearance as a prognostic indicator for distant recurrence-free survival at ten years in post-menopausal women with Stage I/II lymph node-negative or Stage II lymph node-positive (1-3 positive nodes), hormone receptor-positive breast cancer to be treated with adjuvant endocrine therapy alone, when used in conjunction with other clinicopathological factors after they have undergone surgery in conjunction with locoregional treatment and consistent with the standard of care.

In August 2014, the FDA issued a final guidance document titled "In Vitro Companion Diagnostic Devices". In the guidance, the FDA defined an IVD companion diagnostic device as an in vitro diagnostic device that provides information that is essential for the safe and effective use of a corresponding therapeutic product. The use of an IVD companion diagnostic device with a therapeutic product is stipulated in the instructions for use in the labeling of both the diagnostic device and the corresponding therapeutic product, including the labeling of any generic equivalents of the therapeutic product. The FDA stated that an IVD companion diagnostic should be submitted for review and approved or cleared through an appropriate device submission contemporaneously with the review and approval of the therapeutic product to facilitate concurrent review. The FDA guidance also stated that while there may be cases when a companion diagnostic could come to market through the 510(k) pathway, the FDA expects that most companion diagnostics will be Class III devices. Class III devices generally require the approval of a PMA before they can be marketed. An IVD diagnostic device that is not a companion diagnostic device because it is not essential for the safe and effective use of a corresponding therapeutic product, may still be beneficial for use with a therapeutic product but may not be identified in the labeling of the therapeutic product. It is possible that revenue from a cleared or approved beneficial or complementary IVD diagnostic device may be less than revenue from a cleared or approved IVD companion diagnostic device.

In July 2016, the FDA issued guidance pertaining to the co-development of companion diagnostic tests with a therapeutic product. The FDA explained that while it supports contemporaneous marketing authorizations, if there are any deficiencies in the submissions, the FDA may place a PMA review of a companion diagnostic on hold or request additional testing, which could potentially delay the approval of the corresponding new drug application or the marketing authorization of the companion diagnostic or otherwise complicate the review process. The FDA issued another draft guidance in December 2018 specific to oncology companion diagnostic tests, which it finalized in April 2020. The guidance explained that some oncology companion diagnostic tests can be developed in a way that results in labeling for a specific group of oncology therapeutic products, rather than a single therapeutic product. However, there is no assurance that we would be able to obtain clearance or approval for any of our diagnostic devices in development as a companion diagnostic device or that any such clearance or approval will occur without significant delay.

Any marketing authorization we obtain for any future device product would be subject to regulatory requirements that would affect how we are able to market and sell the device. The FDC Act and FDA regulations place considerable requirements on our products, including, but not limited to, compliance with the quality system regulations, or QSR, establishment registration and product listing with the FDA, and compliance with labeling, marketing, complaint handling, medical device reporting requirements, and reporting certain corrections and removals. Obtaining FDA clearance or approval for diagnostics can be expensive and uncertain, generally may take several months to several years, and generally requires detailed and comprehensive scientific and clinical data, as well as compliance with FDA regulations for investigational devices. In addition, we have limited experience in obtaining PMA approval from the FDA and are therefore supplementing our operational capabilities to manage the more complex processes needed to obtain and maintain PMAs. Notwithstanding the expense, these efforts may never result in FDA clearance or approval. Even if we were to obtain marketing authorization, it may not be for the uses we believe are important or commercially attractive, in which case we would not market our product for those uses.

Sales of our diagnostic products outside the United States are subject to foreign regulatory requirements governing clinical studies, vigilance reporting, marketing approval, manufacturing, regulatory inspections, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement. These regulatory requirements vary greatly from country to country. As a result, the time required to obtain approvals outside the United States may differ from that required to obtain FDA marketing authorization, and we may not be

Table of Contents

able to obtain foreign regulatory approvals on a timely basis or at all. Marketing authorization from the FDA does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries, and approval by any foreign regulatory authority does not ensure marketing authorization by regulatory authorities in other countries or by the FDA. Foreign regulatory authorities could require additional testing beyond what the FDA requires. In addition, the FDC Act imposes requirements on the export of medical devices, such as labeling requirements, and foreign governments impose requirements on the import of medical devices from the United States. Failure to comply with these regulatory requirements or to obtain required approvals, clearances, and export certifications could impair our ability to commercialize our diagnostic products outside of the United States.

If we are unable to obtain marketing authorizations to market Prosigna in additional countries or if regulatory limitations are placed on our diagnostic kit products, our business and growth will be harmed.

The FDA cleared the Prosigna test for marketing in the United States; Prosigna also has a CE mark which permits us to market the test in the European Union; and Prosigna received marketing authorizations in selected other jurisdictions. We intend to seek regulatory authorizations for Prosigna in other jurisdictions and, potentially, for other indications.

In addition, pursuant to our collaborations with pharmaceutical companies for the development of companion diagnostic tests for use with their drugs, we are responsible for obtaining regulatory authorizations to use the companion diagnostic tests in clinical trials as well as the marketing authorizations to sell the companion diagnostic tests following completion of such trials. Some of the compensation we expect to receive pursuant to these collaborations is based on the receipt of marketing authorizations. Any failure to obtain marketing authorizations for our diagnostic kits in a particular jurisdiction may also reduce sales of the nCounter Analysis System for clinical use in that jurisdiction, as the lack of a robust menu of available diagnostic tests would make those systems less attractive to testing laboratories.

We cannot assure investors that we will be successful in obtaining regulatory clearances, approvals, or marketing authorizations. If we do not obtain regulatory clearances, approvals, or marketing authorizations for future diagnostic kit products or expand future indications for diagnostic purposes, if additional regulatory limitations are placed on our diagnostic kit products or if we fail to successfully commercialize such products, the market potential for our diagnostic kit products would be constrained, and our business and growth prospects would be adversely affected.

We are subject to ongoing and extensive regulatory requirements, and our failure to comply with these requirements could substantially harm our business.

Certain of our products are regulated as in vitro diagnostic medical devices, including Prosigna and the nCounter Analysis System. Accordingly, we and certain of our contract manufacturers are subject to ongoing International Organization for Standardization, or ISO, obligations as well as requirements under the FDC Act and device regulations enforced by the FDA and other statutory and regulatory requirements enforced by other government authorities. These may include routine inspections by Notified Bodies, FDA, and other health authorities, of our manufacturing facilities and our records for compliance with standards such as ISO 13485 and QSR regulations, which establish extensive requirements for quality assurance and control as well as manufacturing and change control procedures, among other things. These inspections may include the manufacturing facilities of any suppliers. In the event that a supplier fails to maintain compliance with regulatory or our quality requirements, we may have to qualify a new supplier and could experience manufacturing delays as a result. We are also subject to other regulatory obligations, such as registration of our company offices and facilities and the listing of our devices with the FDA; continued adverse event and malfunction reporting; reporting certain corrections and removals; and labeling and promotional requirements.

Other regulatory bodies may also issue guidelines and regulations that could impact the development of our products, including companion diagnostic tests. For example, the European Medicines Agency, a European Union agency which is responsible for the scientific evaluation of medicines used in the European Union, recently launched an initiative to determine guidelines for the use of genomic biomarkers in the development and lifecycle of drugs. On April 5, 2017, the European Union Parliament passed Regulation (EU) 2017/746, referred to as the IVD Device Regulation, or IVDR, which increases the regulatory requirements applicable to in vitro diagnostics in the EU and would require that we re-classify and obtain approval, registration, or clearance for our existing CE-marked IVD products within a five-year grace period (by May 25, 2022).

We may also be subject to additional FDA or global regulatory authority post-marketing obligations or requirements by the FDA or global regulatory authority to change our current product classifications which would impose additional regulatory obligations on us. The promotional claims we can make for Prosigna are limited to the indications for use in the United States

Table of Contents

as cleared by the FDA or outside the United States as authorized by the applicable regulatory authority. If we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may not be permitted to market our medical device products and/or may be subject to enforcement actions by the FDA or other governmental authorities such as the issuance of warning or untitled letters, fines, injunctions, and civil penalties; recall or seizure of products; operating restrictions; and criminal prosecution. In addition, we may be subject to similar regulatory regimes of foreign jurisdictions as we continue to commercialize our products in new markets outside of the United States and Europe. Adverse Notified Body, EU Competent Authority or FDA or global regulatory authority action in any of these areas could significantly increase our expenses and limit our revenue and profitability.

If we are unable to compete successfully, we may be unable to increase or sustain our revenue or achieve profitability.

Our principal competition for our tests comes from traditional methods used by physicians to diagnose and manage patient care decisions. For example, with our Afirma genomic classifier, practice guidelines in the United States have historically recommended that patients with indeterminate diagnoses from cytopathology results be considered for surgery to remove all or part of the thyroid to rule out cancer. This practice has been the standard of care in the United States for many years, and we need to continue to educate physicians about the benefits of the Afirma genomic classifier to change clinical practice.

We also face competition from companies and academic institutions that use next generation sequencing technology or other methods to measure mutational markers such as BRAF and KRAS, along with numerous other mutations. These organizations include Interpace Diagnostics Group, Inc., CBLPath, Inc./University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and others who are developing new products or technologies that may compete with our tests. In the future, we may also face competition from companies developing new products or technologies.

We believe our primary competition in pulmonology with our Percepta and Envisia classifiers will similarly come from traditional methods used by physicians to diagnose the related diseases. For the Percepta test, we expect competition from companies focused on lung cancer such as Oncocyte Corporation and Biodesix, Inc. We believe our principal competitor in the breast cancer diagnostics market is Exact Sciences, Inc. (having combined with Genomic Health, Inc.), which currently commands a substantial majority of the market. As we expand our portfolio of tests to address clinical questions across the clinical care continuum, we may also face competition from companies focused on screening at-risk patients for cancer or companies informing treatment decisions such as Guardant Health or GRAIL. Competition could also emerge using alternative samples, such as blood, urine or sputum. However, such “liquid biopsies” are currently being used to gauge risk of recurrence or response to treatment in patients already diagnosed with lung cancer.

In general, we also face competition from commercial laboratories, such as Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings and Sonic Healthcare USA, with strong infrastructure to support the commercialization of diagnostic services. We face potential competition from companies such as Illumina, Inc. and Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc., both of which have entered the clinical diagnostics market. Other potential competitors include companies that develop diagnostic products, such as Roche Diagnostics, a division of Roche Holding Ltd, Siemens AG and Qiagen N.V.

In addition, competitors may develop their own versions of our solutions in countries we may seek to enter where we do not have patents or where our intellectual property rights are not recognized and compete with us in those countries, including encouraging the use of their solutions by physicians in other countries.

To compete successfully, we must be able to demonstrate, among other things, that our diagnostic test results are accurate and cost effective, and we must secure a meaningful level of reimbursement for our products.

Many of our potential competitors have widespread brand recognition and substantially greater financial, technical and research and development resources, and selling and marketing capabilities than we do. Others may develop products with prices lower than ours that could be viewed by physicians and payers as functionally equivalent to our solutions, or offer solutions at prices designed to promote market penetration, which could force us to lower the list price of our solutions and affect our ability to achieve profitability. If we are unable to change clinical practice in a meaningful way or compete successfully against current and future competitors, we may be unable to increase market acceptance and sales of our products, which could prevent us from increasing our revenue or achieving profitability and could cause the market price of our common stock to decline. As we add new tests and services, we will face many of these same competitive risks for these new tests.

Table of Contents

The loss of members of our senior management team or our inability to attract and retain key personnel could adversely affect our business.

Our success depends largely on the skills, experience and performance of key members of our executive management team and others in key management positions. The efforts of each of these persons together will be critical to us as we continue to develop our technologies and test processes and focus on our growth. If we were to lose one or more of these key employees, including due to illness resulting from COVID-19, we may experience difficulties in competing effectively, developing our technologies and implementing our business strategy.

In addition, our research and development programs and commercial laboratory operations depend on our ability to attract and retain highly skilled scientists. We may not be able to attract or retain qualified scientists and technicians in the future due to the intense competition for qualified personnel among life science businesses, particularly in the San Francisco Bay Area. Our success in the development and commercialization of advanced diagnostics requires a significant medical and clinical staff to conduct studies and educate physicians and payers on the merits of our tests in order to achieve adoption and reimbursement. We are in a highly competitive industry to attract and retain this talent. Additionally, our success depends on our ability to attract and retain qualified sales-people. We recently significantly expanded our sales force as we invest in our multi-product sales strategy, which includes assignment of a single contact to successfully develop and implement relationships with our customers. There can be no assurance that we will be successful in maintaining and growing our business. Additionally, as we increase our sales channels for new tests we commercialize, including the Percepta and Envisia tests, or acquire, such as Prosigna, we may have difficulties recruiting and training additional sales personnel or retaining qualified sales-people, which could cause a delay or decline in the rate of adoption of our tests. Finally, our business requires specialized capabilities in reimbursement, billing, and other areas and there may be a shortage of qualified individuals. 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 support our research and development, clinical laboratory, sales and reimbursement, billing and finance efforts. All of our employees are at will, which means that either we or the employee may terminate their employment at any time. We do not carry key man insurance for any of our employees.

Billing for our diagnostic tests is complex, and we must dedicate substantial time and resources to the billing process to be paid.

Billing for clinical laboratory testing services is complex, time-consuming and expensive. Depending on the billing arrangement and applicable law, we bill various payers, including Medicare, insurance companies and patients, all of which have different billing requirements. We generally bill third-party payers for our diagnostic tests and pursue reimbursement on a case-by-case basis where pricing contracts are not in place. To the extent laws or contracts require us to bill patient co-payments or co-insurance, we must also comply with these requirements. We may also face increased risk in our collection efforts, including potential write-offs of accounts receivable and long collection cycles, which could adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Several factors make the billing process complex, including:

•differences between the list price for our tests and the reimbursement rates of payers;

•compliance with complex federal and state regulations related to billing government payers, such as Medicare and Medicaid, including requirements to have an active CLIA certificate;

•risk of government audits related to billing Medicare and other government payers;

•disputes among payers as to which party is responsible for payment;

•differences in coverage and in information and billing requirements among payers, including the need for prior authorization and/or advanced notification;

•the effect of patient co-payments or co-insurance;

•changes to billing codes used for our tests;

Table of Contents

•incorrect or missing billing information; and

•the resources required to manage the billing and claims appeals process.

We use standard industry billing codes, known as CPT codes, to bill for cytopathology. Through December 31, 2020, we used the CPT code 81545 to bill for our Afirma classifier. Effective January 1, 2021, we will use the new CPT code 81546 to bill for our Afirma classifier, and code 81545 is being retired. Effective October 1, 2020, we are using the new CPT code 0204U to bill for Afirma Xpression Atlas, and the new CPT code 0208U to bill for Afirma MTC. Effective January 1, 2021, we are using the new CPT code 81554 to bill for our Envisia classifier. There is no CPT code for our Percepta classifier. Therefore, until such time that we are assigned and are able to use a designated CPT code specific to Percepta, we use “unlisted” codes for claim submissions, which can lead to delays in payers adjudicating our claims or denying payment altogether.

CPT codes can change over time. When codes change, there is a risk of an error being made in the claim adjudication process. These errors can occur with claims submission, third-party transmission or in the processing of the claim by the payer. Claim adjudication errors may result in a delay in payment processing or a reduction in the amount of the payment received. Coding changes, therefore, may have an adverse effect on our revenues. Even when we receive a designated CPT code specific to our tests, there can be no assurance that payers will recognize these codes in a timely manner or that the process of transitioning to such a code and updating their billing systems and ours will not result in errors, delays in payments and a related increase in accounts receivable balances.

As we introduce new tests, we will need to add new codes to our billing process as well as our financial reporting systems. Failure or delays in effecting these changes in external billing and internal systems and processes could negatively affect our collection rates, revenue and cost of collecting.

Correct coding is subject to the coding policies of the American Medical Association CPT Editorial Panel, or AMA CPT. With respect to claims submitted to Medicare and Medicaid, it is also subject to coding policies developed through the National Correct Coding Initiative, or NCCI. Other payers may develop their own payer-specific coding policies. The broader coding policies of the AMA CPT, NCCI, and other payers are subject to change. For instance, the NCCI adopted an update to its Coding Policy Manual effective January 1, 2019, to limit instances when multiple codes may be billed for molecular pathology testing. Although the NCCI appears to have moderated this change in its updates effective January 1, 2020, such coding policy changes may negatively affect our revenues and cash flow.

Additionally, our billing activities require us to implement compliance procedures and oversight, train and monitor our employees, challenge coverage and payment denials, assist patients in appealing claims, and undertake internal audits to evaluate compliance with applicable laws and regulations as well as internal compliance policies and procedures. Payers also conduct external audits to evaluate payments, which add further complexity to the billing process. If the payer makes an overpayment determination, there is a risk that we may be required to return some portion of prior payments we have received. Additionally, the ACA established a requirement for providers and suppliers to report and return any overpayments received from government payers under the Medicare and Medicaid programs within 60 days of identification. Failure to identify and return such overpayments exposes the provider or supplier to liability under federal false claims laws. These billing complexities, and the related uncertainty in obtaining payment for our tests, could negatively affect our revenue and cash flow, our ability to achieve profitability, and the consistency and comparability of our results of operations.

We rely on a third-party provider to transmit claims to payers, and any delay in transmitting claims could have an adverse effect on our revenue.

While we manage the overall processing of claims, we rely on a third-party provider to transmit the actual claims to payers based on the specific payer billing format. We have previously experienced delays in claims processing when our third-party provider made changes to its invoicing system, and again when it did not submit claims to payers within the timeframe we require. Additionally, coding for diagnostic tests may change, and such changes may cause short-term billing errors that may take significant time to resolve. If claims are not submitted to payers on a timely basis or are erroneously submitted, or if we are required to switch to a different provider to handle claim submissions, we may experience delays in our ability to process these claims and receipt of payments from payers, or possibly denial of claims for lack of timely submission, which would have an adverse effect on our revenue and our business.

Table of Contents

If our internal sales force is less successful than anticipated, our business expansion plans could suffer and our ability to generate revenues could be diminished. In addition, we have limited history selling our molecular diagnostics tests on a direct basis and our limited history makes forecasting difficult.

We acquired several international sales employees from NanoString, and expect to build upon this team as we offer additional tests internationally in the future. If our internal sales force is not successful, however, or new additions to our sales team fail to gain traction among our customers, we may not be able to increase market awareness and sales of our molecular diagnostic tests. If we fail to establish our molecular diagnostic tests in the marketplace, it could have a negative effect on our ability to sell subsequent molecular diagnostic tests and hinder the desired expansion of our business. We have growing, however limited, historical experience forecasting the direct sales of our molecular diagnostics products. Our ability to produce test volumes that meet customer demand is dependent upon our ability to forecast accurately and plan production capacities accordingly.

Developing new products involves a lengthy and complex process, and we may not be able to commercialize on a timely basis, or at all, other products we are developing.

We continually seek to develop enhancements to our current test offerings and additional diagnostic solutions that requires us to devote considerable resources to research and development. There can be no assurance that we will be able to identify other diseases that can be effectively addressed with our molecular cytology platform. In addition, if we identify such diseases, we may not be able to develop products with the diagnostic accuracy necessary to be clinically useful and commercially successful. We may face challenges obtaining sufficient numbers of samples to validate a genomic signature for a molecular diagnostic product. After launching new products, we still must complete studies that meet the clinical evidence required to obtain reimbursement. Moreover, we may experience delays in the development and introduction of new products due to the effects of the current COVID-19 outbreak.

In order to develop and commercialize diagnostic tests, we need to:

•expend significant funds to conduct substantial research and development;

•conduct successful analytical and clinical studies;

•scale our laboratory processes to accommodate new tests; and

•build the commercial infrastructure to market and sell new products.

Our product development process involves a high degree of risk and may take several years. Our product development efforts may fail for many reasons, including:

•failure to identify a genomic signature in biomarker discovery;

•inability to secure sufficient numbers of samples at an acceptable cost and on an acceptable timeframe to conduct analytical and clinical studies; or

•failure of clinical validation studies to support the effectiveness of the test.

Typically, few research and development projects result in commercial products, and success in early clinical studies often is not replicated in later studies. At any point, we may abandon development of a product candidate or we may be required to expend considerable resources repeating clinical studies, which would adversely affect the timing for generating potential revenue from a new product and our ability to invest in other products in our pipeline. If a clinical validation study fails to demonstrate the prospectively defined endpoints of the study or if we fail to sufficiently demonstrate analytical validity, we might choose to abandon the development of the product, which could harm our business. In addition, competitors may develop and commercialize competing products or technologies faster than us or at a lower cost.

Table of Contents

If we cannot enter into new clinical study collaborations, our product development and subsequent commercialization could be delayed.

In the past, we have entered into clinical study collaborations, and our success in the future depends in part on our ability to enter into additional collaborations with highly regarded institutions. This can be difficult due to internal and external constraints placed on these organizations. Some organizations may limit the number of collaborations they have with any one company so as to not be perceived as biased or conflicted. Organizations may also have insufficient administrative and related infrastructure to enable collaboration with many companies at once, which can extend the time it takes to develop, negotiate and implement a collaboration. Moreover, it may take longer to obtain the samples we need which could delay our trials, publications, and product launches and reimbursement. Additionally, organizations often insist on retaining the rights to publish the clinical data resulting from the collaboration. The publication of clinical data in peer-reviewed journals is a crucial step in commercializing and obtaining reimbursement for our diagnostic tests, and our inability to control when and if results are published may delay or limit our ability to derive sufficient revenue from them.

If we are unable to develop products to keep pace with rapid technological, medical and scientific change, our operating results and competitive position could be harmed.

In recent years, there have been numerous advances in technologies relating to diagnostics, particularly diagnostics that are based on genomic information. These advances require us to continuously develop our technology and to work to develop new solutions to keep pace with evolving standards of care. Our solutions could become obsolete unless we continually innovate and expand our product offerings to include new clinical applications. If we are unable to develop new products or to demonstrate the applicability of our products for other diseases, our sales could decline and our competitive position could be harmed.

Our Loan and Security Agreement provides our lenders with a first-priority lien against substantially all of our assets, excluding our intellectual property, and contains financial covenants and other restrictions on our actions, which could limit our operational flexibility and otherwise adversely affect our financial condition.

Our Loan and Security Agreement restricts our ability to, among other things, incur liens, make investments, incur indebtedness, merge with or acquire other entities, dispose of assets, make dividends or other distributions to holders of its equity interests, engage in any new line of business, or enter into certain transactions with affiliates, in each case subject to certain exceptions. It also requires us to achieve certain revenue levels tested quarterly on a trailing twelve-month basis. However, failure to maintain the revenue levels will not be considered a default if the sum of our unrestricted cash and cash equivalents maintained with Silicon Valley Bank and amount available under the Revolving Line of Credit is at least $40.0 million. Our ability to comply with these and other covenants is dependent upon a number of factors, some of which are beyond our control.

Our failure to comply with the financial covenants, or the occurrence of other events specified in our Loan and Security Agreement, could result in an event of default under the Loan and Security Agreement, which would give our lenders the right to terminate their commitments to provide additional loans under the Loan and Security Agreement and to declare all borrowings outstanding, together with accrued and unpaid interest and fees, to be immediately due and payable. In addition, we have granted our lenders a first-priority lien against all of our assets, excluding our intellectual property, as collateral. Failure to comply with the covenants or other restrictions in the Loan and Security Agreement could result in a default. If the debt under our Loan and Security Agreement was to be accelerated, we may not have sufficient cash on hand or be able to sell sufficient collateral to repay it, which would have an immediate adverse effect on our business and operating results. This could potentially cause us to cease operations and result in a complete loss of your investment in our common stock.

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 are 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:

•the Federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, which established comprehensive federal standards with respect to the privacy and security of protected health information and requirements for the use of certain standardized electronic transactions, and amendments made in 2013 to HIPAA under the Health Information

Table of Contents

Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, or HITECH, which strengthen and expand HIPAA privacy and security compliance requirements, increase penalties for violators, extend enforcement authority to state attorneys general, and impose requirements for breach notification;

•Medicare billing and payment regulations applicable to clinical laboratories, including requirements to have an active CLIA certificate;

•the Federal Anti-kickback Statute (and state equivalents), which prohibits knowingly and willfully offering, paying, soliciting, or receiving remuneration, directly or indirectly, in exchange for or to induce either the referral of an individual, or the furnishing, arranging for, or recommending of an item or service that is reimbursable, in whole or in part, by a federal healthcare program;

•the Eliminating Kickbacks in Recovery Act of 2018, which prohibits the solicitation, receipt, payment or offering of any remuneration in return for referring a patient or patronage to a recovery home, clinical treatment facility, or laboratory for services covered by both government and private payers;

•the Federal Stark physician self-referral law (and state equivalents), which prohibits a physician from making a referral for certain designated health services covered by the Medicare program, including laboratory and pathology services, if the physician or an immediate family member has a financial relationship with the entity providing the designated health services, unless the financial relationship falls within an applicable exception to the prohibition;

•the Federal Civil Monetary Penalties Law, which prohibits, among other things, the offering or transfer of remuneration to a Medicare or state health care program beneficiary if the person knows or should know it is likely to influence the beneficiary’s selection of a particular provider, practitioner, or supplier of services reimbursable by Medicare or a state health care program, unless an exception applies;

•the Federal False Claims Act, which imposes liability on any person or entity who knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, a false, fictitious, or fraudulent claim for payment to the federal government;

•other federal and state fraud and abuse laws, such as anti-kickback laws, prohibitions on self-referral, fee-splitting restrictions, prohibitions on the provision of products at no or discounted cost to induce physician or patient adoption, and false claims acts, which may extend to services reimbursable by any third-party payer, including private insurers;

•the prohibition on reassignment of Medicare claims, which, subject to certain exceptions, precludes the reassignment of Medicare claims to any other party;

•the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014, which requires us to report private payer rates and test volumes for specific CPT codes on a triennial basis and imposes penalties for failures to report, omissions, or misrepresentations;

•the rules regarding billing for diagnostic tests reimbursable by the Medicare program, which prohibit a physician or other supplier from marking up the price of the technical component or professional component of a diagnostic test ordered by the physician or other supplier and supervised or performed by a physician who does not “share a practice” with the billing physician or supplier;

•state laws that prohibit other specified practices related to billing such as billing physicians for testing that they order, waiving co-insurance, co-payments, deductibles, and other amounts owed by patients, and billing a state Medicaid program at a price that is higher than what is charged to other payers;

•the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, and other similar laws, which apply to our international activities;

•unclaimed property (escheat) laws and regulations, which may require us to turn over to governmental authorities the property of others held by us that has been unclaimed for a specified period of time; and

•enforcing our intellectual property rights.

Table of Contents

We have adopted policies and procedures designed to comply with applicable laws and regulations. In the ordinary course of our business, we conduct internal reviews of our compliance with these laws. Our compliance with some of these laws and regulations is also subject to governmental review. The growth of our business and sales organization and our expansion outside of the United States may increase the potential of violating these laws or our internal policies and procedures. We believe that we are in material compliance with all statutory and regulatory requirements, but there is a risk that one or more government agencies could take a contrary position.

In recent years U.S. Attorneys’ Offices have increased scrutiny of the healthcare industry, as have Congress, the Department of Justice, the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of the Inspector General and the Department of Defense. These bodies have all issued subpoenas and other requests for information to conduct investigations of, and commenced civil and criminal litigation against, healthcare companies based on financial arrangements with health care providers, regulatory compliance, product promotional practices and documentation, and coding and billing practices. Whistleblowers have filed numerous qui tam lawsuits against healthcare companies under the federal and state False Claims Acts in recent years, in part because the whistleblower can receive a portion of the government’s recovery under such suits.

These laws and regulations are complex and are subject to interpretation by the courts and by government agencies. If one or more such agencies alleges that we may be in violation of any of these requirements, regardless of the outcome, it could damage our reputation and adversely affect important business relationships with third parties, including managed care organizations and other commercial third-party payers. 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 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 civil and criminal penalties, damages and fines, we could be required to refund payments received by us, and we could be required to curtail or cease our operations. Any of the foregoing consequences could seriously harm our business and our financial results.

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

We are subject to federal, state and local laws, rules and regulations governing the use, discharge, storage, handling and disposal of biological material, chemicals and waste. We cannot eliminate the risk of accidental contamination or injury to employees or third parties from the use, storage, handling or disposal of these materials. In the event of contamination or injury, we could be held liable for any resulting damages, remediation costs and any related penalties or fines, and any liability could exceed our resources or any applicable insurance coverage we may have. The cost of 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.

International expansion of our business exposes us to business, regulatory, political, operational, financial and economic risks associated with doing business outside of the United States.

Our business strategy includes international expansion in select countries, and may include developing and maintaining physician outreach and education capabilities outside of the United States, establishing agreements with laboratories, and expanding our relationships with international payers. Doing business internationally involves a number of risks, including:

•multiple, conflicting and changing laws and regulations such as tax laws, privacy laws, export and import restrictions, employment laws, regulatory requirements and other governmental approvals, permits and licenses;

•failure by us to obtain regulatory approvals where required for the use of our solutions in various countries;

•complexities associated with managing multiple payer reimbursement regimes, government payers or patient self-pay systems;

•logistics and regulations associated with shipping tissue samples, including infrastructure conditions and transportation delays;

•challenges associated with establishing laboratory partners, including proper sample collection techniques, management of supplies, sample logistics, billing and promotional activities;

Table of Contents

•limits on our ability to penetrate international markets if we are not able to process tests locally;

•financial risks, such as longer payment cycles, difficulty in collecting from payers, the effect of local and regional financial crises, and exposure to foreign currency exchange rate fluctuations;

•natural disasters, political and economic instability, including wars, terrorism, and political unrest, outbreak of disease, including COVID-19, boycotts, curtailment of trade and other business restrictions; and

•regulatory and compliance risks that relate to maintaining accurate information and control over activities that may fall within the purview of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, including both its books and records provisions and its anti-bribery provisions.

Any of these factors could significantly harm our future international expansion and operations and, consequently, our revenue and results of operations.

Our reliance on distributors for sales of our products outside of the United States, and on clinical laboratories for delivery of Prosigna testing services, could limit or prevent us from selling our products and impact our revenue.

We have established distribution agreements for the nCounter Analysis System for diagnostic use and related diagnostic kit products in certain countries where we do not sell directly. We intend to continue to grow our business internationally, and to do so we must attract additional distributors and retain existing distributors to maximize the commercial opportunity for our products. There is no guarantee that we will be successful in attracting or retaining desirable sales and distribution partners or that we will be able to enter into such arrangements on favorable terms. Distributors may not commit the necessary resources to market and sell our products to the level of our expectations or may choose to favor marketing the products of our competitors. If current or future distributors do not perform adequately, or we are unable to enter into effective arrangements with distributors in particular geographic areas, we may not realize long-term international revenue growth.

Similarly, we or our distributors have entered into agreements with clinical laboratories globally to provide Prosigna testing services. We do not provide testing services directly and, thus, we are reliant on these clinical laboratories to actively promote and sell Prosigna testing services. These clinical laboratories may take longer than anticipated to begin offering Prosigna testing services and may not commit the necessary resources to market and sell Prosigna testing services to the level of our expectations. Furthermore, we intend to contract with additional clinical laboratories to offer Prosigna testing services, including physician-owned laboratories, and we may be unsuccessful in attracting and contracting with new clinical laboratory providers. If current or future Prosigna testing service providers do not perform adequately, or we are unable to enter into contracts with additional clinical laboratories to provide Prosigna testing services, we may not be successful selling Prosigna and our future revenue prospects may be adversely affected.

If we are sued for product liability or errors and omissions liability, we could face substantial liabilities that exceed our resources.

The marketing, sale and use of our current or future tests could lead to product liability claims if someone were to allege that the tests failed to perform as they were designed. We may also be subject to liability for errors in the results we provide to physicians or for a misunderstanding of, or inappropriate reliance upon, the information we provide. Our Afirma classifiers are performed on FNA samples that are diagnosed as indeterminate by standard cytopathology review. We report results as benign or suspicious to the prescribing physician. Under certain circumstances, we might report a result as benign that later proves to have been malignant. This could be the result of the physician having poor nodule sampling in collecting the FNA, performing the FNA on a different nodule than the one that is malignant or failure of the classifier to perform as intended. We may also be subject to similar types of claims related to our Percepta, Envisia and Prosigna tests, as well as tests we may develop or acquire in the future. A product liability or errors and omissions liability claim could result in substantial damages and be costly and time consuming for us to defend. Although we maintain product liability and errors and omissions insurance, we cannot assure you that our insurance would fully 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 product liability or 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 product liability lawsuit could cause injury to our reputation or cause us to suspend sales of our products and solutions. The occurrence of any of these events could have an adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

Table of Contents

Our business is subject to the risk of disruptions caused by pandemics, political events, war, terrorism, earthquakes, fire, power outages, floods, and other catastrophic events.

War, terrorism, geopolitical uncertainties, trade restrictions, public health issues, natural disasters and other catastrophic events may cause damage or disruption to the economy and commerce on a global, regional or country-specific basis, and could disrupt supply or delivery of, or demand for, our products. For example, the COVID-19 outbreak has had, and we expect will continue to have, a negative effect on consumer confidence and spending, and other impacts, which could adversely affect our business.

If a catastrophe strikes either of our laboratories or if either of our laboratories becomes inoperable for any other reason, we will be unable to perform our testing services and our business will be harmed.

We perform all of the Afirma, Percepta and Envisia genomic classifier testing at our laboratory in South San Francisco, California, near major earthquake faults known for seismic activity and in a region affected by wildfires. Our laboratory in Austin, Texas accepts and stores the majority of our Afirma FNA samples pending transfer to our California laboratory for genomic test processing. The laboratories and equipment we use to perform our tests would be costly to replace and could require substantial lead time to replace and qualify for use if they became inoperable. Either of our facilities may be harmed or rendered inoperable by natural or man-made disasters, including earthquakes, flooding and power outages, which may render it difficult or impossible for us to perform our testing services for some period of time or to receive and store samples. The inability to perform our tests for even a short period of time may result in the loss of customers or harm our reputation, and we may be unable to regain those customers in the future. Although we maintain insurance for damage to our property and the disruption of our business, 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.

Our inability to raise additional capital on acceptable terms in the future may limit our ability to develop and commercialize new solutions and technologies and expand our operations.

We expect continued capital expenditures and operating losses over the next few years as we expand our infrastructure, commercial operations and research and development activities. We may seek to raise additional capital through equity offerings, debt financings, collaborations or licensing arrangements. Additional funding may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all. If we raise funds by issuing equity securities, dilution to our stockholders could result. Any equity securities issued also may provide for rights, preferences or privileges senior to those of holders of our common stock. The terms of debt securities issued or borrowings could impose significant restrictions on our operations. The incurrence of additional indebtedness or the issuance of certain equity securities could result in increased fixed payment obligations and could also result in restrictive covenants, such as limitations on our ability to incur additional debt or issue additional equity, limitations on our ability to acquire or license intellectual property rights, and other operating restrictions that could adversely affect our ability to conduct our business. Our Loan and Security Agreement imposes restrictions on our operations, increases our fixed payment obligations, and has restrictive covenants. In addition, the issuance of additional equity securities by us, or the possibility of such issuance, may cause the market price of our common stock to decline. In the event that we enter into collaborations or licensing arrangements to raise capital, we may be required to accept unfavorable terms. These agreements may require that we relinquish or license to a third-party on unfavorable terms our rights to technologies or product candidates that we otherwise would seek to develop or commercialize ourselves, or reserve certain opportunities for future potential arrangements when we might be able to achieve more favorable terms. The trading prices for our common stock and other biotechnology companies have been highly volatile as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, which may reduce our ability to access capital on favorable terms or at all. In addition, a recession, depression or other sustained adverse market event resulting from the spread of COVID-19 could materially and adversely affect our business and the value of our common stock. If we are not able to secure additional funding when needed, we may have to delay, reduce the scope of or eliminate one or more research and development programs or selling and marketing initiatives. In addition, we may have to work with a partner on one or more of our products or development programs, which could lower the economic value of those programs to our company.

Table of Contents

Security breaches, loss of data and other disruptions to us or our third-party service providers could compromise sensitive information related to our business or prevent us from accessing critical information and expose us to liability, which could adversely affect our business and our reputation.

In the ordinary course of our business, we and our third-party service providers collect and store sensitive data, including legally protected health information, personally identifiable information about our patients, credit card information, intellectual property, and our proprietary business and financial information. We manage and maintain our applications and data utilizing a combination of on-site systems, managed data center systems and cloud-based data center systems. We face a number of risks related to our protection of, and our service providers’ protection of, this critical information, including loss of access, inappropriate disclosure and inappropriate access, as well as risks associated with our ability to identify and audit such events. System failures or outages, including any potential disruptions due to significantly increased global demand on certain cloud based systems during the COVID-19 pandemic, could compromise our ability to perform these functions in a timely manner, which could harm our ability to conduct business or delay our financial reporting. Such failures could materially adversely affect our operating results and financial condition.

The secure processing, storage, maintenance and transmission of this critical information is vital to our operations and business strategy, and we devote significant resources to protecting such information. Although we take measures to protect sensitive information from unauthorized access or disclosure, our information technology and infrastructure may be vulnerable to attacks by hackers or viruses or otherwise breached due to employee error, malfeasance or other activities. While we are not aware of any such attack or breach, if such event would occur and cause interruptions in our operations, our networks would be compromised and the information we store on those networks could be accessed by unauthorized parties, publicly disclosed, lost or stolen. Any such access, disclosure or other loss of information could result in legal claims or proceedings, liability under federal, state, and international laws that protect the privacy of personal information, such as HIPAA, and regulatory penalties. Unauthorized access, loss or dissemination could also disrupt our operations, including our ability to process tests, provide test results, bill payers or patients, process claims and appeals, provide customer assistance services, 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, manage the administrative aspects of our business and damage our reputation, any of which could adversely affect our business.

In addition, the interpretation and application of consumer, health-related and data protection laws in the United States, Europe and elsewhere are often uncertain, contradictory and in flux. It is possible that these laws may be interpreted and applied in a manner that is inconsistent with our practices. If so, this could result in government-imposed fines or orders requiring that we change our practices, which could adversely affect our business. Certain health-related and data protection requirements have been modified during the Public Health Emergency, or PHE, under section 319 of the Public Health Service Act first declared January 31, 2020, which was most recently extended effective October 2, 2020. We cannot predict when the PHE declaration will be lifted. In addition, we are subject to various state laws, including the California Consumer Privacy Act, or CCPA, which was enacted in California in 2018 and components of which went into effect on January 1, 2020. The CCPA, among other things, requires covered companies to provide disclosures to California consumers concerning the collection and sale of personal information, and gives such consumers the right to opt-out of certain sales of personal information. Amendments to the CCPA have been made since its enactment, and it remains unclear what, if any, further amendments will be made to this legislation or how it will be interpreted. We cannot yet predict the impact of the CCPA on our business or operations, but it may require us to modify our data processing practices and policies and to incur substantial costs and expenses in an effort to comply.

Recent developments in Europe have created compliance uncertainty regarding the processing of personal data from Europe. For example, the General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR, which became effective in the European Union on May 25, 2018, applies to our activities conducted from an establishment in the EU or related to products and services that we offer to European Union users. The GDPR creates new compliance obligations applicable to our business, which could cause us to change our business practices, and increases financial penalties for noncompliance (including possible fines of up to 4% of global annual turnover for the preceding financial year or €20 million (whichever is higher) for the most serious infringements). On July 16, 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union issued a decision invalidating outright the EU-US Privacy Shield framework which companies rely on to transfer data from the European Union to the United States. As a result, we may need to modify the way we treat such information.

Table of Contents

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 license third-party technology to develop or commercialize new products. In return for the use of a third-party’s technology, we may agree to pay the licensor royalties based on sales of our solutions. Royalties are a component of cost of revenue and affect the margins on our solutions. We may also need to negotiate licenses to patents and patent applications after introducing a commercial product. Our business may suffer if we are unable to enter into the necessary licenses on acceptable terms, or at all, if any necessary licenses are subsequently terminated, if the licensors fail to abide by the terms of the license or fail to prevent infringement by third parties, or if the licensed patents or other rights are found to be invalid or unenforceable.

If we are unable to protect our intellectual property effectively, our business would be harmed.

We rely on patent protection as well as trademark, copyright, trade secret and other intellectual property rights protection and contractual restrictions to protect our proprietary technologies, all of which provide limited protection and may not adequately protect our rights or permit us to gain or keep any competitive advantage. If we fail to protect our intellectual property, third parties may be able to compete more effectively against us and we may incur substantial litigation costs in our attempts to recover or restrict use of our intellectual property.

We apply for and in-license patents covering our products and technologies and uses thereof, as we deem appropriate, however we may fail to apply for patents on important products and technologies in a timely fashion or at all, or we may fail to apply for patents in potentially relevant jurisdictions. Our issued patents expire between 2021 and 2038 and are related to methods used in thyroid diagnostics, lung diagnostics, breast cancer diagnostics, and the nCounter Analysis System.

It is possible that none of our pending patent applications will result in issued patents in a timely fashion or at all, and even if patents are granted, they may not provide a basis for intellectual property protection of commercially viable products, may not provide us with any competitive advantages, or may be challenged and invalidated by third parties. It is possible that others will design around our current or future patented technologies. We may not be successful in defending any challenges made against our patents or patent applications. Any successful third-party challenge to our patents could result in the unenforceability or invalidity of such patents and increased competition to our business. The outcome of patent litigation can be uncertain and any attempt by us to enforce our patent rights against others may not be successful, or, if successful, may take substantial time and result in substantial cost, and may divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business.

The patent positions of life sciences companies can be highly uncertain and involve complex legal and factual questions for which important legal principles remain unresolved. No consistent policy regarding the breadth of claims allowed in such companies’ patents has emerged to date in the United States or elsewhere. Courts frequently render opinions in the biotechnology field that may affect the patentability of certain inventions or discoveries, including opinions that may affect the patentability of methods for analyzing or comparing nucleic acids.

In particular, the patent positions of companies engaged in the development and commercialization of genomic diagnostic tests are particularly uncertain. Various courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have rendered decisions that affect the scope of patentability of certain inventions or discoveries relating to certain diagnostic tests and related methods. These decisions state, among other things, that patent claims that recite laws of nature (for example, the relationship between blood levels of certain metabolites and the likelihood that a dosage of a specific drug will be ineffective or cause harm) are not themselves patentable. What constitutes a law of nature is uncertain, and it is possible that certain aspects of genomic diagnostics tests would be considered natural laws. Accordingly, the evolving case law in the United States may adversely affect our ability to obtain patents and may facilitate third-party challenges to any owned and licensed patents.

The laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States, and we may encounter difficulties protecting and defending such rights in foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of many other countries do not favor the enforcement of patents and other intellectual property protection, particularly those relating to biotechnology, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents in such countries. Proceedings to enforce our patent rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial cost and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business.

Table of Contents

Changes in either the patent laws or in interpretations of patent laws in the United States or other countries may diminish the value of our intellectual property. We cannot predict the breadth of claims that may be allowed or enforced in our patents or in third-party patents. We may not develop additional proprietary products, methods and technologies that are patentable.

In addition to pursuing patents on our technology, we take steps to protect our intellectual property and proprietary technology by entering into agreements, including confidentiality agreements, non-disclosure agreements and intellectual property assignment agreements, with our employees, consultants, academic institutions, corporate partners and, when needed, our advisors. Such agreements may not be enforceable or may not provide meaningful protection for our trade secrets or other proprietary information in the event of unauthorized use or disclosure or other breaches of the agreements, and we may not be able to prevent such unauthorized disclosure. If we are required to assert our rights against such party, it could result in significant cost and distraction.

Monitoring unauthorized disclosure is difficult, and we do not know whether the steps we have taken to prevent such disclosure are, or will be, adequate. If we were to enforce a claim that a third-party had illegally obtained and was using our trade secrets, it would be expensive and time consuming, and the outcome would be unpredictable. In addition, courts outside the United States may be less willing to protect trade secrets.

We may also be subject to claims that our employees have inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed trade secrets or other proprietary information of their former employers, or to claims that we have improperly used or obtained such trade secrets. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. If we fail in defending such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights and face increased competition to our business. A loss of key research personnel work product could hamper or prevent our ability to commercialize potential products, which could harm our business. Even if we are successful in defending against these claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management.

Further, competitors could attempt to replicate some or all of the competitive advantages we derive from our development efforts, willfully infringe our intellectual property rights, design around our protected technology or develop their own competitive technologies that fall outside of our intellectual property rights. Others may independently develop similar or alternative products and technologies or replicate any of our products and technologies. If our intellectual property does not adequately protect us against competitors’ products and methods, our competitive position could be adversely affected, as could our business.

We have not registered certain of our trademarks in all of our potential geographic markets. If we apply to register these trademarks, our applications may not be allowed for registration in a timely fashion or at all, and our registered trademarks may not be maintained or enforced. In addition, opposition or cancellation proceedings may be filed against our trademark applications and registrations, and our trademarks may not survive such proceedings. If we do not secure registrations for our trademarks, we may encounter more difficulty in enforcing them against third parties than we otherwise would. If some other business in one of these markets already owns a trademark that is confusingly similar to one of our trademarks, we may be prohibited from entering that market under our trademark unless we re-brand our product in that location. Similarly, if we develop a new product line, there is no guaranty that one of our existing trademarks will be available as the brand for that new product line. Under those circumstances, we may incur the cost of developing a new trademark for this new product line.

To the extent our intellectual property offers inadequate protection, or is found to be invalid or unenforceable, we would be exposed to a greater risk of direct competition. If our intellectual property does not provide adequate coverage of our competitors’ products, our competitive position could be adversely affected, as could our business. Both the patent application process and the process of managing patent disputes can be time consuming and expensive.

We may be involved in litigation related to intellectual property, which could be time-intensive and costly and may adversely affect our business, operating results or financial condition.

We may receive notices of claims of direct or indirect infringement or misappropriation or misuse of other parties’ proprietary rights from time to time. Some of these claims may lead to litigation. We cannot assure you that we will prevail in such actions, or that other actions alleging misappropriation or misuse by us of third-party trade secrets, infringement by us of third-party patents and trademarks or other rights, or the validity of our patents, trademarks or other rights, will not be asserted or prosecuted against us.

Table of Contents

We might not have been the first to make the inventions covered by each of our pending patent applications and we might not have been the first to file patent applications for these inventions. To determine the priority of these inventions, we may have to participate in interference proceedings, derivation proceedings, or other post-grant proceedings declared by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office that could result in substantial cost to us. No assurance can be given that other patent applications will not have priority over our patent applications. In addition, recent changes to the patent laws of the United States allow for various post-grant opposition proceedings that have not been extensively tested, and their outcome is therefore uncertain. Furthermore, if third parties bring these proceedings against our patents, we could experience significant costs and management distraction.

Litigation may be necessary for us to enforce our patent and proprietary rights or to determine the scope, coverage and validity of the proprietary rights of others. The outcome of any litigation or other proceeding is inherently uncertain and might not be favorable to us, and we might not be able to obtain licenses to technology that we require on acceptable terms or at all. Further, we could encounter delays in product introductions, or interruptions in product sales, as we develop alternative methods or products. In addition, if we resort to legal proceedings to enforce our intellectual property rights or to determine the validity, scope and coverage of the intellectual property or other proprietary rights of others, the proceedings could be burdensome and expensive, even if we were to prevail. Any litigation that may be necessary in the future could result in substantial costs and diversion of resources and could have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results or financial condition.

As we move into new markets and applications for our products, incumbent participants in such markets may assert their patents and other proprietary rights against us as a means of slowing our entry into such markets or as a means to extract substantial license and royalty payments from us. Our competitors and others may now and, in the future, have significantly larger and more mature patent portfolios than we currently have. In addition, future litigation may involve patent holding companies or other adverse patent owners who have no relevant product revenue and against whom our own patents may provide little or no deterrence or protection. Therefore, our commercial success may depend in part on our non-infringement of the patents or proprietary rights of third parties. Numerous significant intellectual property issues have been litigated, and will likely continue to be litigated, between existing and new participants in our existing and targeted markets and competitors may assert that our products infringe their intellectual property rights as part of a business strategy to impede our successful entry into or growth in those markets. Third parties may assert that we are employing their proprietary technology without authorization. In addition, our competitors and others may have patents or may in the future obtain patents and claim that making, having made, using, selling, offering to sell or importing our products infringes these patents. We could incur substantial costs and divert the attention of our management and technical personnel in defending against any of these claims. Parties making claims against us may be able to obtain injunctive or other relief, which could block our ability to develop, commercialize and sell products, and could result in the award of substantial damages against us. In the event of a successful claim of infringement against us, we may be required to pay damages and ongoing royalties, and obtain one or more licenses from third parties, or be prohibited from selling certain products. We may not be able to obtain these licenses on acceptable terms, if at all. We could incur substantial costs related to royalty payments for licenses obtained from third parties, which could negatively affect our financial results. In addition, we could encounter delays in product introductions while we attempt to develop alternative methods or products to avoid infringing third-party patents or proprietary rights. Defense of any lawsuit or failure to obtain any of these licenses could prevent us from commercializing products, and the prohibition of sale of any of our products could materially affect our business and our ability to gain market acceptance for our products. With respect to trademarks, infringement litigation or threats of infringement litigation may require us to re-brand our product in order to enter into the new mark.

Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation. In addition, during the course of this kind of litigation, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments. If securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a substantial adverse effect on the price of our common stock.

In addition, our agreements with some of our customers, suppliers or other entities with whom we do business require us to defend or indemnify these parties to the extent they become involved in infringement claims, including the types of claims described above. We could also voluntarily agree to defend or indemnify third parties in instances where we are not obligated to do so if we determine it would be important to our business relationships. If we are required or agree to defend or indemnify third parties in connection with any infringement claims, we could incur significant costs and expenses that could adversely affect our business, operating results, or financial condition.

Table of Contents

Our ability to use our net operating loss carryforwards may be limited and may result in increased future tax liability to us.

VCYT US Equity

VCYT · 10-K · period ended 2020-12-31

ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS

VCYT US Equity☆

VCYT · 10-K · period ended 2020-12-31

ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS

VCYT US Equity