UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021

OR

FOR THE TRANSITION PERIOD FROM                      TO                      

Commission File Number: 001-36284

Biocept, Inc.

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its Charter)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (858) 320-8200

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 7(a)(2)(B) of the Securities Act.  ☐

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

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

The aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates of the Registrant, based on the closing price of the shares of common stock on The Nasdaq Stock Market on June 30, 2021, was $59,935,440.

The number of shares of Registrant’s Common Stock outstanding as of March 18, 2022 was 16,850,161.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CAUTIONARY NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Annual Report on Form 10-K, or Annual Report, contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. All statements included or incorporated by reference in this Annual Report other than statements of historical fact, are forward-looking statements. You can identify these and other forward-looking statements by the use of words such as “may,” “will,” “could,” “anticipate,” “expect,” “intend,” “believe,” “continue” or the negative of such terms, or other comparable terminology. Forward-looking statements also include the assumptions underlying or relating to such statements. In addition, statements that “we believe” and similar statements reflect our beliefs and opinions on the relevant subject. These statements are based upon information available to us as of the date of this Annual Report, and while we believe such information forms a reasonable basis for such statements, such information may be limited or incomplete, and our statements should not be read to indicate that we have conducted an exhaustive inquiry into, or review of, all potentially available relevant information. These statements are inherently uncertain and investors are cautioned not to unduly rely upon these statements.

Our actual results could differ materially from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements as a result of various factors, including those set forth below under the caption “Risk Factors” in Part I, Item 1A and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” in Part II, Item 7 of this Annual Report and elsewhere in this Annual Report. Moreover, we operate in an evolving environment. New risk factors and uncertainties emerge from time to time and it is not possible for us to predict all risk factors and uncertainties, nor can we assess the impact of all factors on our business or the extent to which any factor, or combination of factors, may cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in any forward-looking statements. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. The forward-looking statements speak only as of the date on which they are made and we undertake no obligation to update such statements to reflect events that occur or circumstances that exist after the date on which they are made except as required by law. Readers should, however, review the factors and risks we describe in this Annual Report and in the reports we subsequently file from time to time with the Securities and Exchange Commission, or the SEC.

2

RISK FACTOR SUMMARY

Below is a summary of the material factors that make an investment in our common stock speculative or risky. This summary does not address all of the risks that we face. Additional discussion of the risks summarized in this risk factor summary, and other risks that we face, can be found in this Annual Report on Form 10-K under the heading “Risk Factors” and should be carefully considered, together with other information in this Annual Report on Form 10-K and our other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission before making investment decisions regarding our common stock.

3

4

PART I

Item 1. Business

Overview

We are a molecular oncology diagnostics company that develops and commercializes proprietary clinical diagnostic laboratory assays designed to identify rare tumor cells and cell-free tumor DNA from blood and cerebrospinal fluid, or CSF.  The identification of tumor cells and cell-free tumor DNA in CSF has become our principal development focus following our early commercial expansion into CSF in 2020.  This product was branded and trademarked as CNSide^TM in April 2021.  

The identification of circulating tumor cells, or CTCs, and circulating cell-free tumor DNA and RNA, or ctDNA and ctRNA, deriving from solid tumors such as breast cancer or lung cancer using a standard blood sample has been described as a “liquid biopsy.” This term reflects the ease with which peripheral blood can be drawn compared to performing a surgical biopsy, but this technology is not limited to a peripheral blood approach.

In January 2020, we adapted and validated our proprietary blood-based liquid biopsy technology for commercial and clinical research use in CSF to identify tumor cells that have metastasized to the central nervous system, or CNS, in patients with advanced lung cancer or breast cancer. CNSide has been designed to improve the clinical management of patients with suspected metastatic cancer involving the CNS by enabling the quantitative analysis and molecular characterization of tumor cells and ctDNA and ctRNA in the CSF.  Since then, we have worked extensively with leading neuro-oncologists and other cancer experts to further define and characterize the use of this unique assay.

Our efforts have culminated in the presentation of our early clinical experience at several leading academic forums, including most recently the Society of Neuro-Oncology, or SNO, Brain Metastases meeting in August 2021, as well as the Annual Society of Neuro-Oncology meeting in November 2021 and the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, or SABCS, in December 2021. We believe these presentations have illustrated the feasibility of this assay to inform three critical questions important for the care of patients with suspected or confirmed metastatic cancer involving the CNS:  Is there tumor (diagnosis)?  Is there target (presence of a biomarker to aid treatment selection)?  Is there trend (a response to therapy)?

The question “Is there tumor?” is essential for the diagnostic work-up of these patients.  Tumor cells in the blood can shed from either primary or metastatic tumors.  They can be rapidly removed in the capillary beds of the spleen, liver, kidneys, lungs and other organs, so they are rarely found.  They are the defining feature of metastasis to the leptomeningeal space within the CNS and hence define the presence or absence of leptomeningeal metastasis, or LM.  To distinguish tumor cells derived from CSF and blood we often refer to tumor cells in CSF as CSF Tumor Cells, or CSFTCs, rather than CTCs.

Regarding the second clinical question, “Is there target?” our CNSide assay provides a vehicle for several different diagnostic assay profiles which combined with our molecular test menu can identify tumor cell biomarkers that are intended to help physicians make decisions related to the evolution or course of metastatic tumor that may inform treatment decisions.  Cancer cells typically acquire genetic alterations which differ from that of normal cells.  Metastatic cancers often acquire additional genetic alterations which distinguish them from the primary tumor site.  This marked genetic variation between areas of tumor growth is termed “genetic heterogeneity,” and findings related to this were featured in our SABCS presentation in December 2021 illustrating the value of CNSide in identifying “genetic heterogeneity” of a targetable biomarker called HER2.  

Finally, regarding the third clinical question, “Is there trend?” over the past year we have gained considerable experience with cases that had been sampled multiple times over the course of a patient’s treatment.  The association of quantitative CSF tumor cell counts with response to treatment has been noted in both lung and breast cancer, as well as other tumors examined.  In August 2021, at the SNO Brain Metastases meeting, we presented data obtained from a single institution experience showing how serial monitoring of CSFTCs by CNSide was used to determine the response to treatment in patients with Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer having LM.  In addition, in November 2021 at SNO, we presented the early findings of several patients with breast cancer having LM which had been followed with multiple CSF samples drawn at different time points on each patient.  The downward progression of tumor cell counts has been noted by several treating physicians to correlate with response to treatment and resolution of symptoms. Serial monitoring of genetic alterations present in CSF tumor cells may create opportunities to change the therapy of certain patients throughout treatment.  These observations presented in abstracts and

5

poster presentations in 2021 have informed our clinical study strategy which is the basis for our 2022 efforts to further explore these observations in a prospective clinical trial.

COVID-19 Pandemic Response Summary

In June 2020, to respond to a national public health emergency precipitated by the COVID-19 pandemic, we introduced molecular testing for SARS-CoV2, the virus responsible for COVID-19, using a United States Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, Emergency Use Authorization, or EUA, based “RT-PCR” method developed by Thermo-Fisher.

In November 2021, we launched a combined COVID-19/Influenza A/Influenza B assay manufactured by Thermo-Fisher which broadened our assay menu to meet the rising demand related to winter testing with emergence of new COVID-19 variants such as Delta (summer 2021) and Omicron (fall/winter 2021-22).

Since launch of our COVID-19 testing program, we have performed more than 800,000 assays for customers.  We have primarily marketed our COVID-19 testing services to skilled nursing facilities in the western United States and also to certain community colleges within California

Our COVID-19 testing services were responsible for most of our revenues during 2020 and 2021. However, as a result of increased vaccination and immunization levels, as well as decreased  COVID-19 hospitalizations, reported cases and mandatory COVID-19 testing, we are currently seeing reduced demand for our COVID-19 testing services and expect this trend to continue absent a negative and sustained turn in the course of the pandemic.

Additional Oncology Testing Services

In addition to CNSide, our current blood-based testing includes our Target Selector^TM technologies which enable detection of specific gene mutations, such as EGFR, KRAS or BRAF, in cell-free ctDNA from blood samples, as well as specific protein and gene alterations, such as HER2 amplification, in CTCs isolated from blood.  We believe our multi-modality combination of a proprietary cell capture and analysis method with a proprietary cell-free tumor DNA approach provides both high-sensitivity and specificity and is applicable to a broad range of diagnostic applications in patients with metastatic carcinoma.

In January 2019, we began offering research use only, or RUO, liquid biopsy kits containing our patented and proprietary ctDNA Target Selector molecular (PCR-based) testing for certain specific cancer genes to laboratories and researchers worldwide. In March 2020, we released an update for our RUO EGFR Target Selector Kit which expanded the sample types validated to include both ctDNA in peripheral blood and formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded, or FFPE.  In March 2020, we also released a RUO BRAF Target Selector assay kit  validated for both ctDNA and FFPE.

At our corporate headquarters facility located in San Diego, California, we operate a clinical laboratory that is CLIA-certified, CAP accredited and licensed by the California Department of Public Health. In this facility we also develop novel assays that are part of our project pipeline for future commercial launch and we manufacture our microfluidic channels and various assay reagents and products used in our testing processes.  We also work closely with external manufacturers to outsource certain products such as collection tubes and to manufacture items that we intend to use in the near future to reduce costs and improve efficiency.

The assays we offer and intend to offer are classified as CLIA laboratory developed tests, or LDTs, under CLIA regulations. CLIA certification and state licensure in California and certain other states under the supervision of a qualified laboratory medical director is required before any clinical laboratory, including ours, may perform testing on human specimens for the purpose of obtaining information for the diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of disease or the assessment of health. In addition, we participate in and have received CAP accreditation, which includes rigorous bi-annual laboratory inspections and requires adherence to specific quality standards.

Commercial Strategy

Our primary sales strategy is to engage neuro-oncologists, oncologists and other physicians in the United States at private and group practices, hospitals, laboratories and cancer centers to educate them about our unique products and services.  In addition, we market our clinical trial and research services to pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical companies and clinical research

6

organizations.  We also market and sell molecular assay kits which enable laboratories other than Biocept to perform our testing in house. Sales of these kits began in the first quarter of 2019. Further, sales to laboratory supply distributors of our proprietary specimen collection tubes, or SCTs, commenced in June 2018, which allow for the intact transport of liquid biopsy samples for research use only from regions around the world.

           Our revenue generating efforts are focused in the following areas:

We plan to grow our business by directly offering our CNSide and Target Selector liquid biopsy CTC and molecular assays to neuro-oncologists, oncologists and other physicians or heath care providers who treat patients with cancer. Based on our product development data, as well as discussions with our key collaborators, we believe that our planned future assays, particularly those related to CSF, should provide important information and clinical value to physicians.  

We believe our ability to rapidly translate insights about the utility of cytogenetic, immunocytochemical and molecular biomarkers to provide information to neuro-oncologists, oncologists and other physicians for treatment decisions in the clinical setting will improve patient treatment and management, and that these assays will become a key component of the standard of care for personalized cancer treatment.

Market Overview

Cancer Market Overview

Despite many advances in the treatment of cancer, it remains one of the greatest areas of unmet medical need. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the incidence of new cancer cases reported in United States was 1,708,921 in 2018, and 599,265 people died from cancer. According to the World Health Organization, or WHO, female breast cancer surpassed lung cancer as the most commonly diagnosed cancer (11.7% and 11.4% respectively), followed by colorectal (10%), prostate (7.3%), and stomach (5.6%) cancer.  Lung cancer remained the leading cause of cancer death in 2020, followed by colorectal (9.4%), liver (8.3%, stomach (7.7%) and female breast (6.9%) cancer. The incidence of, and deaths caused by, the major cancers are staggering, with over 3.9 million patients who have had a diagnosis of these cancers and are either living with these diseases and are undergoing treatment or are being monitored. For example, in breast cancer, many women have been deemed cancer-free, but continue to undergo periodic monitoring to assure there has been no disease recurrence. In addition to the human toll, the financial cost of cancer is overwhelming. An independent study published in 2010 and conducted jointly by the WHO ranked cancer as the most economically devastating cause of death in the world - estimated to be as high as $1.1 trillion globally. According to the National Cancer Institute, the direct cost of cancer care in the United States in 2030 is forecasted to be $246.0 billion.

Metastatic Brain Cancer Overview

Metastasis of cancers to the CNS (brain and spinal cord) constitutes a major complication of malignant disease associated with significant clinical symptoms and poor outcomes.  

Wen et al (ONCOLOGY 13(7):961, 1999) estimated that brain metastases will develop in 10% to 30% of adults and 6% to 10% of children with cancer. Most frequently, CNS metastasis occurs in tumors of the lung, breast, and melanoma, but also tumors of the gastro-esophageal junction, pancreas, biliary system, ovaries and head and neck, amongst many others.  Certain subtypes of these solid tumors, such as triple negative breast cancer, HER2 positive breast cancer, small cell lung cancer, EGFR mutated non-small cell lung cancer and invasive BRAF positive melanoma are most likely to reach the CNS typically causing significant morbidity and subsequent mortality within a short period of time.

7

Several types of brain metastasis occur, most typically involving the brain parenchyma and forming a solid lesion that is visible on radiologic studies such as MRI.  Other sites of metastasis such as in the leptomeninges, a membranous lining around the brain, are more subtle and difficult to diagnose.  LM, also known as leptomeningeal disease , or LMD, is usually diagnosed with a combination of clinical evaluation (symptoms), radiology (MRI or CT) and cytology (examination of CSF under the microscope by a pathologist).

A recently completed large scale, quantitative market research project commissioned by us and conducted by a third-party organization concluded that the total addressable market for the CNSide assay is estimated to be $1.2 billion annually in the United States, with a $415.0 million opportunity in LM, and $744.0 million in parenchymal brain metastasis. This research included a survey of 150 randomly sampled U.S.-based medical oncologists as well as an exhaustive literature review to orthogonally assess the number of patients for whom CNSide would be clinically appropriate. From this effort, we estimated the total worldwide addressable market for CNSide is in excess of $2.0 billion, annually.

Procedural approach to metastatic cancers in the CNS

Our CNSide assay can be performed on a CSF sample obtained either by “lumbar puncture” or via an intraventricular catheter inserted into one of the lateral ventricles of the brain.  These catheters are commonly known as an Ommaya reservoir.  

With easy access to the CSF from an Ommaya reservoir, these samples may be obtained many times over the course of a patient’s treatment for LM. Innovative methods of treating LM have significantly improved expected survival for many of these patients with survival of a year or more often achieved in patients who would otherwise die within a few weeks if untreated.  These may be performed at various times over the course of a patient’s life with cancer to help manage these patients.  

Clinical need for CNSide

Diagnosing metastasis in the CNS, supporting the selection of an appropriate treatment, and establishing treatment response all require identification of tumor cells in the CSF at multiple time points during a patient’s illness. Clinical urgency may also require the evaluation of CSF to avoid the need for surgical biopsy. It is often necessary to perform repeated sampling of the CSF to establish a diagnosis of metastases due to the use of less sensitive, conventional techniques such as cytology.  At the time of progression or recurrence there may be insufficient time and/or an urgent or precarious clinical status which does not favor a surgical approach to obtain diagnostic material. Additionally, many studies have shown that cancers frequently mutate during the course of treatment as cancer progresses, so genomic information from the initial tumor tissue may not be able to best inform later treatment decisions at the time of metastasis. We believe CNSide can be particularly advantageous when the patient has advanced disease and brain metastasis but is not a good candidate for surgery or other invasive diagnostic methods such as CT guided needle biopsy.

Cancer is a Heterogeneous Disease

Cancer constitutes a heterogeneous class of diseases, characterized by uncontrolled cell growth that results from a combination of both environmental and hereditary risk factors. Many different tissue types can become malignant, such as breast, lung, liver, and skin, and even within a particular tumor there is heterogeneity, with certain cancer cells in a patient bearing specific cellular or genetic biomarkers which others lack. Only in recent years has technology progressed sufficiently to enable researchers to understand many cancers at a cellular and molecular level, attribute specific cancers to associated genetic changes, and determine the extent to which these changes are seen in a patient’s tumor.

Cancer cells contain genetic alterations compared to normal human cells. Common genetic abnormalities correlated to cancer include gains or losses of genetic material on specific chromosomal regions, or loci, or changes in specific genes, or mutations, which ultimately result in detrimental cellular changes followed by cancerous or pre-cancerous conditions. For example, multiple gains or losses on various chromosomes, and the rearrangement of genetic material among chromosomes, or chromosomal translocations, have been observed in different cancer types, such as HER2 in breast cancer and anaplastic lymphoma kinase, or ALK, rearrangements in non-small cell lung cancer, or NSCLC. In addition, mutations within gene sequences, or single nucleotide variations, can give rise to aberrant proteins that do not perform their functions correctly, leading to uncontrolled cell growth. Such genetic alterations can be a result of multiple factors, including genetic predisposition, environmental or lifestyle factors or viral infections. Importantly, these genetic changes or aberrant proteins can be used as biomarkers to help guide appropriate treatment. Detecting these biomarkers, particularly those representing drug targets, or those indicative of responsiveness or resistance of a tumor’s cells to specific therapies, helps clinicians to select drugs, design

8

treatment regimens and optimize patient care and management. Assays that provide such predictive information have the potential to dramatically improve treatment outcomes for patients suffering from cancer.

Limitations of Traditional Cancer Diagnostic and Profiling Approaches

Cancer is difficult to diagnose and manage due to its heterogeneity at morphologic, genetic and clinical levels. Traditional methods of diagnosis for solid tumors, routinely used as the initial step in cancer detection, involve a tissue biopsy followed by a pathologist examining a thin slice of potentially cancerous tissue under a microscope. A recently obtained tissue sample is used in combination with chemical staining techniques to enable analysis of the biopsy. After staining, the pathologist determines through visual inspection whether the biopsy contains normal or cancerous cells, with those that are deemed cancerous being graded on a level of aggressiveness. Often an analysis of biomarkers relevant to that tumor type is also performed on the tissue, ranging from immunohistochemistry, or IHC, to fluorescence in situ hybridization, or FISH, to mutation analysis by various means such as microarrays and sequencing. After the diagnosis, a clinical workup is performed according to established guidelines for the specific cancer type. From there, the physician determines the stage of progression of the cancer based on a series of clinical measures, such as size, grade, metastasis risk, symptoms and patient history, and decides on a treatment plan that may include surgery, watchful waiting, radiation, chemotherapy, or stem cell transplantation.

This type of analysis is dependent on the availability of a recently obtained tissue biopsy for the pathologist to analyze. Such a biopsy is often not available. A tumor may not be readily accessible for biopsy, a patient’s condition may be such that a biopsy is not advised, and for routine periodic patient monitoring to evaluate potential progression or recurrence, a biopsy is a fairly invasive procedure and not typically performed. As the length of time between when the original biopsy, diagnosis or surgery is conducted to the current evaluation of the patient increases, the likelihood that an original biopsy specimen is truly representative of the current disease condition declines, as does the usefulness of the original biopsy for making treatment decisions. This risk intensifies in situations where a drug therapy is being administered, because the drug can put selective pressure on the tumor cells to adapt and change.

Similarly, the heterogeneity referred to above means that different parts or areas of the same tumor can have different molecular features or properties. In evaluating a biopsy specimen, the pathologist will take a few thin slices of the tumor for microscopic review rather than exhaustively analyzing the whole tumor mass. The pathologist can only report on the tumor sections analyzed and if other parts of the tumor have different features, such as biomarkers corresponding to specific treatments, they can be missed. A more representative analysis of the entire tumor, as well as any metastases if they are present, is very helpful.

CTCs, ctDNA, ctRNA and Cancer

CTCs are cancer cells that have detached from the tumor matrix and entered the patient’s blood or other bodily fluids. These cells are representative of the tumor and its metastases and can function as their surrogates. Testing CTCs or tumor cells in the CSF can complement pathologic information drawn from a biopsy or resected tissue sample, helping to ensure that the analysis is comprehensive and not biased by tumor heterogeneity and sampling issues. They can also provide critical data when a biopsy is not possible. Clinical studies have demonstrated that the presence and number of CTCs in blood provides information on the likely course of certain types of disease for the cancer patient, or in other words they are considered “prognostic.” Since CTCs in blood and tumor cells in CSF are representative of the tumor, they can also be used for biomarker analysis, such as helping to guide therapy selection. Such analyses are “predictive” in that they offer insight into the likely responsiveness or resistance to particular therapies. After surgery and during any subsequent therapy or monitoring period, blood samples can periodically be drawn in a standard manner and analyzed to evaluate a therapy’s continuing effectiveness, as well as to detect other biomarkers such as new genetic mutations that may arise as a result of selection pressure by a particular therapy or by chance. Physicians can use this information to determine which therapy is most likely to benefit their patients at particular times through the course of their disease. Treatment decisions based on patient-specific information are the foundation of personalized medicine, and assays that guide a physician in the selection of individualized therapy for a patient are termed “predictive assays.”

ctDNA and ctRNA are nucleic acids that are released into blood by dying tumor cells. Cell death occurs in all tissues, especially those that are rapidly dividing, and in cancer, where cell growth is not only rapid but also uncontrolled. Parts of tumors often outgrow their blood supply, resulting in cell death. Tumor cells dying as a result of therapy also release nucleic acid into blood. As a consequence, ctDNA is common in cancer patients and scientists believe that like CTCs, it may be more representative of a patient’s entire tumor than a few thin sections from a tissue biopsy, thus reducing the heterogeneity problem. ctDNA is found in the plasma component of blood and is readily accessible in a standard blood sample. Analyzing ctDNA for mutations that are used as biomarkers for therapy selection shows great promise. One of the strengths of this approach, in addition to not

9

requiring a tissue biopsy, is that it is not dependent on capturing rare tumor cells from blood to provide a sample for testing. The difficulty with this approach is that the cellular context is lost since the ctDNA is mixed with a much larger amount of circulating DNA from normal cells that are continuously dying and being replaced in the body, thus making analysis challenging. This requires a mutation detection methodology with enhanced sensitivity and specificity, to distinguish mutations in particular gene regions in cancer cells from the normal gene sequence present in those same genes in normal cells which co-exist in blood as normal cells die and are replaced in the body. Our Target Selector technology provides this necessary sensitivity and specificity and creates an opportunity for ctDNA analysis to complement CTC analysis, or potentially to serve as the platform for stand-alone assays.

Given the incidence of cancer in the United States, with an estimated 1.8 million new cases in 2020 for the major solid tumors targeted by our current and planned future assay products, the markets for our diagnostic assays are very large. Furthermore, these market opportunities are enhanced due to the benefits of CTC and ctDNA testing, including not only the ability to offer physicians a simple way to augment an initial tumor biopsy analysis but also to provide a means for relatively frequent monitoring of the tumor’s molecular status, utilizing a standard blood or other fluid sample such as CSF as a “liquid biopsy.” The latter application enables the physician to determine if or how a tumor is changing over time or is responding to therapy and what the next treatment should be. For example, in the United States, the American Cancer Society estimates there will be approximately 340,000 new cases of breast cancer alone diagnosed in the United States in 2022 and the prevalence of this disease is over 3.8 million (the number of women with a history of breast cancer in the United States, including women being treated and women who have finished treatment). If a CTC assay were performed at the time of initial diagnosis, at the time of surgery, or in lieu of, or as an adjunct to, a PET/CT scan (as a CTC assay has the potential to identify a single tumor cell in a blood sample, while a scan requires a tumor mass of millions of cells to be detectable), to monitor disease progression or test for recurrence, thousands of assays, in breast cancer alone, could be performed per year with still relatively low market penetration.

Use of CTC- and ctDNA-Derived Biomarker Data in Cancer Treatment

CTCs and ctDNA are derived from, and are understood to be representative of, a solid tumor and its metastases and can be analyzed as adjuncts to or in place of the tumor, especially when a recent tumor biopsy is not available. This is also referred to as a liquid biopsy. In theory, almost any analysis that can be performed on tumor tissue can also be performed on CTCs, or tumor cells in CSF, while ctDNA in blood or CSF, because it is only nucleic acid, is more limited. We have focused our analysis of CTCs and ctDNA in blood and tumor cells and ctDNA in CSF on known biomarkers associated with specific therapies to support treatment decisions and therapy selection made by physicians. The biomarkers we analyze consist of proteins or protein modifications that can be identified by immunocytochemical means, cytogenetic or chromosomal aberrations, which are detected by FISH. Gene expression changes or molecular alterations in CTCs or ctDNA are often detected by molecular diagnostic assays, including Target Selector techniques such as immunocytochemical, or ICC, FISH and gene sequencing. Specific examples include (i) for ICC, the detection of the estrogen receptor protein in breast cancer, indicative of the likely responsiveness to hormonal therapies like tamoxifen, often sold under the trade name Nolvadex^®, (ii) for FISH, the presence of an amplified HER2 gene in breast cancer, indicative of the likely responsiveness to HER2-targeted agents like trastuzumab, often sold under the trade name Herceptin^®, and (iii) for mutation detection, the presence of an EGFR activating mutation in NSCLC like L858R, indicative of the likely responsiveness to EGFR-targeted agents like Erlotinib^®. All of these biomarkers are currently tested on tumor tissue and can be tested on CTCs in blood or tumor cells in the CSF, and in the latter case on ctDNA. The resulting information could then be used to guide patient care, and specifically treatment selection.

To date, these types of molecular and genetic detection methods have been successfully utilized to provide predictive information for several cancers including breast, colon, NSCLC, melanoma and others in the form of companion diagnostics, typically performed on tumor tissue. CTC and ctDNA assays, which analyze the same biomarkers in a more convenient standard blood sample test that also permits periodic monitoring, could be used in the same way.  In CSF, we are using similar methods to analyze tumor biomarkers and cell counts over the course of treatment, which we consider a prototypic form of quantitative and genetic treatment response monitoring for patients with CNS metastasis (see abstracts presented at SNO Brain Metastasis meeting in August 2021 and SNO annual meeting in November 2021).

Our Business Strategy

We provide neuro-oncologists, oncologists and other physicians and health care providers that treat cancer with a means to profile and characterize the genomic alterations of their patients’ tumors by analyzing tumor cells and ctDNA found in standard blood draws or CSF obtained by lumbar puncture or through an Ommaya reservoir, avoiding the need for surgical tissue biopsy or other more inconvenient or invasive methods.  Our assays are designed to address three principal clinical questions:

10

Is there tumor? We believe that our technology, which provides information on the presence of CTCs in blood and tumor cells in the CSF can be used to diagnose the progression of disease, in particular, tumor cells in the CSF can be used to confirm suspected CNS metastasis of lung or breast cancer.  

Is there target? Our technology can be used to assess molecular biomarkers in tumor cells or ctDNA, that can provide information to physicians to help guide the selection of more effective targeted therapies where available.

Is there trend? Our CSF tumor cell assays can be used to follow the response to therapy, by providing a more sensitive and quantitative measure of tumor burden than other methods such as CSF cytology or radiologic imaging.

Our goal is to become the standard of care for cancer patients with advanced disease.  Our approach is to develop and commercialize CTC and ctDNA assays and services that enable us to offer actionable information from a standard blood or CSF sample for a range of solid tumor types so that oncologists can make treatment decisions which improve patient care. To achieve this, we intend to:

11

Our Competitive Advantages

We believe that the competitive advantages of our molecular assays, including our assays which are still under development, would include the following.

12

Our Assays, Products and Services

Assays, Products and Services

We currently offer and conduct our commercialized diagnostic assays and offer our clinical trial services at our CLIA-certified, CAP-accredited and California state-licensed laboratory. We have commercialized our CNSide and Target Selector assays for detecting and characterizing many different “carcinomas” derived from epithelial cells of solid organs such as: breast cancer, NSCLC, gastric cancer, colorectal cancer, prostate cancer, pancreaticobiliary cancer, and ovarian cancer. These assays utilize our dual cellular and ctDNA and ctRNA technology platforms and provide biomarker analysis from a patient’s blood sample. In addition, we launched RT-PCR COVID-19 testing at our laboratory during the second quarter of 2020.

Our current assays and clinical trial services include:

In the case of our breast and gastric cancer offerings, biomarker analysis involves FISH for the detection and quantitation of the HER2 gene copy number as well as ICC techniques for the analysis of estrogen receptor, or ER, protein, progesterone

13

receptor, or PR, protein, in breast cancer and androgen receptor, or AR, protein in prostate cancer.  All of these tests are currently available commercially. We have also validated and offer Next Generation Sequencing, or NGS, assays for use in lung and breast cancer, or for the detection of mutations seen in the cell-free DNA or other tumor types. A patient’s HER2 status provides the physician with information about the appropriateness of therapies such as Herceptin® or Tykerb®. ER and PR status provides the physician with information about the appropriateness of endocrine therapies such as tamoxifen and aromatase inhibitors.

Our lung cancer biomarker analysis offering currently includes FISH testing for other tumor biomarkers such as ALK, ROS1, RET, MET and fibroblast growth receptor 1, or FGFR1, gene rearrangements, as well as analysis for the T790M, Deletion 19, and L858R mutations of EGFR, as well as BRAF and KRAS. The L858R mutation of the EGFR gene and Exon 19 deletions as activators of EGFR kinase activity.  For lung cancer, we also offer a resistance profile assay consisting of the biomarkers MET, HER2 (both of which we perform using our technology for CTCs), KRAS, and T790M (both of which are performed using ctDNA in plasma). These assays can be used by physicians to identify the mechanism causing disease progression for patients with NSCLC who are being treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitor, or TKI, therapy and therefore may qualify patients for inclusion in a clinical trial. We have also validated and offer a NGS assay for use in NSCLC.

FGFR1 amplification is offered by FISH on our cell-based assays. FGFR1 is present in several tumor types, including both NSCLC and small cell lung cancer, or SCLC, and has been shown to be a prognostic indicator of progression. FGFR1 is also a key target for several drugs undergoing clinical development.

We analytically validated PD-L1 testing utilizing our CTC technology in 2016. PD-L1 is a biomarker that is informative for immuno-oncology therapies currently marketed for lung cancer and melanoma, as well as therapies in development for other tumor types. We collaborated with David Rimm, M.D., Ph.D., a pathologist at Yale Medical School and a scientific advisor to us, on the analytical development of this assay.

In August 2017, we announced that we had executed a distribution agreement for our proprietary SCTs with VWR International, LLC which can preserve intact cells (such as CTCs) for up to 96 hours and ctDNA for up to 8 days, allowing for the intact transport of RUO liquid biopsy samples from regions around the world.

We intend to continue to commercialize cancer diagnostic assays in the United States as LDTs performed in our CLIA-certified, CAP-accredited, and state-licensed laboratory. We plan to evaluate potential opportunities for the commercialization of our products in other countries. We believe the Target Selector technology can be used for molecular biomarker screening, marketed as RUO test kits.

We launched the first of our RUO Target Selector kit products, ctDNA EGFR, in January 2019. Additionally, we plan to evaluate opportunities for licensing of our products and proprietary technologies to partners in the United States and abroad.

We launched our RT-PCR COVID-19 testing business during the second quarter of 2020. We have received more than 800,000 samples for processing through our RT-PCR technology at our laboratory through the date of filing.  We are currently seeing reduced demand for our COVID-19 testing services and expect this trend to continue absent a negative and sustained turn in the course of the pandemic.

In December 2018, we entered into a Software License and Laboratory Data Supply Agreement with Prognos, Inc., or Prognos, an innovator in predicting disease by applying artificial intelligence, or AI, to clinical laboratory diagnostics. Under the agreement, we will supply de-identified data from our liquid biopsy testing to Prognos, which will leverage its AI capabilities to help its pharmaceutical clients ensure that the right patients receive the right therapies.  Since the agreement went into effect, we have received quarterly revenue sharing payments.

In May 2019, we announced the launch of the Target Selector NGS lung cancer panel. We are working to gain payment for our assay with Palmetto GBA, LLC, or Palmetto, which is contracted with Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, to administer the Molecular Diagnostic Services, or MolDx, to vet new technologies and assays. This means that they must determine that our test is reasonable and necessary for the care of patients diagnosed with late-stage NSCLC.  This is the first step in gaining reimbursement for a proprietary test, and we are in the process of negotiating coding and pricing. Once that is finalized, Noridian Healthcare Solutions, LLC, or Noridian, the Medicare carrier for our region, must review and accept the recommendation for payment from Palmetto.  If they agree with the recommendation from Palmetto MolDx, then Noridian

14

will adopt the payment and reimbursement recommendation or develop their own, and we can then receive payment from Medicare for our lung cancer panel.

In June 2019, we announced launch of the Target Selector NGS breast cancer panel, a multi-gene liquid biopsy panel specifically developed for breast cancer. This panel is being marketed to physicians and cancer researchers for the detection and monitoring of actionable genomic biomarkers associated with breast cancer.

In November 2019, we announced launch of our liquid biopsy test to detect the pan-tyrosine receptor kinase, or TRK, protein biomarker in the blood of patients diagnosed with cancer.  Identification of TRK protein enables physicians to rapidly and cost-effectively identify the potential presence of neurotrophic tyrosine receptor kinase, or NTRK, fusions used to inform on treatment options. We have subsequently launched FISH assays for NTRK1 and NTRK3 fusion genes in our cell-based assays to accompany and/or substitute for the TRK protein assay.

In April 2020, we announced the availability of RUO kits that can allow molecular laboratories around the world to utilize Biocept’s Target Selector molecular assay kits to detect key oncogene mutations through the analysis of both Formalin-Fixed Paraffin-Embedded, or FFPE, tissue gained from surgical biopsies as well as ctDNA gained from blood-based liquid biopsies.  In addition, we announced the award of Conformité Européene-IVD Mark, or CE-IVD Mark, for European and global ex-US distribution of our Target Selector molecular assay EGFR kit and CEE-Sure SCTs where applicable.

In May 2020, we announced the availability of a Target Selector molecular assay RUO kit for the detection of BRAF mutations in ctDNA and FFPE samples.

We launched our RT-PCR COVID-19 testing business during the second quarter of 2020 and have received more than 800,000 samples for processing through our RT-PCR technology at our laboratory to date.  We are currently seeing reduced demand for our COVID-19 testing services and expect this trend to continue absent a negative and sustained turn in the course of the pandemic.

In April 2021, we announced full commercial launch of our CNSide cerebrospinal fluid assay to address unmet needs of patients with metastatic brain cancer. The CNSide cerebrospinal fluid assay is designed to detect and manage treatment of metastatic cancers involving the CNS.

In June 2021, we announced a collaboration with Quest Diagnostics, or Quest to provide laboratory testing services to Quest patients using our Target Selector NGS-based liquid biopsy targeted lung cancer panel. Quest is the leading provider of diagnostic information services, including advanced diagnostics.  Quest launched the test on December 15, 2021.

In July 2021, we received a positive final Local Coverage Determination that expands Medicare coverage for use of our Target Selector assay to identify the HER2 biomarker from CTCs. This coverage determination from the CMS Molecular Diagnostics Program (MolDX®) was effective July 4, 2021.

Pharmaceutical, Research and Health Economic Collaborations

We continue to execute on our strategies intended to expand our business globally, as well as to engage with pharmaceutical companies on clinical trials and assay development. We have preferred provider agreements in place in Mexico with Quest to support testing for AstraZeneca.

With our cooperation, researchers at Columbia University published a study in the journal Clinical and Translational Oncology in January 2015. The study demonstrated the high correlation (79%) of circulating tumor cells, primary tumor tissue biopsy and metastatic tumor tissue biopsy in the determination of hormone receptor status, or ER/PR, of breast cancer patients. The investigators also found that this high correlation was strongest when comparing metastatic tissue biopsy to CTCs (83%). The conclusion of the study was that determining ER/PR status in CTCs using our platform is feasible, with high concordance in ER/PR between tumor tissue (as determined with IHC) and CTCs (as determined with ICC). The authors suggest a larger trial to determine the prognostic significance of these findings.

In September 2015, we presented the clinical validation data of our ctDNA assay in collaboration with the University of California, San Diego.  The results demonstrated a very high level of concordance to tissue results (88%), together with >95%

15

analytical sensitivity and 99% analytical specificity, supporting our offering of a validated, robust non-invasive solution for mutation identification and monitoring in patients with lung cancer. Subsequent FDA approval of Tagrisso^®, a third-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor, presented an opportunity for patients to be monitored using a ctDNA and ctRNA assay.

In April 2016, we announced a study collaboration with Dr. Giuseppe Giaccone at the MedStar Georgetown University Hospital to assess resistance biomarkers in NSCLC patients treated with EGFR inhibitors or chemotherapy. Later in 2016, we announced another collaboration involving a study presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology Annual Congress in October 2016, evaluating the detection of EGFR alterations (del19, L858R and T790M) by our Target Selector liquid biopsy. Subsequent to this study, we have earned business in both Mexico and Columbia for EGFR gene mutation testing in blood to qualify patients for a pharmaceutical company’s targeted therapy. The relationship also resulted in a study initiated during the following year that includes peripheral blood CTC assessment of PD-L1 protein expression in patients undergoing chemotherapy as a monotherapy or in combination with a checkpoint inhibitor.

In December 2016, we announced a clinical study agreement with Columbia University Medical Center to evaluate the clinical utility of our Target Selector platform to diagnose LM in breast cancer patients. This work was expanded in the fourth quarter of 2018 to include patients with other primary solid tumor types. Dr. Kevin Kalinsky leads this study to test CTCs in CSF and blood where CTC analysis will be compared to standard methods for confirming LM diagnosis. In September 2020, Dr. Kalinsky moved to Emory University in Atlanta, but his work with Columbia University on this project continues.

In May 2017, we entered into a clinical study agreement with the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center. Led by recognized oncologist and ALK alteration researcher, Dr. Saad Khan, the study is designed to evaluate the clinical utility of our Target Selector platform for patients diagnosed with ALK-positive NSCLC and treated with ALK-inhibitor therapy. A second arm of the study evaluated patients with rare cancers such as anaplastic thyroid cancer to determine if genetic drivers such as ALK gene rearrangements can be identified and treated with targeted therapy to improve patient outcomes.

Two complementary posters on the highly sensitive Target Selector ctDNA assays were presented in 2018. The first poster entitled “Biocept Study Shows Incorporation of Thermo Fisher QuantStudio 5 PCR Instrument into Target Selector Platform Improves Sensitivity and Specificity in Detection of Lung Cancer Biomarkers” was presented in January 2018 at the Fifth AACR-IASLC International Joint Conference: Lung Cancer Translational Science from the Bench to the Clinic. The related poster, entitled “Validation of highly sensitive TargetSelector ctDNA assays for EGFR, BRAF, and KRAS mutations” was presented at the April 2018 American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting. Together, these posters highlight improvements to the Target Selector ctDNA platform, enabling more sensitive mutation detection down to a single copy, thereby increasing the likelihood of identifying actionable molecular drivers towards guiding targeted therapy decisions and better management of a patient’s cancer.

In collaboration with Dr. Shilpa Gupta from the Masonic Cancer Center at the University of Minnesota, a poster was presented at the April 2018 American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting. The results demonstrated proof-of-concept use of our Target Selector CTC platform, correlating CTC count with clinical responses in refractory testicular cancer patients undergoing therapy. This work is part of a Phase 2 clinical trial of brentuximab vedontin (an anti-CD-30 antibody) with bevacizumab in refractory CD-30 + germ cell tumors. The capability for our Target Selector CTC platform to monitor this rare cancer type presents the potential for a precision medicine-based approach to guide treatment decisions for these patients.

During the first half of 2018, three key case studies were published in peer-reviewed journals. In April, the 2018 Spring issue of Oncology & Hematology Review featured a case report demonstrating the clinical utility of our CTC platform whereby identification of an ALK rearrangement enabled sequential targeted therapy and improved quality of life in a patient with NSCLC.  This case illustrated the use of our technology to monitor therapeutic response and early detection of drug resistance to manage patient disease through the course of treatment with various ALK inhibitors. A Letter to the Editor in the May 2018 issue of Journal of Thoracic Oncology described the identification of a ROS1 rearrangement by Biocept CTC analysis using FISH. The ROS1 translocation was concordant with tissue biopsy. In contrast, next-generation sequencing analysis of plasma by another vendor failed to detect the genetic alteration in the patient with lung cancer. Also, in May 2018, a case report describing the application of our CTC technology in the management of metastatic breast cancer was published in Clinics in Oncology.  This work described a patient with recurrent breast cancer where numerous tissue-based evaluations of the individual’s bone-only metastases had repeated challenges or inclusive results.  HER2 amplification detected in CTCs from blood provided crucial information towards changing treatment strategies to include anti-HER therapy, consequently extending and improving the patient’s quality of life. Each of the three published cases provide real-life examples in lung and breast

16

cancer towards establishing the importance of liquid biopsy to identify and monitor clinically actionable biomarkers to improve outcomes of patients with cancer.

In July 2018, we announced a collaboration involving two studies with the University of California, San Diego. Each of the two studies will enroll 100 patients with solid tumors, for a total of 200 patients. One study will assess the feasibility of using our CTC and ctDNA methodologies to predict post-resection disease recurrence in patients with Stage II or III cancer, and the other study will use our technology to predict response to therapy in patients with metastatic disease. Dr. Rebecca Shatsky and Dr. Razelle Kurzrock are the investigators key to both studies.  

In August 2018, we announced a Quality Improvement Initiative with Highmark Health to help improve molecular testing rates of NCCN Category I Guidelines for NSCLC. The Initiative aims to improve health outcomes by using liquid biopsy to more rapidly assess a patient's actionable biomarker status towards selecting appropriate therapy, while reducing the overall cost of care. The project will evaluate at least 100 patients in the Highmark Health-affiliated Allegheny Health Network Cancer Institute. Patients will receive our CTC and ctDNA testing in addition to tissue biopsy with the goal of obtaining biomarker status results for a higher percentage of patients compared to standard testing.

Two scientific posters featuring the Target Selector CTC and ctDNA platforms were presented in September 2018 at the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, or IASLC, 19^th World Conference on Lung Cancer. Data from these clinical studies demonstrate the ability of our technology to detect and monitor CTC counts and actionable biomarkers in both blood and CSF of patients with advanced NSCLC. The first poster described interim results of a collaboration with Dr. Janakiraman Subramanian at the Saint Luke’s Cancer Institute in Kansas City, Missouri. This study evaluates CTC enumeration in advanced stage NSCLC patients before and during the course of chemotherapy. Interim data suggest that CTC counts may have prognostic and predictive potential to assess therapeutic benefit. The second poster was in collaboration with Kadmon Corporation, featuring CTC and ctDNA analyses and monitoring in the CSF of NSCLC patients with LM who were treated with tesevatinib in Kadmon’s clinical trial KD019-206. In this study, alterations detected in the CSF of patients were concordant with original tissue biopsies, and serial monitoring of CTCs and ctDNA biomarkers in CSF were consistent with the overall clinical.

A case series was published in the January 2019 issue of the peer reviewed journal, Clinics in Oncology. The work highlights the clinical utility of liquid biopsy to stratify patients who may benefit from targeted therapy, describing three patients with metastatic NSCLC for whom tissue biopsy was insufficient for molecular profiling. In all three cases, our ctDNA liquid biopsy analyses detected an activating EGFR mutation. EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy subsequently was initiated. Complete response lasting approximately two years was observed in one patient. For two patients, our ctDNA testing was performed at signs of clinical progression and Osimertinib was administered upon our liquid biopsy identification of the EGFR T790M resistance marker. In sum, patient survival was dramatically extended in all cases presented where targeted therapies were prescribed based on liquid biopsy results.

In April 2019, we presented a poster at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research. The work describes analytical validation of Target Selector ESR1 Next Generation Sequencing, or NGS, ctDNA assays with single copy mutant detection. The assays have a limit of detection 0.03% or better, with >99% sensitivity for mutant allele fractions ranging from greater than 5% down to 0.03%.  ESR1 gene mutations are associated with acquired drug resistance in up to 55% of patients with ER positive metastatic breast cancer, or mBC, who received anti-estrogen treatment. Detection of ESR1 mutations may enable the prediction of treatment failure and disease progression in these patients. As new therapies are developed that antagonize ER activity by mechanisms that differ from current drug treatments, ESR1 mutation testing can be a helpful tool to identify patients who may benefit from these alternative agents.

In October 2019, we announced the publication of a peer-reviewed journal article featuring the analytical validation results demonstrating the high sensitivity of our Target Selector testing for EGFR, BRAF, and KRAS mutation in plasma ctDNA. The article was published in the journal, PLOS ONE, Volume 14, October 2019, included as part of a special collection of topical articles, entitled Targeted Anticancer Therapies and Precision Medicine In Cancer.

In November 2019, we presented clinical data highlighting performance of our Target Selector tests and kits for detecting actionable oncology biomarkers at the 2019 Association for Molecular Pathology Annual Meeting held at the Baltimore Convention Center, in Baltimore, MD.  These abstracts were published in The Journal of Molecular Diagnostics that accompanied this meeting.

17

In December 2019, we presented clinical data supporting the use of our Target Selector CTC platform as an aid in the monitoring and treatment of breast cancer in a poster session at the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, or SABCS. The data demonstrated the Target Selector platform’s ability to accurately detect, enumerate, and interrogate CTCs in a cohort of over 1,500 patients, representing various clinical and treatment stages of breast cancer.

In March 2020, we announced publication of clinical data in the peer-reviewed Journal of Clinical Pathology that further validates the Company's Target Selector qPCR Assay using "Switch Blocker" technology to identify cancer-related mutations in liquid biopsy samples.  The study examined 127 clinical assays for mutations commonly associated with cancer found in the EGFR, BRAF and KRAS genes. Each Target Selector assay in the study demonstrated extremely high accuracy, sensitivity and specificity when compared to results obtained from tissue samples, showing a 93%-96% concordance to blinded tissue samples across all assays.

In October 2020, we announced results from a prospective study comparing our Target Selector CSF testing to conventional cytology in patients with NSCLC and LM showing that our Target Selector CSF testing may provide a more robust method for detecting lung cancer metastasis in CSF than the current standard of cytology analysis.  

In November 2020, we announced results of a study analyzing CSF samples in patients with primary lung or breast cancer with either brain or LM disease. The findings indicate that Target Selector CSF assays are a viable and sensitive platform for CTC detection and molecular analysis compared to the current standard of care, CSF cytology, which is typically used to establish or confirm LM disease when cytology imaging findings are suspicious or equivocal.

In December 2020, we announced results from a prospective study showing Target Selector was highly accurate in monitoring HER2 alterations in patients with metastatic breast cancer. The results were featured in a poster presentation at the virtual 2020 SABCS.

In February 2021, we presented data at the Molecular Med Tri-Con Virtual Conference, showing that our Target Selector molecular assay kit detects mutations in up to 50% of tissue biopsy specimens, from patients diagnosed with NSCLC that were deemed quantity not sufficient by conventional methods.

In February 2021, we announced establishing a research collaboration with Protean BioDiagnostics, Inc. to research the ability of our Target Selector molecular assay to determine EGFR status in NSCLC patients.

In August 2021, we presented data at the SNO Brain Metastasis conference related to our CNSide experience on several NSCLC cases from one institution, the University of Utah.  Recently, we had other abstracts accepted for poster presentation at the upcoming annual November meeting of the SNO in Boston and the annual SABCS in December.

In November 2021 we presented a poster at the annual SNO meeting in Boston on our experience with longitudinal (or serial) therapy monitoring of CSF tumor cells in patients from four different institutions.  

In December 2021, in a spotlight poster presentation at the SABCS, we presented our experience with genetic heterogeneity of HER2 in CSF tumor cells evaluated in patients with breast cancer that had metastasized to the CNS.

In February 2022, at the Molecular TriConference for Precision Medicine in San Diego, we presented a brief summary of our collective experience evaluating CSF tumor cells for purposes of evaluating metastatic cancer involving the CNS to determine targets for therapy and quantify the response to treatment over time.

Provider Agreements

In January 2017, we announced that we had secured an in-network provider agreement with Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas, the largest provider of health benefits in Texas. In addition, we entered into a national master business agreement with the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, a not-for-profit trade association that provides multiple services for its 38-member Blue Cross and Blue Shield health plan companies across the U.S., including forming national strategic vendor partnerships. We were selected by the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association based on a rigorous request-for-proposal progress. This agreement establishes pricing for our Target Selector liquid biopsy testing service through the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association’s group purchasing organization, CareSourcing Workgroup. The pricing offered by the CareSourcing Workgroup group purchasing

18

organization is available to those Blue Cross and Blue Shield member health plans that have, or may seek, in-network agreements with us.

In June 2017, we entered into a participating provider agreement with MediNcrease Health Plans, LLC and a preferred provider agreement with Scripps Health Plan Services, Inc., both establishing pricing for our Target Selector liquid biopsy testing service.

In December 2017, we signed an agreement with Wellmark, Inc., or Wellmark, the largest health insurer in Iowa and South Dakota. The agreement marks our third Blue Cross Blue Shield contract and enables patients diagnosed with cancer the ability to access our proprietary testing services in-network under their Wellmark health plan.

In August 2018, we entered into a quality initiative program with Highmark and Alleghany Health Network as a result of the Caresourcing Workgroup. The focus is to improve access to molecular testing to members with a diagnosis of lung cancer. Enrollment began in August 2018 and has been steadily increasing.

In July 2019, we announced that we entered into a Laboratory Services Provider Agreement with Beacon Laboratory Benefit Solutions, Inc., a nationally recognized premier provider of laboratory benefit management technology solutions to health and managed care companies in the United States.

In February 2020, we announced that we entered into an agreement with a California-based independent physician association, or IPA, to provide our liquid biopsy testing services to physicians and patients in their network.  Our Target Selector offering includes the choice of individual biomarker tests or a larger liquid biopsy panel, enabling physicians to select the best approach for each patient.

In June 2020, we announced that we entered into a managed care provider agreement with Medical Cost Containment Professional LLC, or MCCP, to process out-of-network claims for our Target Selector liquid biopsy testing. MCCP is a reference-based pricing insurance network that includes more than 150,000 providers nationwide.

In August 2020, we announced the expansion of our agreement with MultiPlan, Inc., or MultiPlan, to include COVID-19 testing services at a pre-negotiated price per test. MultiPlan is a healthcare cost management company offering payment integrity, network-based and analytics-based services. With the expanded agreement, our RT-PCR COVID-19 testing, in addition to our liquid biopsy oncology testing services, are now accessible to consumers who have access to the PHCS and MultiPlan Networks, MultiPlan’s national primary and complementary networks. More than 1 million healthcare providers participate in MultiPlan’s networks and 60 million health plan members have access to the company’s services.

In addition, in August 2020, we entered into an agreement with a healthcare group to provide RT-PCR COVID-19 testing to skilled nursing facilities. The group operates and supports more than 50 facilities in multiple states, with most located in California. 

In September 2020, we announced that Highmark, America’s fourth largest Blue Cross Blue Shield affiliate, has made a positive coverage determination that our Target Selector liquid biopsy assay has been accepted for medical coverage for use in the diagnosis and treatment of patients with NSCLC. In addition, we announced that we entered into an agreement with Health Net Federal Services LLC to be an in-network provider for Target Selector liquid biopsy oncology platform testing for cancer patients in the TRICARE West, or TriWest, region network. TriWest provides healthcare services to approximately 3 million members of the U.S. military and their families. 

In December 2020, we announced entering into laboratory services agreements with two Southern California regional IPAs providing physicians and patients in-network access to our full array of Target Selector liquid biopsy assays and services. Both IPAs are headquartered in San Diego and combined they serve more than 70,000 covered lives in the Southern California region.

19

We are currently contracted with nine preferred provider organization networks, three large health plans, and five regional independent physician associations, and expect to continue to gain contracts to be considered as an “in-network” provider with additional plans.

Laboratory Testing

From our CLIA-certified laboratory in San Diego, California, we provide test results from our current and planned CTC and ctDNA assays to medical oncologists, neuro-oncologists, surgical oncologists, urologists, pulmonologists, pathologists and other physicians in community hospitals, cancer centers, group practices and offices. At the federal level, clinical laboratories, such as ours, must be certified under CLIA in order for us to perform testing on human specimens. Our laboratory is also accredited by CAP, which is one of six accreditation organizations approved by CMS under CLIA. Our clinical laboratory is located in California and we hold the requisite license from the California Department of Public Health to operate our laboratory. In addition, we hold licenses issued by the states of Maryland, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island to test specimens from patients in those states or received from ordering physicians from those states. In addition, our clinical reference laboratory is required to be licensed on a product-specific basis by New York as an out of state laboratory and our products, as LDTs, must be approved by the New York State Department of Health before they are offered in New York. As part of this process, the State of New York requires validation of our assays. We currently do not have the necessary New York license, but we are in the process of addressing the requirements for licensure in New York.  Our medical director holds a New York Certificate of Qualification applicable to the evaluation of tumor biomarkers.

Clinical Study Biomarker Testing Services

Industry research has revealed that many promising drugs have produced disappointing results in clinical trials. For example, a study by Princess Margaret Hospital in Toronto estimated that over a five-year study period 85% of the new therapies for solid tumors which were tested in early clinical trials in the United States, Europe and Japan failed, and that of those that survive through to Phase III trials, only a third will be approved. Given such a high failure rate of oncology drugs in clinical development, combined with constrained budgets for pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical companies, there is a significant need for drug developers to utilize molecular diagnostics to help decrease these failure rates. For specific molecular-targeted therapeutics, the identification of appropriate biomarkers may help to optimize clinical trial patient selection and success rates by helping clinicians identify patients that are most likely to benefit from a therapy based on their individual genetic profile.

In addition to testing for physicians and their patients, we offer liquid biopsy testing services to help increase the efficiency and economic viability of biomarker analysis pertinent to clinical trials conducted by pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical companies and clinical research organizations. Our liquid biopsy testing services are aimed at developing customizable assays and techniques utilizing CTC and ctDNA technologies to provide sensitive, real-time characterization of an individual patient’s tumors using a standard blood sample. These assays may be useful as, and ultimately developed into, companion diagnostics associated with a specific therapeutic. Additionally, through our services, we may gain further insights into biomarkers for disease progression and drug resistance, as well as those associated with current drug development efforts, which we can incorporate into assays.

Assay Development Process

Our Target Selector assays were, and our planned additional CTC and molecular assays are being, developed and validated in conjunction with leading academic and clinical research centers to ensure that the needs of the clinical community are being met with the latest research on key biomarkers that affect patient care. We utilize a research and validation process to help ensure that we are providing diagnostic, prognostic and predictive information that is clinically relevant and accurate. The timeframe for this process from design through development and market launch is dependent upon, among other things, the biomarkers in question having been discovered and validated before we incorporate them in an assay, the specific clinical claims we plan to pursue, and the availability of high-quality samples for validation. Our development protocol calls for us to monitor and review the process in four stages as detailed below:

20

We currently offer 25 assays that are available for clinical use that have completed all four stages of the development protocol. Other assays for both CTCs and blood and CSF molecular testing are in earlier stages of development. Markers for such assays include, but are not limited to, ESR1, PSA, CD68, NTRK2, NTRK3, MSI and a multiplexed assay.

We may be required to seek FDA clearance or approval to expand the commercial use of assays to other laboratories and testing sites in the United States. We may also need to complete additional activities to submit each of these assays for regulatory clearance or approval before commercialization in each of the international markets where introduction is planned.

If the FDA finalizes its current draft guidance on a risk-based framework for regulation of LDTs, our process would also need to allow for obtaining FDA review, clearance or approval, as applicable, which would add delay, expense and risk to our current assay development process. In November 2016, the FDA put the process to review and issue this guidance on hold and has not yet provided further information as to when the process will move forward.

Technology Development

In addition to developing new CTC and molecular assays for different cancers to be offered through our CLIA laboratory and adapting additional predictive biomarkers to these assays as their importance is demonstrated by the scientific and clinical research communities, we continue to focus on improving the base technologies underlying our assays and processes. We are exploring various ways to improve CTC capture efficiency and detection, as well as approaches to sub-categorize CTCs into different populations that may have clinical relevance. For example, by determining which antigens individual CTCs expressed that enabled their capture, we could differentiate, and enumerate, various CTC phenotypes, for example, epithelial versus mesenchymal. We are also working to simplify the assay process, and in general to provide a broader range of useful data on a patient’s cancer to assist the physician in determining an appropriate treatment. Some of these projects and initiatives include:

Continued modification and optimization of our microfluidic channel as a way to further enhance CTC capture efficiency. Capture efficiency directly impacts sensitivity, informative rate, and the ability to perform accurate and reliable biomarker analyses on the CTCs, all of which increase the value of our offering. We are utilizing some of our early research experience to improve CTC capture rates and reduce background contamination from normal white blood cells.

21

Development of automation throughout the assay process, but particularly at the visual evaluation steps, which include enumeration, any ICC for biomarkers beyond those used to identify CTCs, for example protein biomarkers, and FISH analysis, is a way to drive efficiencies, reduce costs, speed up turnaround time, and generate more reliable, uniform, and in some cases more sensitive data. We have implemented an automation solution for the visual analysis, which has been validated and implemented in our CLIA laboratory. We have also developed automated systems for the separation, processing and washing steps before running a sample on the microfluidic channel, which has also been validated and implemented in the CLIA laboratory. We are currently implementing further steps in automation, including running the microfluidic channels and performing FISH. We believe these measures will reduce costs and time as well as allow for higher throughput as sample volumes increase.

We are continuing to evaluate and develop techniques for CTC capture that take advantage of our antibody enrichment cocktail and our staining technology to modify our current CTC process into a simpler IVD testing kit format. In addition to reducing internal costs, such an advance would enable us to offer a testing kit format that can access the worldwide CTC testing market. We believe that the distribution of such kits could create a new business opportunity for us.

The ctDNA technology should enable us to multiplex mutation testing such that larger panels of genes can be analyzed in a single step and interfaced with genetic sequencing. This should position us for the analysis at the molecular level of whole signaling pathways or enzyme cascades. We plan to take advantage of the sensitivity and specificity of the ctDNA technology and leverage interest in the clinical research community for detecting any actionable biomarker in a particular tumor, as opposed to only those that are known to occur at relatively higher frequencies in that type of tumor. Such multiplexed mutation assays, relying on our ctDNA technology, could provide a more global evaluation of a tumor through analysis of either CTCs or ctDNA. This would offer a broader range of potential treatment options as well as enable the monitoring of the effectiveness of those treatments over time.

Tumor heterogeneity is a well-recognized problem for tissue analysis and is in part addressed by focusing on CTCs, which may provide a more universal sampling of a tumor. One result of this can be a diverse population of CTCs in a sample, with different phenotypes and genotypes represented. We are working with a collaborator on techniques for subsequent sorting of our highly enriched CTC samples released from our microfluidic channels into pools of CTCs with similar phenotypes, and ultimately to single CTCs, for molecular analysis.

Translational/Clinical Research

In the course of our research and validation studies, we have processed and analyzed thousands of normal control and cancer patient samples. Our initial focus has been on breast cancer, where validation studies for our CTC assay, including enumeration of CTCs on the Biocept platform compared to the CellSearch^® system, and HER2 FISH performed on CTCs and compared with HER2 analysis performed on tumor tissue from the same patients, involved over 120 patient samples. The results of our validation studies, and the demonstration of a reliable and reproducible method for CTC capture and analysis using our platform were published in a paper entitled “Novel Platform for the Detection of Cytokeratin Positive (CK+) and Cytokeratin Negative (CK-) CTCs” appearing in the December 2011 issue of Cancer Discovery and a paper entitled “Efficient capture of circulating tumor cells with a novel immunocytochemical microfluidic device” appearing in the September 2011 issue of BioMicrofluidics.

Additional studies were conducted in breast and other tumor types, including lung, prostate and colorectal cancers, utilizing patient samples for comparison to the CellSearch^® system. In head-to-head studies, our system detected cytokeratin positive CTCs in comparable numbers of breast cancer patients, and in considerably more patients in the other cancer types (Cancer Discovery, December 2011). Moreover, the results clearly demonstrated that the use of our antibody enrichment cocktail enabled recovery of more CTCs compared to using only anti-EpCAM antibodies. These data served as a clinical validation study for CTC enumeration. When our staining is applied to detect cytokeratin-negative CTCs, we expect to see far more CTCs based on preliminary studies reported in a paper entitled “Detection of EpCAM-Negative and Cytokeratin-Negative CTCs in Peripheral Blood” appearing in the 2011 issue of the Journal of Oncology.

22

Our system has the added advantage of post-capture immunofluorescent, cytogenetic and molecular genomic analyses of the CTCs. Cells captured by Biocept’s proprietary Target Selector system can be analyzed directly within the microfluidic channel, removing the need to re-deposit cells on a slide and thereby minimizing cell loss or damage. Furthermore, given the transparency of the microfluidic channel, captured cells can be immediately analyzed on a microscope. Together, these two important features allow for a very efficient process that is well suited for a LDT performed in a CLIA laboratory. The post-capture analyses directed towards evaluation of biomarkers, are particularly important and valuable to physicians and patients since they focus on actionable information related to therapy selection. We have performed several clinical research studies in collaboration with The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center investigators involving various tumor types, including breast, ovarian, endometrial, lung, colorectal, bladder and prostate cancers.

In a collaboration with physicians and researchers at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, we evaluated matched samples of tumor tissue, blood for CTCs, and bone marrow for metastatic tumor cells in recently diagnosed breast cancer patients to identify HER2 amplification. Positive HER2 status would indicate eligibility for HER2-targeted therapies like Herceptin^®, a potentially life-saving treatment. These results were presented at both the 2011 and 2012 annual meetings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. In a 95-patient study published in Cancer Medicine (2013, 2(2) 226-233), HER2 positive CTCs and/or DTCs were identified in 18.9% of cases in which the primary tumor was HER2 negative. In the same cohort of patients, only 12.6% were HER2 positive in their primary tumor. In other words, beyond the 12 (of 95) patients for whom traditional tumor tissue analysis had indicated benefit from Herceptin-based therapy, the Target Selector assay detected HER2 gene amplification in 18 (of 95) patients who (despite the fact they were identified as being HER2 negative by primary-tumor testing) could benefit from Herceptin-based therapy. Patients classified as HER2 negative based on tumor tissue and found to have HER2 positive CTCs and/or DTCs were subsequently monitored by our collaborators at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center to assess their overall and progression-free survival. Tumor heterogeneity is one likely cause of the discordance for HER2 status between tumor tissue and our assay performed on blood and bone marrow samples. Tumor heterogeneity indicates an important clinical application for the CTC analysis with the Target Selector assay. Our technology can use a standard blood sample to confirm and crosscheck tissue analysis performed by the pathologist at the time of biopsy or surgery, especially if HER2 negative.

Our Target Selector platform is well suited towards blood-based analysis of breast cancer biomarkers. A 24-patient study published with Columbia University (Clinical and Translational Oncology, 2015, 17(7):539-46) demonstrated the feasibility of CTC testing to evaluate ER and PR status in mBC patients. Results showed a concordance of 83% and 68% in ER/PR status between CTCs vs. metastatic tissue tumor, and CTCs vs. primary tissue, respectively. More recently, a December 2016 SABCS poster presentation featured the evaluation of 74 mBC patients. This collaborative work with the Sarah Cannon Research Institute, demonstrated detection of CTCs in 99% of mBC patient samples. In addition, ER protein expression concordance was 84% in cytokeratin positive cells and 18% in cytokeratin negative cells. FISH-based analysis of captured CTCs displayed tissue concordances of 93% and 68% for HER2 gene amplification in cytokeratin positive CTCs and cytokeratin negative CTCs, respectively; FGFR1 amplification concordances to tissue were 79% and 67% for cytokeratin positive CTCs and cytokeratin negative CTCs, respectively. While further investigation is needed to elucidate the significance of cytokeratin negative cells as a possible prognostic indicator to evaluate ER, HER2 and FGFR1 biomarkers in mBC patients, our ability to assess cytokeratin positive and negative CTCs affords a distinct advantage over other CTC technologies that rely solely upon characterization of cytokeratin positive CTCs.

We have also developed proprietary and robust technology to detect and quantify mutant ctDNA in plasma originating from the same blood sample that is used for the previously described CTC analyses. In collaboration between Mexico’s Instituto Nacional de Cancerologia and AstraZeneca, a clinical evaluation of blood-based liquid biopsy mutational profiling using our service was performed on 60 advanced-stage non-small cell lung cancer patients. Target Selector assays are highly sensitive with the ability to detect EGFR mutations down to one mutant copy per milliliter of plasma. The high concordance of ctDNA versus tissue exhibited in this work highlights Target Selector plasma ctDNA assays as a viable and practical means to detect EGFR activating and acquired resistance mutations relevant for guiding targeted therapy decisions.

Clinical utility studies, which demonstrate the specific clinical setting in which a particular CTC or ctDNA assay is used, and how to use the information generated for medical, specifically treatment-related, decision making is a key part of our strategy and research and development plan. Data resulting from such studies is critical not only in the sales and marketing process, but also for reimbursement, as many health plans and government payers now ask for peer-reviewed publications describing such studies and results before agreeing to coverage of a specific assay. We are involved in and plan to become involved in numerous studies to further demonstrate the clinical utility of our assays.

23

Sales and Marketing

On December 31, 2021, our sales organization consisted of 13 field sales personnel allocated to strategic geographies around the country that have high concentrations of cancer patients.  This number may adapt as our business grows and evolves. We have defined sales territories and have hired sales professionals with extensive successful experience in clinical oncology sales or oncology diagnostic testing sales from leading biopharmaceutical, pharmaceutical or specialty reference laboratory companies. This specialized, oncology-focused sales force is supported by clinical specialists who bring significant technical knowledge in the use of CTC and ctDNA assays.

Finally, we have invested in market access experts to pursue favorable payment and coverage for our liquid biopsy testing services. The key value proposition for these customers will include clinical utility and cost savings by offering our assays as a complement and/or alternative to expensive surgeries when tumor biopsy tissue is insufficient or not available.

Our sales and marketing efforts are and will be based on a five-part marketing strategy:

We also take advantage of customary marketing channels commonly used by the diagnostic and pharmaceutical industries, such as medical meetings, broad-based publication of our scientific and clinical data, and the internet. In addition, we provide easy-to-access information to our customers through our website and a data portal for physicians who wish to access test results electronically. Our customers value secure and easily accessible information in order to quickly review their patients’ information and begin developing a treatment protocol.

Outside the United States

Outside the United States, where a central laboratory business model is less developed, we will evaluate opportunities with our existing and other partners for the conversion and/or development of our current and planned CTC and ctDNA assays into test systems or IVDs, and related strategies to develop and serve such regional oncology markets. We also plan to sell our clinical trial services to biopharmaceutical companies and research organizations outside the United States.

We plan to cooperate with partners on accessing markets internationally. We plan for this to be accomplished either through partnerships with local groups and distributors or the development of test kits.

Competition

As a cancer diagnostics company focused on current and planned assays for CTCs and ctDNA from standard blood samples, we rely extensively on our ability to combine novel technology and biomarker information with high-quality, state-of-the art clinical laboratory testing. We believe that we compete principally on the basis of:

24

We believe that we compete favorably with respect to these factors, although we cannot assure you that we will be able to continue to do so in the future or that new products or assays that perform better than our current and planned future assays and services will not be introduced. We believe that our continued success depends on our ability to:

Our principal competition comes from established molecular diagnostic clinical testing services and products, used by medical oncologists, neuro-oncologists, surgical oncologists, urologists, pulmonologists, pathologists and other physicians, which are based on tumor tissue analysis. It may be difficult to change established clinical practices  and behavior of medical oncologists, neuro-oncologists, surgical oncologists, urologists, pulmonologists, pathologists and other physicians to get them to adopt the use of our blood-based CTC and ctDNA assays, in their practices in conjunction with or instead of molecular diagnostic tests from tissue biopsies.  

25

Blood or liquid biopsy molecular tests based on CTC and ctDNA assays for oncology applications represent a new area of science and medicine and we cannot predict what products or assays others will develop that may compete with or provide results similar or superior to the results we are able to achieve with the products or assays we develop.  

We face competition from specialty oncology diagnostic companies that are conducting research and development to develop proprietary CTC or ctDNA based assays and assay test panels for use in genomic profiling and monitoring solid tumor cancers. Competitors developing ctDNA bases assays and assay panels include but are not limited to companies such as Guardant Health, Foundation Medicine, Tempus Laboratories, NeoGenomics, Invitae, Natera, Inivata and Biodesix. EPIC Sciences, Menarini Silicon Biosystems, Biofluidica and Angle PLC offer CTC-based assays. These companies, in addition to operating research and development laboratories, have established CLIA-certified testing laboratories and have developed  LDTs that they market directly to oncologists and pathologists. A few of these companies, like Guardant Health and Foundation Medicine, have achieved FDA clearance for their proprietary laboratory tests.  

There are a number of national and regional specialty diagnostic companies, such as Caris Life Sciences and CSI, which are focused on the oncology diagnostic market, who while not currently offering CTC or ctDNA assays are selling to oncologists and pathologists and could develop or offer ctDNA or CTC or assays. In addition large laboratory services companies such as Quest and LabCorp which provide a broad array of cancer diagnostic assays and testing services could also offer CTC or ctDNA based clinical testing services.

Another new area of science and medicine is CTC and ctDNA assays performed from CSF samples for neuro-oncology applications.  There is currently limited competition for our CSF-based CTC and ctDNA assays.  There are no known specialty oncology diagnostic companies or large laboratory services companies that offer CSF-based CTC and ctDNA tests for neuro-oncology applications as a standard commercial clinical testing service. A few academic based pathology labs such as Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center offer CSF-based testing mainly for research purposes.  

There are a number of companies which are focused on the oncology diagnostic market, who while not currently offering CTC or ctDNA assays are selling to the medical oncologists and pathologists and could develop or offer CTC or ctDNA assays. Large laboratory services companies such as Quest and LabCorp provide more generalized cancer diagnostic assays and testing but could also offer a CTC or ctDNA assay service. Companies like Abbott, Danaher and others could develop equipment or reagents in the future as well. Currently, companies like Streck, Roche and Exact Sciences offer SCTs, and in the future, companies like Covidien, Beckton Dickinson, Thermo Fisher, and other large medical device companies may develop SCTs as well.

There are a number of life science technology companies that are focused on the oncology diagnostic market, such as Thermo Fisher Scientific, Illumina, Abbott Molecular, Bio-Rad, Sysmex, Qiagen, and Roche Diagnostics, that are selling equipment and reagents kits for ctDNA assays and assay panels. These companies compete with our ctDNA assay kit products and SCTs. Menarini Silicon Biosystems sells equipment and reagents kits for CTC assays. These companies market their products to specialty laboratories that offer molecular based testing for oncology applications, including national reference laboratories, regional laboratories and pathology laboratories that are part of academic medical centers and hospital systems.  These laboratories may purchase these products and developed ctDNA and CTC based laboratory developed tests that are marketed to medical oncologists and pathologists that compete with our lab services.  

Some of our present and potential competitors have widespread brand recognition and substantially greater financial and technical resources and development, production and marketing capabilities than we do. Others may develop lower-priced, less complex assays that payers, medical oncologists, neuro-oncologists, surgical oncologists, urologists, pulmonologists, pathologists and other physicians could view as functionally equivalent to our current or planned future assays, which could force us to lower the list price of our assays and impact our operating margins and our ability to achieve and maintain profitability. In addition, technological innovations that result in the creation of enhanced products or diagnostic tools that are more sensitive or specific or offer more content than our tests may enable other clinical laboratories, hospitals, physicians or medical providers to provide specialized products or diagnostic assays similar to ours in a more patient-friendly, efficient or cost-effective manner than is currently possible. If we cannot compete successfully against current or future competitors, we may be unable to increase or create market acceptance for sales of our current or planned future products or assays, which could prevent us from increasing or sustaining our revenues or achieving or sustaining profitability.

26

We expect that biopharmaceutical companies will increasingly focus resources on development of targeted oncology therapies that may require a companion diagnostic test approved by the FDA. We may face increasing competition from companies that offer CTC or ctDNA assays or products that are approved by the FDA as an IVD for companion diagnostic uses.

Additionally, projects related to cancer diagnostics and particularly genomics have received increased government funding, both in the United States and internationally. As more information regarding cancer genomics becomes available to the public, we anticipate that more products aimed at identifying targeted treatment options will be developed and that these products may compete with ours. In addition, competitors may develop their own versions of our current or planned future products or assays in countries where we did not apply for patents or where our patents have not issued and compete with us in those countries, including encouraging the use of their product or assay by physicians or patients in other countries.

Third-Party Suppliers and Manufacturers

Some of the components used in our current or planned future products are currently sourced from a supplier for which alternative suppliers exist, but we have not validated the products of such alternative suppliers, and substitutes for these components might not be able to be obtained easily or may require substantial design or manufacturing modifications. Any significant problem experienced by any one of our suppliers may result in a delay or interruption in the supply of components to us until that supplier cures the problem or an alternative source of the component is located and qualified. Any delay or interruption would likely lead to a delay or interruption in our manufacturing operations. The inclusion of substitute components must meet our product specifications and could require us to qualify the new supplier with the appropriate government regulatory authorities.

Patents and Technology

The proprietary nature of, and protection for, our products, services, processes, and know-how are important to our business. Our success depends in part on our ability to protect the proprietary nature of our products, services, technology, and know-how, to operate without infringing on the proprietary rights of others, and to prevent others from infringing our proprietary rights. We seek patent protection in the United States and internationally for our products, services and other technology. Our policy is to patent or in-license the technology, inventions and improvements that we consider important to the development of our business.

We also rely on trade secrets, know-how, and continuing innovation to develop and maintain our competitive position. We cannot be certain that patents will be granted with respect to any of our pending patent applications or with respect to any patent applications filed by us in the future, nor can we be sure that any of our existing patents or any patents granted to us in the future will be commercially useful in protecting our technology.

Our success depends on an intellectual property portfolio that supports our future revenue streams and erects barriers to our competitors. We are maintaining and building our patent portfolio through filing new patent applications, prosecuting existing applications, and licensing and acquiring new patents and patent applications.

We have been issued patents with broad claims covering our SCT, antibody cocktail approach, microchannel, CTC detection methodologies, and ctDNA analysis. In addition to issued patents in the U.S., we have patents for our proprietary microchannel in China, South Korea, Europe, Hong Kong, Canada and Japan, and for our antibody cocktail in Australia, Europe, Canada, China, Hong Kong and Japan. Our patent estate continues to evolve, and in addition to the broad patent estate around our CTC platform, we also have issued patents in the U.S., Australia, Brazil, Europe, Hong Kong, Japan, China and South Korea for our novel switch blocker technology, solidifying our proprietary enrichment methodology for detecting ctDNA with very high sensitivity. We also have recently issued patents in the U.S. Australia, and Japan for a unique primer switch technology which can be used for detecting rare genetic alterations, and for improving the performance of PCR based amplification assays. Our CTC platform patents were filed from 2005 through 2012, and we expect to have patent protection into the 2030s. Our CTC patents and applications cover not only cancer as a target, but also prenatal and other rare cells of interest. Recently granted patents in the U.S. cover the capture of any target of interest on any solid surface using our antibody capture approach. The patent for our proprietary SCTs expires in 2031, and the patents for our ctDNA technology expire in the early 2030s.

27

As of December 31, 2021, we owned 53 issued patents and have 11 patent applications pending. Of these, 17 were issued U.S. patents and four were pending patent applications in the U.S., and one was a pending PCT application, while 36 were issued patents in non-U.S. territories and six were pending patent applications in non-U.S. territories.

Microfluidic Channels. As of December 31, 2021, we had three issued U.S. patents as well as granted patents in Europe, Japan, Hong Kong, Canada, China, South Korea which cover our microfluidic channel technology. A further U.S. patent application is pending.

Specimen collection tubes. In 2015, we received a U.S. patent related to our SCTs, which contain reagents designed to prevent clumping of blood cells and CTCs that could clog the microfluidic channels and disrupt our assays. The patent is currently under a reexamination procedure in the U.S. Patent Office.

Antibody Enrichment Cocktail. As of December 31, 2021, we had three issued U.S. patents and one pending U.S. patent application, and two European patents, as well as other corresponding foreign patent applications directed to our antibody capture cocktail technology. This technology includes using antibodies to a number of tumor-associated antigens from cancer cells of both epithelial and mesenchymal phenotype, as well as cancer stem cells.

Enhanced Staining. As of December 31, 2021, we had one issued U.S. patent, as well as issued patents in Europe, Canada, China, and Japan directed to this technology.

Target Selector Mutation Detection Technology. As of December 31, 2021, we co-owned two issued U.S. patents and two pending U.S. applications, two issued Australian patents, one issued Chinese patent, two issued Japanese patents, and one issued European (seven countries) patent, with Aegea Biotechnologies, Inc., or Aegea. Under our agreement with Aegea, we have certain exclusive rights for oncology clinical testing and diagnostics as well as limited rights for oncology basic and clinical research.

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to evolve, and the extent to which COVID-19 may impact our business will depend on future developments, which are highly uncertain and cannot be predicted with confidence, such as the ultimate geographic spread of the disease, the duration of the pandemic, the emergence and impact of variants, vaccinations, travel restrictions and social distancing in the United States and other countries, business closures or business disruptions, and the effectiveness of actions taken in the United States and other countries to contain and treat the disease.  We are continuing to vigilantly monitor the situation with our primary focus on the health and safety of our employees and clients.

In April 2020, we announced that we validated a COVID-19 molecular diagnostic test and that we would begin accepting physician-ordered testing requests.  The testing volume was initially limited by the national shortage of specimen collection kits. On June 22, 2020, we announced the availability of 10,000 specimen collection kits for COVID-19 testing for physician ordering. Collected specimens are shipped to our high-complexity, CLIA-certified, CAP-accredited and BSL-2 safety level laboratory in San Diego with results returned to ordering physicians in an estimated 24 to 48 hours.  We have received more than 800,000 samples for processing through our RT-PCR technology at our laboratory to date.  We are currently seeing reduced demand for our COVID-19 testing services and expect this trend to continue absent a negative and sustained turn in the course of the pandemic.

In January 2021, we signed an agreement with the Foundation for California Community Colleges to make COVID-19 testing available to the 116 California community colleges and their more than 2.1 million students. Through the Foundation’s CollegeBuys program, our PCR-based COVID-19 test is now available for community colleges to purchase for students, faculty and staff.

In June 2021, we announced a collaboration with CLEARED4, a market leader in pandemic health and safety solutions, to develop a system for tracking and managing COVID-19 testing requirements and test results for our customers.

Operations and Production Facilities

Our research and development laboratory, our CLIA-certified, CAP accredited, and state-licensed diagnostic testing laboratory, and our manufacturing facility are located in our San Diego, California headquarters. The laboratories employ commercial state-of-the-art equipment as well as custom-made components specific to our CTC process that are generated in a small in-

28

house engineering shop. The manufacturing facility used for the production of our microfluidic channels is a Class 10,000 suite in which polydimethylsiloxane, or PDMS, is formed into the base of our proprietary microfluidic channels in a molding process. A glass cover slip suitable for optical analysis is added to seal the channels and make them watertight. Plasma activation is utilized to bond the PDMS with other functional groups typically leaving an amine functional group for binding. The inside of the microfluidic channels is subsequently chemically derivatized to enable the attachment of binding elements that strongly bind to antibody-tagged (fluorescently conjugated) or coated CTCs. Because the microfluidic channels have micrometer dimensions, and we are seeking individual cells in a blood sample to interact with the surface of the microfluidic channel, dust particles and other microscopic debris that could clog the channel need to be avoided. Humidity is also a factor that affects binding capability especially in the plasma activation step.

The process of performing our assays is straightforward. When a health care professional takes a standard venous blood sample or a CSF specimen from a lumbar puncture or Ommaya reservoir from a patient for CTC or ctDNA testing, he or she will place the sample in our SCTs, complete a requisition form, and package the specimen in our shipping kit for direct shipment to us. Once we receive the specimen at our laboratory and we enter all pertinent information about the specimen into our clinical laboratory information system, our laboratory technologists prepare the specimen for processing and analysis. Laboratory technologists, including clinical laboratory technologists and clinical laboratory scientists then conduct the analysis, including enumeration of CTCs and biomarker analysis such as FISH. Usage of fluorescent tags enables colored imaging in this process to increase the biomarker analysis capability. The data, including images and the processed cells, are sent to our in-house or contracted pathologists or a commercialization partner’s pathologists who are experienced in the analysis and evaluation requested by the referring oncologist or pathologist.

After analysis, our in-house or contracted pathologists or a commercialization partner’s pathologists use laboratory information systems to prepare a comprehensive report, which may include selected relevant images associated with the specimen. Our Internet reporting portal allows a referring oncologist or pathologist to access his or her patient’s test results in real time in a secure manner that we believe to be compliant with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, and other applicable standards. The reports are generated in industry standard .pdf formats which allows for high-definition color images to be reproduced clearly. We send the results to the ordering physician and bill the payer using third-party medical billing software.

Quality Management Program

We have established a Quality Management Program for our research, development and CLIA certified testing laboratories. This program is designed to help ensure accurate and timely test results, to produce consistent high-quality testing services, as well as procedures which allow for the continual improvement of established and new operations. Our Quality Management Program foundation is built upon a rigorous documentation program which allows transparent quality assurance and performance improvement plans, necessary to ensure the highest quality of diagnostic testing services. This program is designed to satisfy the requirements of local and state licensures, as well as those for accreditation by CAP. The CAP accreditation program involves unannounced on-site inspections of our laboratories. CAP is an independent, non-governmental organization of board-certified pathologists that accredits laboratories nationwide on a voluntary basis and that has been recognized by the CMS as an accreditation organization to inspect laboratories to determine adherence to CLIA standards.

We are committed to providing reliable and accurate diagnostic testing to our customers. Accurate specimen sample management, timely communication of test results, and strict adherence to patient privacy policies are a critical core competency of our company. We monitor and improve our performance through our internal audit program, which investigates any abhorrent results, continually track performance indicators, perform internal proficiency testing and host external quality audits, primarily conducted by CAP.

In addition to the compulsory proficiency programs and external inspections required by CMS and other regulatory agencies, we have developed a variety of internal systems and procedures to emphasize, monitor and continuously improve the quality of our operations. We maintain internal quality controls by routinely processing specimens with known diagnoses in parallel with patient specimens. We also have an internally administered proficiency program for specimen testing.

29

Third-Party Payer Reimbursement

Revenues from our clinical laboratory testing are derived from several different sources. Depending on the billing arrangement, instructions of the ordering physician and applicable law, parties that reimburse us for our services include:

We are reimbursed for two categories of testing, anatomic pathology, which includes cell staining and the enumeration component of CTC assays, FISH, ICC and immunofluorescence, and molecular pathology, which includes mutation analysis. Reimbursement under the Medicare program for the diagnostic services that we offer is based on either the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule, or PFS, or the Medicare Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule, or CLFS, each of which is subject to geographic adjustments and is updated annually. Medical services provided to Medicare beneficiaries that require a degree of physician supervision, judgment or other physician involvement, such as pathology services, are generally reimbursed under the PFS, whereas clinical diagnostic laboratory tests are generally reimbursed under the CLFS. Some of the services that we provide are genetic and molecular testing, which are reimbursed as clinical diagnostic laboratory tests.

Regardless of the applicable fee schedule, Medicare payment amounts are established for each Current Procedural Terminology, or CPT, code. In addition, under the CLFS, Medicare also sets a cap on the amount that it will pay for any individual assay. This cap, usually referred to as the National Limitation Amount, is set at a percentage of the median of all the contractor fee schedule amounts for each billing code.

Medicare also has policies that may limit when we can bill directly for our services and when we must instead bill another provider, such as a hospital. When the testing that we perform is done on a specimen that was collected while the patient was in the hospital, as either an inpatient or outpatient, we may be required to bill the hospital for clinical laboratory services and for the technical component of pathology services. Which party is to be billed depends primarily on whether the service was ordered at least 14 days after the patient’s discharge from the hospital. Complying with these requirements is complex and time-consuming and may affect our ability to collect for our services. In addition, hospitals may refuse to pay our invoices or may demand pricing that negatively affects our profit margin.

Medicare generally requires a beneficiary to pay a 20% co-insurance amount for most services billed under the PFS. Medicare covers the remaining 80% in such circumstances. There is currently no patient co-payment or co-insurance amount applicable to testing billed under the CLFS. Patients often have supplemental insurance policies that cover the co-insurance amount for physician services.

Medicare has coverage policies that can be national or regional in scope. Coverage means that assay is approved as a benefit for Medicare beneficiaries. If there is no coverage, neither the supplier nor any other party, such as a reference laboratory, may receive reimbursement from Medicare for the service. There is currently no national coverage policy regarding the CTC enumeration portion of our testing. Because our laboratory is in California, the regional Medicare Administrative Contractor, or MAC, for California is the relevant MAC for all our testing. The previous MAC for California, Palmetto, which is contracted with CMS to administer the MolDx program that sets guidelines for coding, coverage and reimbursement of molecular diagnostic assays, adopted a negative coverage policy for CTC enumeration. The current MAC for California, Noridian Healthcare Solutions, LLC, is adopting the coverage policies from Palmetto. Therefore, the enumeration portion of our testing is not currently covered, and we will receive no payment from Medicare for this portion of the service unless and until the coverage policy is changed. Although approximately 86% of all billable oncology cases received during the year ended December 31, 2020 related to our Target Selector biomarker assays and 92% for the year ended December 31, 2021, we continue to receive orders for our traditional enumeration testing, which counts disease burden, and therefore the enumeration testing receives no payment from Medicare based upon the existing coverage decision. The CTC enumeration counts disease burden and is a prognostic test, and although oncologists find the information valuable, it does not currently meet many of the

30

medical necessity requirements of Medicare and the payers. We intend to pursue payment for the capture portion of our CTC technology that allows us to run our diagnostic testing for some of our Target Selector assays.

Reimbursement rates paid by private third-party payers can vary based on whether we are considered to be an “in-network” provider, a participating provider, a covered provider, an “out-of-network” provider or a non-participating provider. These definitions can vary among payers, but we are generally considered an “out-of-network” or non-participating provider by most private third-party payers. An in-network provider usually has a contract with the payer or benefits provider. This contract governs, among other things, service-level agreements and reimbursement rates. In certain instances, an insurance company may negotiate an in-network rate for our testing. An in-network provider may have rates that are lower per assay than those that are out-of-network, and that rate can vary widely. The rate varies based on the payer, the testing type and often the specifics of the patient’s insurance plan. If a laboratory agrees to contract as an in-network provider, it generally expects to receive quicker payment and access to additional covered patients.

Billing and Billing Codes for Third-Party Payer Reimbursement

CPT codes are the main billing code set used by physicians, hospitals, laboratories and other health care professionals to report separately payable clinical laboratory and pathology services for reimbursement purposes. The CPT coding system is maintained and updated on an annual basis by the American Medical Association. We believe there are existing codes that describe nearly all the steps in our testing process. We currently use a combination of codes to bill for our testing and analysis.

In order to ensure our coding is compliant, we have engaged industry experts to provide guidance on the proper coding of our assays. These experts include consultants at Senergene Solutions, LLC, Codemap, LLC and ADVI Health, LLC. However, coding can be complex, and payers may require differing codes for a given assay to effect payment. Changes in coding and reimbursement could adversely impact our revenues going forward, or payers could request that we reimburse them for payments we have already received. There can be no guarantees that Medicare and other payers will establish new positive or adequate coverage policies or reimbursement rates, or not change existing positive coverage policies, in the future.

We are moving forward with plans to obtain reimbursement coverage for the capture components of our assays. For other tests, we are able to utilize existing CPT codes from the PFS and CLFS. For these established CPT codes (for example, the codes for molecular testing, FISH and ICC), positive coverage determinations have been adopted as part of national Medicare policy or under applicable Local Coverage Determinations. Specific codes for our assays, however, do not assure an adequate coverage policy or reimbursement rate. Please see the section entitled “Legislative and Regulatory Changes Impacting Clinical Laboratory Tests” for further discussion of certain legislative and regulatory changes to these billing codes and the anticipated impact on our business.

Coverage and Reimbursement for our Current Assays and our Planned Future Assays

Our Medicare Administrative Contractor has issued a negative coverage determination for the enumeration component of all CTC assays. We have received reimbursement for the enumeration component of our assays from some private payers, including major private third-party payers, based on submission of standard CPT codes. FISH, ICC and Molecular Testing CPT codes are the subject of positive coverage national or local Medicare determinations. We believe these codes can be used to bill for the analysis components of our current and planned future CTC assays, however, CMS, Palmetto or Noridian could adopt specific negative coverage policies for CTCs or ctDNA analysis in the future.

We expect these analysis components to have a significantly greater reimbursement value than the enumeration components of our current and anticipated CTC assays, based on a comparison of what we believe CellSearch^® enumeration reimbursement rates currently are, versus existing reimbursement rates for analysis components such as FISH and ICC analysis and molecular testing.

Additionally, on March 16, 2018 CMS issued a final determination decision memo for Next-Generation Sequencing, or NGS, tests for Medicare Beneficiaries with Advanced Cancer (CAG-00450N).  Under this final determination, NGS tests that gain FDA approval or clearance as a companion diagnostic will receive coverage, and the final determination of coverage for NGS tests that are LDTs will be left up to the local MAC. Currently, only two of our CLIA validated assays are NGS-based; however, we plan to offer additional NGS assays in the future. To gain coverage for those assays, we will need to apply to Palmetto, which is the MAC that evaluates and recommends payment coverage or denial for molecular testing in our jurisdiction.

31

We believe, based on research showing that approximately 54% of new cancers occur in persons age 65 and older and that almost all Americans age 65 and older are enrolled in Medicare that a substantial portion of the patients for whom we would expect to perform cancer diagnostic assays will have Medicare as their primary medical insurance. We cannot assure you that, even if our current and our planned future assays are otherwise successful, reimbursement for the currently Medicare-covered portions of our current and our planned future assays would, without Medicare reimbursement for the enumeration portion, produce sufficient revenues to enable us to reach profitability and achieve our other commercial objectives.

Where there is a private or governmental third-party payer coverage policy in place, we bill the payer and the patient in accordance with the established policy. Where there is no coverage policy in place, we pursue reimbursement on a case-by-case basis. Our efforts in obtaining reimbursement based on individual claims, including pursuing appeals or reconsiderations of claims denials, could take a substantial amount of time, and bills may not be paid for many months, if at all. Furthermore, if a third-party payer denies coverage after final appeal, payment may not be received at all. We are working to decrease risks of nonpayment by implementing a revenue cycle management system.

We cannot predict whether, or under what circumstances, payers will reimburse for all components of our assays. Payment amounts can also vary across individual policies. Full or partial denial of coverage by payers, or reimbursement at inadequate levels, would have a material adverse impact on our business and on market acceptance of our assays.

Legislative and Regulatory Changes Impacting Clinical Laboratory Tests

From time to time, Congress has revised the Medicare statute and the formulas it establishes for both the CLFS, and the PFS. Annually, CMS releases the payment amounts under the Medicare fee schedules. The rates are important because they not only determine our reimbursement under Medicare, but those payment amounts are also often used as a basis for payment amounts set by other governmental and private third-party payers. For example, state Medicaid programs are prohibited from paying more than the Medicare fee schedule limit for clinical laboratory services furnished to Medicaid recipients.

In accordance with Section 1833 (h)(2)(A)(i) of the Social Security Act, the annual update to the CLFS for calendar year 2022 is 5.4% (see 42 CFR405.509(b)(1)). With respect to our diagnostic services for which we expect to be reimbursed under PFS, CMS issues a Final Rule on an annual basis. Since 2015, the PFS Final Rules have included both increases and decreases in certain relative value units and geographic adjustment factors used to determine reimbursement for a number of codes used in our current assays and our planned future assays. These codes describe services that we must perform in connection with our assays and we bill for these codes in connection with the services that we provide.

Additionally, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, or collectively the ACA, enacted in March 2010, made a number of substantial changes in the way health care is financed by both governmental and private insurers.

Although some of these provisions may negatively impact payment rates for clinical laboratory tests, the ACA also extended coverage to over 30 million previously uninsured people, which resulted in an increase in the demand for certain diagnostic assays. There have been executive, judicial and congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA. For example, President Trump signed several executive orders and other directives designed to delay, circumvent, or loosen certain requirements mandated by the ACA. Concurrently, Congress considered legislation to repeal or repeal and replace all or part of the ACA. While Congress has not passed comprehensive repeal legislation, it has enacted laws that modify certain provisions of the ACA such as removing penalties effective January 1, 2019, for not complying with the ACA’s individual mandate to carry health insurance and eliminating the implementation of certain ACA-mandated fees, including but not limited the Medical Device Excise Tax. On June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed a challenge on procedural grounds that argued the ACA is unconstitutional in its entirety because the “individual mandate” was repealed by Congress. Thus, the ACA will remain in effect in its current form. Further, prior to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, on January 28, 2021, President Biden issued an executive order to initiate a special enrollment period for purposes of obtaining health insurance coverage through the ACA marketplace. The executive order also instructs certain governmental agencies to review and reconsider their existing policies and rules that limit access to healthcare, including among others, reexamining Medicaid demonstration projects and waiver programs that include work requirements, and policies that create unnecessary barriers to obtaining access to health insurance coverage through Medicaid or the ACA. It is possible that the ACA will be subject to judicial or congressional challenges in the future. It is unclear how such challenges and the healthcare reform measures of the Biden Administration will impact the ACA.

32

Moreover, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted. The Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014, or PAMA, was signed to law, which, among other things, significantly altered the current payment methodology under the CLFS. Under the law, applicable clinical laboratories must report laboratory test payment data for each Medicare-covered clinical diagnostic laboratory test that it furnishes during the specified time period. The reported data must include the payment rate (reflecting all discounts, rebates, coupons and other price concessions) and the volume of each test that was paid by each private payer (including health insurance issuers, group health plans, Medicare Advantage plans and Medicaid managed care organizations). Effective January 1, 2018, the Medicare payment rate for each clinical diagnostic laboratory test is equal to the weighted median amount for the test from the most recent data collection period. The payment rate applies to laboratory tests furnished by a hospital laboratory if the test is separately paid under the hospital outpatient prospective payment system. PAMA’s reporting obligations began in 2017 and occur every three years thereafter (or annually in the case of advanced diagnostic laboratory tests). Reporting of payment data under PAMA for clinical diagnostic laboratory tests has been delayed on numerous occasions. Based on current law, between January 1, 2023 and March 31, 2023, applicable laboratories will be required to report on data collected during January 1, 2019 and June 30, 2019. This data will be utilized to determine 2024 to 2026 CLFS rates. In addition, CMS updated the statutory phase-in provisions such that the rates for clinical diagnostic laboratory tests in 2020 could not be reduced by more than 10% of the rates for 2019. Pursuant to the CARES Act, the statutory phase-in of payment reductions has been extended through 2024, with a 0% reduction cap for 2021-2022 and a 15% reduction cap for 2023 through 2025. The PAMA rate changes did not materially affect our payments beginning in 2018; however, we cannot predict how this may affect future payment in coming years. Also, under PAMA, CMS is required to adopt temporary billing codes to identify new tests and new advanced diagnostic laboratory tests that have been cleared or approved by the FDA. For an existing test that is cleared or approved by the FDA and for which Medicare payment is made as of April 1, 2014, CMS is required to assign a unique billing code if one has not already been assigned by the agency. In addition to assigning the code, CMS is required to publicly report payment for the tests. Further, under PAMA, CMS is required to adopt temporary billing codes to identify new tests and new advanced diagnostic laboratory tests that have been cleared or approved by the FDA.

Additionally, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, created the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction to recommend proposals in spending reductions to Congress. The Joint Select Committee did not achieve its targeted deficit reduction of at least $1.2 trillion for the years 2013 through 2021, triggering the legislation’s automatic reduction to several government programs. This includes aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers and suppliers of up to 2% per fiscal year, starting in 2013, and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, will remain in effect through 2031 unless additional congressional action is taken. COVID-19 relief legislation suspended the 2% Medicare sequester from May 1, 2020 through March 31, 2022. Under current legislation, the actual reduction in Medicare payments will vary from 1% in 2022 to up to 3% in the final fiscal year of this sequester. In addition, the Middle-Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, or MCTRJCA, mandated an additional change in Medicare reimbursement for clinical laboratory tests. Congress is considering additional health reform measures as part of other reform initiatives.

In April 2020, the CMS announced that it would increase the reimbursement for certain COVID-19 molecular tests making use of high-throughput technologies developed by the private sector that allow for increased testing capacity, faster results, and more effective means of combating the spread of the virus to $100 per test, effective April 14, 2020. However, beginning January 1, 2021, Medicare changed the base reimbursement rate for COVID-19 diagnostic tests run on high-throughput technologies to $75 per test with an additional payment of $25 per test if certain additional requirements are met.  Moreover, federal COVID-19 relief funding for uninsured individuals to receive testing and treatment for COVID-19 has sunset, and it is unclear whether Congress will take additional action to extend this funding program.

Further, with respect to the Medicare program, Congress has proposed on several occasions to impose a 20% coinsurance charge on patients for clinical laboratory tests reimbursed under the CLFS, which would require us to bill patients for these amounts. Because of the relatively low reimbursement for many clinical laboratory tests, in the event that Congress were to ever enact such legislation, the cost of billing and collecting for these services would often exceed the amount actually received from the patient and effectively increase our costs of billing and collecting.

Some of our Medicare claims may be subject to policies issued by Palmetto and Noridian Healthcare Solutions, our former and current MACs for California, respectively. Palmetto has issued a Local Coverage Determination, whereby Palmetto will not cover many molecular diagnostic assays, such as the enumeration component of our current assays, unless the test is expressly included in a National Coverage Determination issued by CMS or a Local Coverage Determination or coverage article issued by Palmetto. Currently, laboratories may submit coverage determination requests to Palmetto for consideration and apply for a unique billing code for each assay (which is a separate process from the coverage determination). In the event that a non-

33

coverage determination is issued, the laboratory must wait six months following the determination to submit a new request. Palmetto currently has a negative coverage determination for the enumeration component of CTC assays, but there is no such negative coverage determination for the analysis component of such CTC assays. Denial (or continuation of denial) of coverage for the enumeration component of our current and anticipated CTC assays by Palmetto or its successor MAC, Noridian Healthcare Solutions, which adopts coverage policies set by the MolDx program, or reimbursement at inadequate levels, would have a material adverse impact on our business and on market acceptance of our current assays and our planned future assays. Noridian Healthcare Solutions intends to follow, for CTC assays, the positive or negative coverage determinations which from time-to-time Palmetto makes as well as any coverage policy changes set by the MolDx program. On November 27, 2013, Palmetto denied our request for coverage for the enumeration/detection portion of our testing. We have not received any other indications to suggest that the negative coverage determination will be reversed. The CTC enumeration counts disease burden and is a prognostic test, and although oncologists find this information valuable, it does not meet many of the medical necessity requirements of Medicare and the payers. We intend to pursue payment for the capture portion of our CTC technology that allows us to run our diagnostic testing for some of our Target Selector assays.

Additionally, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CMS and the Office of Civil Rights issued a final rule in February 2014 to amend both the HIPAA and CLIA regulations. The final rule amended the HIPAA privacy rule to remove the CLIA laboratory exceptions, and as a result, HIPAA-covered laboratories are now required to provide individuals, upon request, with access to their completed test reports. Similarly, the final rule amended CLIA to state that CLIA laboratories and CLIA-exempt laboratories may provide copies of the patient’s completed rest reports that, using the laboratory’s authentication process, can be identified as belonging to that patient.

Further, it is possible that additional governmental action is taken in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Governmental Regulations

Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 and State Regulation

As a provider of laboratory testing on human specimens for the purpose of diagnosis, prevention, or treatment, we are required to hold certain federal, state and local licenses, certifications and permits to conduct our business. In 1988, Congress enacted CLIA, which established quality standards for all laboratories providing testing to ensure the accuracy, reliability and timeliness of patient test results regardless of where the test was performed. Our laboratory holds a CLIA certificate of accreditation from CAP, and is in good standing. As to state laws, we are required to meet certain laboratory licensing and other requirements. Our laboratory holds the required licenses from the applicable state agencies in which we operate. For more information on state licensing requirements, see the sections entitled see the section entitled “Governmental Regulations—California State Laboratory Licensing” and “Governmental Regulations—Other States’ Laboratory Licensing.”

Under CLIA, a laboratory is defined as any facility which performs laboratory testing on specimens derived from humans for the purpose of providing information for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of disease, or the impairment of, or assessment of health of human beings. CLIA also requires that we hold a certificate applicable to the complexity of the categories of testing we perform and that we comply with certain standards. CLIA further regulates virtually all clinical laboratories by requiring they comply with various operational, personnel, facilities administration, quality and proficiency testing requirements intended to ensure that their clinical laboratory testing services are accurate, reliable and timely. CLIA certification is also a prerequisite to be eligible to be reimbursed for services provided to state and federal health care program beneficiaries. CLIA is user-fee funded. Therefore, all costs of administering the program must be covered by the regulated facilities, including certification and survey costs.

We are subject to survey and inspection every two years to assess compliance with program standards and may be subject to additional unannounced inspections. Laboratories performing high-complexity testing are required to meet more stringent requirements than laboratories performing less complex tests. In addition, a laboratory like ours that is certified as “high complexity” under CLIA may obtain analyte-specific reagents, which are used to develop laboratory developed tests, or LDTs.

In addition to CLIA requirements, we must comply with the standards set by CAP, which accredits our laboratory. Under CMS requirements, accreditation by CAP is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of CLIA. Therefore, because we are accredited by CAP, we are deemed to also comply with CLIA. CLIA also provides that a state may adopt laboratory regulations that are more stringent than those under federal law, and certain states have implemented their own more stringent laboratory regulatory schemes.

34

Federal, State and Foreign Fraud and Abuse Laws

A variety of federal and state laws prohibit fraud and abuse regarding the preparation and submissions of claims for services as well as avoiding unlawful inducements in our relations with those who may refer patients to our laboratory. These laws are interpreted broadly and enforced aggressively by various state and federal agencies, including CMS, the Department of Justice, the Office of Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, and various state agencies. In addition, the Medicare and Medicaid programs increasingly use a variety of contractors to review claims data and to identify improper payments as well as fraud and abuse. These contractors include Recovery Audit Contractors, Medicaid Integrity Contractors and Zone Program Integrity Contractors. In addition, CMS conducts Comprehensive Error Rate Testing audits, the purpose of which is to detect improper Medicare payments. In addition, many private insurers as well as other managed care organizations have their own internal auditing programs to ensure against any false claims being submitted.  Any overpayments identified must be repaid unless a favorable decision is obtained on appeal. In some cases, these overpayments can be used as the basis for an extrapolation, by which the error rate is applied to a larger universe of claims, and which can result in even higher repayments.

The federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits, among other things, knowingly and willfully offering, paying, soliciting, receiving, or providing remuneration, directly or indirectly, to induce or in return for either the referral of an individual, or the furnishing, recommending, or arranging for the purchase, lease or order of any health care item or service reimbursable, in whole or in part, under a federal health care program. The definition of “remuneration” has been broadly interpreted to include anything of value, including gifts, discounts, credit arrangements, payments of cash, ownership interests and providing anything at less than its fair market value. Recognizing that the federal Anti-Kickback Statute is broad and may technically prohibit many innocuous or beneficial arrangements within the health care industry, the Office of Inspector General for HHS has issued a series of regulatory “safe harbors.” These safe harbor regulations set forth certain requirements that, if met, will assure immunity from prosecution under the federal Anti-Kickback Statute. Although full compliance with these provisions protects against prosecution under the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, the failure of a transaction or arrangement to fit within a specific safe harbor does not necessarily mean that the transaction or arrangement is illegal or that prosecution under the federal Anti-Kickback Statute will be pursued. For further discussion of the impact of federal and state health care fraud and abuse laws and regulations on our business, see the section entitled “Risk Factors—Regulatory Risks Relating to Our Business.” We are subject to federal and state health care fraud and abuse laws and regulations and could face substantial penalties if we are unable to fully comply with such laws.

In addition, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, also created new federal civil and criminal penalties, regarding health care fraud and false statements relating to health care matters. The health care fraud statute prohibits knowingly and willfully executing or attempting to execute a scheme to defraud any health care benefit program, including private third-party payers. A violation of this statute is a felony and may result in fines, imprisonment or exclusion from federal health care programs, such as the Medicare and Medicaid programs. The false statements statute prohibits knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for health care benefits, items or services. A violation of this statute is a felony and may result in fines, imprisonment or exclusion from federal health care programs.

Another development affecting the health care industry is the increased enforcement of the federal False Claims Act and, in particular, actions brought pursuant to the False Claims Act’s “whistleblower” or “qui tam” provisions. The False Claims Act imposes liability on any person or entity that, among other things, knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment to the federal government. The qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act allow a private individual to bring actions on behalf of the federal government and permit such individuals to share in any amounts paid by the entity to the government in fines or settlement. In addition, various states have enacted false claim laws analogous to the federal False Claims Act, and some of these state laws apply where a claim is submitted to any third-party payer. When an entity is determined to have violated the False Claims Act, it may be required to pay up to three times the actual damages sustained by the government, plus significant civil monetary penalties.

Further, the Eliminating Kickbacks in Recovery Act of 2018, or EKRA, prohibits payments for referrals to recovery homes, clinical treatment facilities, and laboratories. EKRA’s reach extends beyond federal health care programs to include private insurance (i.e., it is an “all payer” statute). The full scope of such law is uncertain and is subject to a variety of interpretations.

35

Additionally, the civil monetary penalties statute imposes penalties against any person or entity that, among other things, is determined to have presented or caused to be presented a claim to a federal health program that the person knows or should know is for an item or service that was not provided as claimed or is false or fraudulent.

The federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act requires certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (with certain exceptions) to report annually to CMS, information related to payments or other transfers of value made to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors), other healthcare professionals (such as physicians assistants and nurse practitioners), and teaching hospitals, as well as ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members. However, at this time, such reporting requirements do not extend to clinical laboratories such as ours.

Also, many states have laws similar to those listed above that may be broader in scope and may apply regardless of payer.

Additionally, in Europe various countries have adopted anti-bribery laws providing for severe consequences, in the form of criminal penalties and/or significant fines for individuals and/or companies committing a bribery offence. Violations of these anti-bribery laws, or allegations of such violations, could have a negative impact on our business, results of operations and reputation. For instance, in the United Kingdom, under the Bribery Act 2010, a bribery occurs when a person offers, gives or promises to give a financial or other advantage to induce or reward another individual to improperly perform certain functions or activities, including any function of a public nature. Bribery of foreign public officials also falls within the scope of the Bribery Act 2010. Under the new regime, an individual found in violation of the Bribery Act 2010 faces imprisonment of up to 10 years. In addition, the individual can be subject to an unlimited fine, as can commercial organizations for failure to prevent bribery.

Despite our implementation of a robust healthcare compliance program, we may be subject, from time to time, to inspections, investigations, and other enforcement actions by governmental authorities. If we are found not to be in compliance with applicable laws or regulations, the applicable governmental authority can impose significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, such as fines, delay, suspend, or revoke regulatory  approvals, institute proceedings to recoupment of monies, impose marketing or operating restrictions, enjoin future violations, imprisonment, exclusion from government funded healthcare programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, integrity oversight and reporting obligations, and assess similar  significant penalties against our officers or employees.

Physician Self-Referral Prohibitions

Under a federal law directed at “self-referral,” commonly known as the “Stark Law”, there are prohibitions, with certain exceptions, on Medicare and Medicaid payments for laboratory tests referred by physicians who personally, or through a family member, have a “financial relationship”—including an investment or ownership interest or a compensation arrangement—with the clinical laboratory performing the tests. Several Stark Law exceptions are relevant to arrangements involving clinical laboratories, including: (1) fair market value compensation for the provision of items or services; (2) payments by physicians to a laboratory for clinical laboratory services; (3) certain space and equipment rental arrangements that satisfy certain requirements, (4) personal services arrangements that satisfy certain requirements; and (v) ownership in certain publicly traded companies. The laboratory cannot submit claims to the Medicare Part B program for services furnished in violation of the Stark Law, and Medicaid reimbursements may be at risk as well. Penalties for violating the Stark Law include significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, such as the return of funds received for all prohibited referrals, fines, civil monetary penalties exclusion from the federal health care programs integrity oversight and reporting obligations, and imprisonment. Many states have comparable laws that are not limited to Medicare and Medicaid referrals.

Corporate Practice of Medicine

A number of states, including California, do not allow business corporations to employ physicians to provide professional services to patients. This prohibition against the “corporate practice of medicine” is aimed at preventing corporations such as us from exercising control over the medical judgments or decisions of physicians in treating patients. The state licensure statutes and regulations and agency and court decisions that enumerate the specific corporate practice rules vary considerably from state to state and are enforced by both the courts and regulatory authorities, each with broad discretion. If regulatory authorities or other parties in any jurisdiction successfully assert that we are engaged in the unauthorized corporate practice of medicine, we could be required to restructure our contractual and other arrangements. In addition, violation of these laws may result in

36

significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, such as sanctions imposed against us and/or the professional through licensure proceedings, and exclusion from state and federal health care programs. However, it is important to note that laboratories may contract with physicians to act as medical directors for their company as long as none of the compensation is for professional services rendered to patients.

Direct Billing Laws and Other State Law Restrictions on Billing for Laboratory Services

Laws and regulations in certain states prohibit laboratories from billing physicians or other purchasers directly for testing that they order. Some of those laws and regulations apply only to anatomic pathology services while others extend to other types of testing. Some states may allow laboratories to bill physicians directly but may prohibit the physician (and, in some cases, other purchasers) from charging more than the purchase price for the services (or may allow only for the recovery of acquisition costs) or may require disclosure of certain information on the invoice. In some cases, and if not prohibited by law or regulation, we may bill physicians, hospitals and other laboratories directly for the services that they order. An increase in the number of states that impose similar restrictions could adversely affect us by encouraging physicians to perform laboratory services in-house or by causing physicians to refer services to other laboratories that are not subject to the same restrictions.

CMS promulgated in 2009, a revision to the regulation that prohibits the mark up of purchased diagnostic services 42 C.F.R. §414.50 (the “Anti-Markup Rule”). The Anti-Markup Rule prohibits a physician or other supplier from marking up the price paid for the technical or professional component of a diagnostic test that was ordered by the billing physician or supplier and which was performed by a physician who does not share a practice with the billing physician or supplier. The billing physician is prohibited from billing the Medicare program an amount greater than the lesser of: (i) the performing supplier’s net charge to the billing physician; (ii) the billing physician’s actual charge; or (iii) the fee schedule amount for the test that would be allowed if the performing supplier billed directly.

Physician Licensing

A number of the states where specimens originate require that the physician interpreting those specimens for a primary diagnostic purpose be licensed by that particular state. Physicians who fail to comply with these licensure requirements could face fines or other penalties for practicing medicine without a license and we could be required to pay those fines on behalf of our pathologists or subject to liability under the federal False Claims Act and similar state laws if we bill for services furnished by unlicensed pathologists. We do not believe that the services our pathologists perform in overseeing CLIA laboratory operations or releasing results generated by our laboratory on behalf of referring physicians from other states who diagnose and treat patients with cancer under their care constitutes the practice of medicine in any state in which our pathologists are not licensed. Our physicians are licensed in the state of California where our CLIA laboratory is located and are engaged in the practice of laboratory medicine in California per requirements established by the California Department of Health Laboratory Field Services Office and evaluated by the College of American Pathologists, or CAP, which is a principal accrediting organization for laboratories around the world.

In addition, many states also prohibit the splitting or sharing of fees between physicians and non-physician entities. We do not believe that our contractual arrangements with physicians, physician group practices or hospitals will subject us to claims under such regulations. However, changes in the laws may necessitate modifications in our relationships with our clients.

California State Laboratory Licensing

Our laboratory is licensed and in good standing under the State of California Department of Public Health standards. Our current licenses permit us to receive specimens obtained in California.

California state laws and regulations also establish standards for the day-to-day operations of clinical laboratories, including physical facility requirements and equipment, quality control and proficiency testing requirements. If we are found to be out of compliance with California statutory or regulatory standards, we may be subject to suspension, restriction or revocation of our laboratory license or assessed civil money penalties. The operator of a noncompliant laboratory may also be found guilty of a misdemeanor under California law. A finding of noncompliance, therefore, may result in harm to our business.

37

Other States’ Laboratory Licensing

Several states require the licensure of out-of-state laboratories that accept specimens from those states. We hold licenses from the states of Maryland, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island to test specimens from patients in those states or received from ordering physicians in those states. We are currently in the process of addressing the requirements for licensure in New York.

From time to time, other states may require out of state laboratories to obtain licensure in order to accept specimens from such states. If we identify any other state with such requirements or if we are contacted by any other state advising us of such requirements, we intend to follow instructions from the state regulators as to how we should comply with such requirements.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration

We perform our laboratory tests as LDTs. Historically, the FDA has exercised enforcement discretion with respect to most LDTs and has not required laboratories that offer LDTs to comply with the agency’s requirements for medical devices (e.g., establishment registration, device listing, quality systems regulations, premarket clearance or premarket approval, and post-market controls). In recent years, however, the FDA has stated it intends to end its policy of enforcement discretion and regulate certain LDTs as medical devices. To this end, on October 3, 2014, the FDA issued two draft guidance documents, entitled “Framework for Regulatory Oversight of Laboratory Developed Tests (LDTs)” and “FDA Notification and Medical Device Reporting for Laboratory Developed Tests (LDTs)”, respectively, that set forth a proposed risk-based regulatory framework that would apply varying levels of FDA oversight to LDTs. The FDA has indicated that it does not intend to modify its policy of enforcement discretion until the draft guidance documents are finalized. In January 2017, the FDA announced that final guidance on the oversight of LDTs would allow for further public discussion. On January 13, 2017, the FDA issued a “Discussion Paper on Laboratory Developed Tests (LDTs),” which states that the material in the document does not represent a final version of the LDT draft guidance documents that were published in 2014 or position of the FDA; rather, the document is a method to encourage additional dialogue. The timing of when, if at all, the draft guidance documents will be finalized is unclear, and even then, the new regulatory requirements are proposed to be phased-in consistent with the schedule set forth in the guidance. Nevertheless, the FDA may decide to regulate certain LDTs on a case-by-case basis at any time. LDTs with the same intended use as a cleared or approved companion diagnostic are defined in FDA’s draft guidance as “high-risk LDTs (Class III medical devices)” for which premarket review would be first to occur.

We provide our Target Selector Kit Product, ctDNA, EGFR, for research use only, or RUO, applications, although our customers may use these products to develop their own products that are subject to regulation by the FDA. RUO products fall under the FDA’s jurisdiction if they are used for clinical rather than research purposes. Consequently, our products are labeled “For Research Use Only.”  The FDA’s 2013 Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff on “Distribution of In Vitro Diagnostic Products Labeled for Research Use Only or Investigational Use Only,” explains that the FDA will review the totality of the circumstances when evaluating whether equipment and testing components are properly labeled as RUO. Merely including a labeling statement that a product is intended for research use only will not necessarily exempt the device from the FDA’s 510(k) clearance, premarket approval, or other requirements, if the circumstances surrounding the distribution of the product indicate that the manufacturer intends its product to be used for clinical diagnostic use. These circumstances may include written or verbal marketing claims or links to articles regarding a product’s performance in clinical applications, a manufacturer’s provision of technical support for clinical validation or clinical applications, or solicitation of business from clinical laboratories, all of which could be considered evidence of intended uses that conflict with RUO labeling.

Failure to comply with applicable FDA regulatory requirements may trigger a range of enforcement actions by the FDA including warning letters, civil monetary penalties, injunctions, criminal prosecution, recall or seizure, operating restrictions, partial suspension or total shutdown of production, and denial of or challenges to applications for clearance or approval, as well as significant adverse publicity.

Other Regulatory Requirements

Our laboratory is subject to federal, state and local regulations relating to the handling and disposal of regulated medical waste, hazardous waste and biohazardous waste, including chemical, biological agents and compounds, blood and bone marrow samples and other human tissue. Typically, we use outside vendors who are contractually obligated to comply with applicable laws and regulations to dispose of such waste. These vendors are licensed or otherwise qualified to handle and dispose of such waste.

38

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has established extensive requirements relating to workplace safety for health care employers, including requirements to develop and implement programs to protect workers from exposure to blood-borne pathogens by preventing or minimizing any exposure through needle stick or similar penetrating injuries.

Compliance Program

The health care industry is highly regulated and scrutinized with respect to fraud, abusive billing practices and improper financial relationships between health care companies and their referral sources. The Office of the Inspector General of HHS, or OIG, has published compliance guidance, including the Compliance Program Guidance for Clinical Laboratories in August of 1998, and advisory opinions. The Company has implemented a robust Compliance Program, which is overseen by our Board of Directors. Its objective is to ensure compliance with the myriad of federal and state laws, regulations and governmental guidance applicable to our business. Our program consists of training/education of employees and monitoring and auditing Company practices. The Board of Directors has formed a Compliance Committee of the Board, which meets regularly to discuss all compliance-related issues that may affect the Company. The Company reviews its policies and procedures as new regulations and interpretations come to light to comply with applicable regulations. The Chief Compliance Officer reports directly to the Compliance Committee.

Hotline

As part of its Compliance Program, the Company provides a hotline for employees who wish to anonymously or confidentially report suspected violations of our codes of conduct, policies/procedures, or laws and regulations. Employees are strongly encouraged to report any suspected violation if they do not feel the problem can be appropriately addressed through the normal chain of command. The hotline does not replace other resources available to our employees, including supervisors, managers and human resources staff, but is an alternative channel available. The hotline forwards all reports to the Compliance Officer who is responsible for investigating, reporting to the Compliance Committee, and documenting the disposition of each report. The hotline forwards any calls pertaining to the financial statements or financial issues to the Chairman of the Audit Committee. The Company does not allow any retaliation against an employee who reports a compliance related issue in good faith.

Confidentiality and Security of Personal Health Information

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, as amended (“HIPAA”), contains provisions that protect individually identifiable health information from unauthorized use or disclosure by “covered entities,” such as certain healthcare providers, health plans, and healthcare clearinghouses and their respective “business associates,” as well as their covered subcontractors, that perform services for them, which involve the creation, receipt, use, maintenance, transmission or disclosure of, individually identifiable health information for or on behalf of a covered entity. The Office for Civil Rights of HHS, the agency responsible for enforcing HIPAA, has published regulations to address the privacy, or the Privacy Rule, and security, or the Security Rule, of protected health information, or PHI. The Company is a covered entity under HIPAA and has adopted policies and procedures to comply with the Privacy Rule and the Security Rule and HIPAA. The health care facilities and providers that refer specimens to the Company are also bound by HIPAA.  HIPAA also requires that all providers who transmit claims for health care goods or services electronically utilize standard transaction and data sets and use standardized national provider identification codes. The Company endeavors to comply with HIPAA regulations, utilizes standard transaction data sets, and has obtained and implemented national provider identifiers, or NPIs, as the standard unique health identifier in filing and processing health care claims and other transactions.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, or ARRA, enacted the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009, or HITECH, which extends the scope of HIPAA to permit enforcement against business associates for a violation, establishes new requirements to notify the Office for Civil Rights of a breach of PHI, and allows the Attorneys General of the states to bring actions to enforce violations of HIPAA. Rules implementing various aspects of HIPAA are continuing to be promulgated. With respect to these rules, CMS requires all HIPAA-covered entities such as the Company to conduct electronic claim submissions and related electronic transactions under the HIPAA transaction standard called Version 5010.

In addition to the HIPAA Privacy Rule and Security Rule described above, the Company is subject to state laws regarding the handling and disclosure of patient records and patient health information. The HIPAA Privacy Rule and Security Rule regulations do not supersede state laws that may be more stringent; therefore, we are required to comply with both federal privacy and security regulations and varying state privacy and security laws and regulations. These laws vary widely. Penalties for violation include sanctions against a laboratory’s licensure as well as civil or criminal penalties. Additionally, private individuals may have a right of action against the Company for a violation of a state’s privacy laws. We endeavor to comply

39

with current state laws regarding the confidentiality of health information and will continue to monitor new or changing state laws.

Employees

As of December 31, 2021, we had a total of 177 full-time employees, seven of whom hold doctorate degrees and 16 of whom are engaged in full-time research and development activities, as well as three part-time and 12 temporary employees. None of our employees are represented by a labor union.

Available Information

Our website address is www.biocept.com. We post links to our website to the following filings as soon as reasonably practicable after they are electronically filed with or furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission, or the SEC: annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, proxy statements, and any amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. All such filings are available through our website free of charge. The SEC also maintains an internet site at www.sec.gov that contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC.

Company Information

Our principal executive offices and our laboratory operations are located at 9955 Mesa Rim Road, San Diego, California 92121. Our telephone number is (858) 320-8200 and our website address is www.biocept.com. The information contained in, or that can be accessed through, our website is not incorporated into and is not part of this annual report. We were incorporated in California on May 12, 1997 and reincorporated as a Delaware corporation on July 30, 2013.

Item 1A. Risk Factors

An investment in our securities involves a high degree of risk. You should consider carefully the risks described below, together with all of the other information included in this Annual Report, as well as in our other filings with the SEC, in evaluating our business. If any of the following risks actually occur, our business, financial condition, operating results and future prospects could be materially and adversely affected. In that case, the trading price of our common stock may decline and you might lose all or part of your investment. The risks described below are not the only ones we face. Additional risks that we currently do not know about or that we currently believe to be immaterial may also impair our business, financial condition, operating results and prospects. Certain statements below are forward-looking statements. For additional information, see the information included under the heading “Special Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements.”

Risks Relating to Our Financial Condition and Capital Requirements

We are a molecular oncology diagnostics company with a history of net losses; we expect to incur net losses in the future, and we may never achieve sustained profitability.

We have historically incurred substantial net losses, including a net loss of approximately $2.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2021. Due to revenue from our COVID-19 testing services, we generated net income in the fourth quarter of 2020 and the first quarter of 2021. However, we are currently seeing reduced demand for our COVID-19 testing services and expect this trend to continue absent a negative and sustained turn in the course of the pandemic. Without high demand for our COVID-19 testing services, we will continue to incur net losses and negative cash flows from operations for the foreseeable future. At December 31, 2021, our accumulated deficit was approximately $266.4 million. Before 2008, we were pursuing a business plan relating to fetal genetic disorders and other fields, all of which were unrelated to cancer diagnostics. The portion of our accumulated deficit that relates to the period from inception through December 31, 2007, is approximately $66.5 million.

We expect our losses to continue as a result of costs relating to our laboratory operations as well as increased sales and marketing costs and ongoing research and development expenses. These losses have had, and will continue to have, an adverse effect on our working capital, total assets and stockholders’ equity. Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with our commercialization efforts, we are unable to predict when we will become profitable, and we may never become profitable. Even if we do achieve profitability, we may not be able to sustain or increase profitability on a quarterly or annual basis. Our inability to achieve and then maintain profitability would negatively affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

40

We need to raise additional capital to continue as a going concern.

We expect to continue to incur losses for the foreseeable future and will have to raise additional capital to fund our planned operations and to meet our long-term business objectives. Although COVID-19 testing revenue during 2020 and 2021 provided us with increased levels of cash inflows from operations, we are currently seeing reduced demand for our COVID-19 testing services and expect this trend to continue absent a negative and sustained turn in the course of the pandemic.  Until we can generate significant cash from operations, including product and assay revenues, we expect to continue to fund our operations with the proceeds from offerings of our equity securities or debt, or transactions involving product development, technology licensing or collaboration. We can provide no assurances that any sources of a sufficient amount of financing will be available to us on favorable terms, if at all. General market conditions resulting from global supply chain issues, the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the COVID-19 pandemic, and other macroeconomic factors, as well as market conditions affecting companies in the life sciences industry in general, may make it difficult for us to obtain financing from the capital markets on attractive terms, or at all.  Failure to raise additional capital in sufficient amounts would significantly impact our ability to continue as a going concern. The actual amount of funds that we will need and the timing of any such investment will be determined by many factors, some of which are beyond our control.

Risks Relating to Our Business and Strategy

If we are unable to increase sales of our current products, assays and services or successfully develop and commercialize other products, assays and services, our revenues will be insufficient for us to achieve profitability.

Other than our COVID-19 testing revenue, we currently derive substantially all of our revenues from sales of diagnostic assays. We began offering our assays through our Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988, or CLIA, certified CAP accredited, and state-licensed laboratory in 2014. Additionally, the sale of our proprietary specimen collection tubes, or SCTs commenced in June 2018, which allow for the intact transport of liquid biopsy samples for research use only, or RUO, from regions around the world. We are in varying stages of research and development for other products and diagnostic assays that we may offer. If we are unable to increase sales of our existing products and diagnostic assays or successfully develop and commercialize other products and diagnostic assays, we will not produce sufficient revenues to become profitable.

If we are unable to execute our sales and marketing strategy for our products and diagnostic assays and are unable to gain acceptance in the market, we may be unable to generate sufficient revenue to sustain our business.

We are an early-stage molecular oncology diagnostics company and have engaged in only limited sales and marketing activities for the diagnostic assays we currently offer through our CLIA-certified, CAP accredited, and state-licensed laboratory. Except for net income generated in the fourth quarter of 2020 and the first quarter of 2021 as a result of our COVID-19 testing revenue, our revenue has been insufficient to fund operations.

Although we believe that our current assays and our planned future assays, our molecular kits as well as our blood and viral collection tube product, represent a promising commercial opportunity, our products or assays may never gain significant acceptance in the marketplace and therefore may never generate substantial revenue or profits for us. We will need to establish a market for our products and diagnostic assays and build that market through physician education, awareness programs and the publication of clinical trial results. Gaining acceptance in medical communities requires, among other things, publications in leading peer-reviewed journals of results from studies using our current products, assays and services and/or our planned future products, assays and services. The process of publication in leading medical journals is subject to a peer review process and peer reviewers may not consider the results of our studies sufficiently novel or worthy of publication. Failure to have our studies published in peer-reviewed journals would limit the adoption of our current products, assays and services and our planned future products, assays and services.

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

41

Failure to achieve widespread market acceptance of our current products, assays and services, as well as our planned future products, assays and services, would materially harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.

If we cannot develop products, assays and services to keep pace with rapid advances in technology, medicine and science, our operating results and competitive position could be harmed.

In recent years, there have been numerous advances in technologies relating to the diagnosis and treatment of cancer. Several new cancer drugs have been approved, and a number of new drugs in clinical development may increase patient survival time. There have also been advances in methods used to identify patients likely to benefit from these drugs based on analysis of biomarkers. We must continuously develop new products and diagnostic assays and enhance any existing products, assays and services to keep pace with evolving standards of care. Our current products, assays and services and our planned future products, assays and services could become obsolete unless we continually innovate and expand them to demonstrate benefit in the diagnosis, monitoring or prognosis of patients with cancer. New cancer therapies typically have only a few years of clinical data associated with them, which limits our ability to develop products and diagnostic assays based on, for example, biomarker analysis related to the appearance or development of resistance to those therapies. If we cannot adequately demonstrate the applicability of our current products, assays and services and our planned future products, assays and services to new treatments, by incorporating important biomarker analysis, sales of our products, assays and services could decline, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

If our current products, assays and services and our planned future products, assays and services do not continue to perform as expected, our operating results, reputation and business will suffer.

Our success depends on the market’s confidence that we can continue to provide reliable, high-quality products and assay results. We believe that our customers are likely to be particularly sensitive to product or assay defects and errors. As a result, the failure of our current or planned future products or assays to perform as expected, including with respect to our ability to maintain the sensitivity, specificity, concordance or reproducibility of such assays, would significantly impair our reputation and the public image of our products and cancer assays, and we may be subject to legal claims arising from any defects or errors. This could also impact our ability to get paid or the amount we are paid.

If our sole laboratory facility becomes damaged or inoperable, or we are required to vacate the facility, our ability to sell and provide our products and diagnostic assays and pursue our research and development efforts may be jeopardized.

Other than our COVID-19 testing revenue, we currently derive our revenues from our diagnostic assays conducted in our CLIA-certified, CAP accredited, and state-licensed laboratory. We do not have any clinical reference laboratory facilities other than our facility in San Diego, California. We completed the process of moving our operations and equipment to our new laboratory facility in San Diego in December 2020. Our new facilities and equipment could be harmed or rendered inoperable by natural or man-made disasters, including fire, earthquake, flooding and power outages, which may render it difficult or impossible for us to sell our products or perform our diagnostic assays for some period of time. The inability to sell our current or planned future products, or to perform our current assays and our planned future assays, or the backlog of assays that could develop if our facility is inoperable for even a short period of time, may result in the loss of customers or harm to our reputation or relationships with scientific or clinical collaborators, and we may be unable to regain those customers or repair our reputation in the future. Furthermore, our facilities and the equipment we use to perform our research and development work could be costly and time-consuming to repair or replace.

42

The San Diego area periodically experiences serious fires and power outages and is considered to lie in an area with earthquake risk.

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

Further, if our current or future CLIA-certified, CAP accredited, and state-licensed laboratory becomes inoperable or unqualified in any way we may not be able to license or transfer our technology to another facility with the necessary qualifications, including state licensure and CLIA certification, under the scope of which our current assays and our planned future assays could be performed. Even if we find a facility with such qualifications to perform our assays, it may not be available to us on commercially reasonable terms.

Our business is subject to risks arising from pandemic and epidemic diseases, such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

A pandemic, including COVID-19 or other public health epidemic, poses the risk that we or our employees, contractors, suppliers, courier delivery services and other partners may be prevented from conducting business activities for an indefinite period of time, including due to spread of the disease within these groups or due to shutdowns that may be requested or mandated by governmental authorities.  The continued spread of COVID-19 and the measures taken by state and local governments could disrupt the supply chain of material needed for our assays, interrupt our ability to receive samples, impair our ability to perform or deliver the results from our tests, impede patient movement or interrupt healthcare services causing a decrease in test volumes, delay coverage decisions from Medicare and third party payers, delay ongoing and planned clinical trials involving our tests and have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.  The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a number of restrictions to reduce the spread of the disease, including executive orders in California, and several other state and local orders across the country, which, among other things, directed individuals to shelter at their places of residence, directed schools, businesses and governmental agencies to cease non-essential operations at physical locations, prohibited certain non-essential gatherings, and ordered cessation of non-essential travel. In some places, these orders have been lifted whereas other locations continue to be subject to restrictions. The emergence of new variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus raises the possibility that recurring cycles of restrictions will be imposed in the future, notwithstanding vaccination efforts. The effects of state and local stay-at-home orders and our work-from-home policies may negatively impact productivity, disrupt our business and delay our development programs and regulatory timelines and negatively impact our commercial activities, the magnitude of which will depend, in part, on the length and severity of the restrictions and other limitations on our ability to conduct our business in the ordinary course. These and similar, and perhaps more severe, disruptions in our operations due to the COVID-19 pandemic could negatively impact our business, operating results and financial condition.

The spread of COVID-19, which has caused a broad impact globally, may materially affect us economically. While the potential economic impact brought by, and the duration of, the COVID-19 pandemic may be difficult to assess or predict, the pandemic continues to have the potential for disruption of global financial markets. This disruption, if sustained or recurrent, could make it more difficult for us to access capital, which could negatively affect our liquidity. In addition, a recession or market correction resulting from the spread of COVID-19 could materially affect our business and the value of our common stock.

The ultimate impact of the COVID-19 pandemic or a similar health pandemic or epidemic is highly uncertain and subject to change. We do not yet know the full extent of potential delays or impacts on our business, commercialization efforts, healthcare systems or to the global economy as a whole. These effects could have a material impact on our financial condition and operations. We will continue to monitor the COVID-19 situation closely.

Our RT-PCR COVID-19 testing business revenues will likely decline.

We launched our RT-PCR COVID-19 testing business during the second quarter of 2020. We have received more than 800,000 samples for processing through our RT-PCR technology at our laboratory to date. During the years ended December 31, 2020 and 2021, we saw a significant increase in our net revenues due to our substantial COVID-19 testing volumes during those periods. As a result of increased vaccination and immunization levels, as well as decreased  COVID-19 hospitalizations,

43

reported cases and mandatory COVID-19 testing, we are currently seeing reduced demand for our COVID-19 testing services and expect this trend to continue absent a negative and sustained turn in the course of the pandemic.  In addition, our RT-PCR COVID-19 testing is done pursuant to an Emergency Use Authorization which will be revoked when the public health emergency is no longer in effect, and we will no longer be able to offer the test under the EUA after such revocation.

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

Our principal competition comes from established molecular diagnostic clinical testing services and products, used by medical oncologists, neuro-oncologists, surgical oncologists, urologists, pulmonologists, pathologists and other physicians, which are based on tumor tissue analysis. It may be difficult to change established clinical practices and behavior of medical oncologists, neuro-oncologists, surgical oncologists, urologists, pulmonologists, pathologists and other physicians to get them to adopt the use of our blood-based CTC and ctDNA assays, in their practices in conjunction with or instead of molecular diagnostic tests from tissue biopsies.  

Blood or liquid biopsy molecular tests based on CTC and ctDNA assays for oncology applications represent a new area of science and medicine and we cannot predict what products or assays others will develop that may compete with or provide results similar or superior to the results we are able to achieve with the products or assays we develop.  

We face competition from specialty oncology diagnostic companies that are conducting research and development to develop proprietary CTC or ctDNA based assays and assay test panels for use in genomic profiling and monitoring solid tumor cancers. Competitors developing ctDNA bases assays and assay panels include but are not limited to companies such as Guardant Health, Foundation Medicine, Tempus Laboratories, NeoGenomics, Invitae, Natera, Inivata and Biodesix. EPIC Sciences, Menarini Silicon Biosystems and Angle PLC offer CTC-based assays. These companies, in addition to operating research and development laboratories, have established CLIA-certified testing laboratories and have developed  LDT (lab developed tests) that they market directly to oncologists and pathologists. A few of these companies, like Guardant Health, have achieved FDA clearance for their proprietary laboratory tests.  

There are a number of national and regional specialty diagnostic companies, such as Caris Life Sciences and CSI, which are focused on the oncology diagnostic market, who while not currently offering CTC or ctDNA assays are selling to oncologists and pathologists and could develop or offer ctDNA or CTC or assays. In addition large laboratory services companies such as Quest and LabCorp which provide a broad array of cancer diagnostic assays and testing services could also offer CTC or ctDNA based clinical testing services. In June 2021, we announced a collaboration with Quest Diagnostics to provide laboratory testing services to Quest patients for our Target Selector NGS-based liquid biopsy targeted lung cancer panel. However, this collaboration does not prevent Quest from offering or providing testing services that are competitive with our panel.  

Another new area of science and medicine is CTC and ctDNA assays performed from cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) samples for neuro-oncology applications and there is currently limited competition for our CSF-based CTC and ctDNA assays.  There are no known specialty oncology diagnostic companies or large laboratory services companies that offer CSF-based CTC and ctDNA tests for neuro-oncology applications as a standard commercial clinical testing service. A few academic based pathology labs such as Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center offer CSF-based testing mainly for research purposes.  

There are a number of companies which are focused on the oncology diagnostic market, who while not currently offering CTC or ctDNA assays are selling to the medical oncologists and pathologists and could develop or offer CTC or ctDNA assays. Large laboratory services companies such as Quest and LabCorp provide more generalized cancer diagnostic assays and testing but could also offer a CTC or ctDNA assay service. Companies like Abbott, Danaher and others could develop equipment or reagents in the future as well. Currently, companies like Streck, Roche and Exact Sciences offer SCTs, and in the future, companies like Covidien, Beckton Dickinson, Thermo Fisher, and other large medical device companies may develop SCTs as well.

There are a number of life science technology companies that are focused on the oncology diagnostic market, such as Thermo Fisher Scientific, Illumina, Abbott Molecular, Bio-Rad, Sysmex, Qiagen, and Roche Diagnostics, that are selling equipment and reagents kits for ctDNA assays and assay panels. These companies compete with our ctDNA assay kit products and SCTs. Menarini Silicon Biosystems sells equipment and reagents kits for CTC assays. These companies market their products to specialty laboratories that offer molecular based testing for oncology applications, including national reference laboratory, regional laboratories and pathology laboratories that are part of academic medical centers and hospital systems.  These

44

laboratories may purchase these products and developed ctDNA and CTC based laboratory developed tests that are marketed to medical oncologists and pathologists that compete with our lab services.  

Some of our present and potential competitors have widespread brand recognition and substantially greater financial and technical resources and development, production and marketing capabilities than we do. Others may develop lower-priced, less complex assays that payers, medical oncologists, neuro-oncologists, surgical oncologists, urologists, pulmonologists, pathologists and other physicians could view as functionally equivalent to our current or planned future assays, which could force us to lower the list price of our assays and impact our operating margins and our ability to achieve and maintain profitability. In addition, technological innovations that result in the creation of enhanced products or diagnostic tools that are more sensitive or specific or offer more content than ours may enable other clinical laboratories, hospitals, physicians or medical providers to provide specialized products or diagnostic assays similar to ours in a more patient-friendly, efficient or cost-effective manner than is currently possible. If we cannot compete successfully against current or future competitors, we may be unable to increase or create market acceptance and sales of our current or planned future products or assays, which could prevent us from increasing or sustaining our revenues or achieving or sustaining profitability.

We expect that biopharmaceutical companies will increasingly focus resources on development of targeted oncology therapies that may require a companion diagnostics test approved by the FDA. Biocept may face increasing competition from companies that offer CTC or ctDNA assays or products that are approved by the FDA as an IVD for companion diagnostic uses.

Additionally, projects related to cancer diagnostics and particularly genomics have received increased government funding, both in the United States and internationally. As more information regarding cancer genomics becomes available to the public, we anticipate that more products aimed at identifying targeted treatment options will be developed and that these products may compete with ours. In addition, competitors may develop their own versions of our current or planned future products or assays in countries where we did not apply for patents or where our patents have not issued and compete with us in those countries, including encouraging the use of their product or assay by physicians or patients in other countries.

We expect to continue to incur significant expenses to develop and market products and diagnostic assays, which could make it difficult for us to achieve and sustain profitability.

In recent years, we have incurred significant costs in connection with the development of our products and diagnostic assays. For the years ended December 31, 2020 and 2021, our research and development expenses were $5.2 million and $5.0 million, respectively, and our sales and marketing expenses were $6.4 million and $8.3 million, respectively. We expect our expenses to continue to increase for the foreseeable future as we conduct studies of our current products, assays and services and our planned future products, assays and services, continue to establish our sales and marketing organization, drive adoption of and reimbursement for our products and diagnostic assays and develop new products, assays and services. As a result, we need to generate significant revenues in order to achieve sustained profitability.

If medical oncologists, neuro-oncologists, surgical oncologists, urologists, pulmonologists, pathologists and other physicians decide not to order our current or planned future assays, or if laboratory supply distributors or their customers decide not to order our current or planned future products, we may be unable to generate sufficient revenue to sustain our business.

To generate demand for our current products, assays and services and our planned future products, assays and services, we will need to educate medical oncologists, neuro-oncologists, surgical oncologists, urologists, pulmonologists, pathologists, and other physicians and other health care professionals, as well as laboratory and medical equipment suppliers, on the clinical utility, benefits and value of the products, assays and services we provide through published papers, presentations at scientific conferences, educational programs and one-on-one education sessions by members of our sales force. In addition, we need to educate medical oncologists, neuro-oncologists, surgical oncologists, urologists, pulmonologists, pathologists and other physicians of our ability to obtain and maintain coverage and adequate reimbursement from third-party payers. We need to hire additional commercial, scientific, technical and other personnel to support this process. Unless an adequate number of medical practitioners order our current assays and our planned future assays, or unless an adequate number of laboratory supply distributors order our current and planned future products, we will likely be unable to create demand in sufficient volume for us to achieve sustained profitability. Our ability to interface with physicians and other medical professionals has been, and may in the future be, impacted by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

45

Clinical utility studies are important in demonstrating to both customers and payers an assay’s clinical relevance and value. If we are unable to identify collaborators willing to work with us to conduct clinical utility studies, or the results of those studies do not demonstrate that an assay provides clinically meaningful information and value, commercial adoption of such assay may be slow, which would negatively impact our business.

Clinical utility studies show when and how to use a clinical test or assay and describe the particular clinical situations or settings in which it can be applied and the expected results. Clinical utility studies also show the impact of the test or assay results on patient care and management. Clinical utility studies are typically performed with collaborating oncologists or other physicians at medical centers and hospitals, analogous to a clinical trial, and generally result in peer-reviewed publications. Sales and marketing representatives use these publications to demonstrate to customers how to use a clinical test or assay, as well as why they should use it. These publications are also used with payers to obtain coverage for a test or assay, helping to assure there is appropriate reimbursement.

We need to conduct additional studies for our assays, increase assay adoption in the marketplace and obtain coverage and adequate reimbursement. Should we not be able to perform these studies, or should their results not provide clinically meaningful data and value for medical oncologists, neuro-oncologists, surgical oncologists, urologists, pulmonologists, pathologists and other physicians, adoption of our assays could be impaired, and we may not be able to obtain coverage and adequate reimbursement for them.

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

Our success in implementing our business strategy depends largely on the skills, experience and performance of key members of our executive management team and others in key management positions. The collective efforts of each member of the executive team and others working with them as a team are critical to us as we continue to develop our technologies, products, services, assays and research and development and sales programs. As a result of the difficulty in locating qualified new management, the loss or incapacity of existing members of our executive management team could adversely affect our operations. If we were to lose one or more of these key employees, we could experience difficulties in finding qualified successors, competing effectively, developing our technologies and implementing our business strategy. Our executive management team each have employment agreements, however, the existence of an employment agreement does not guarantee retention of members of our executive management team and we may not be able to retain those individuals for the duration of or beyond the end of their respective terms. We do not maintain “key person” life insurance on any of our employees.

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

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

There is a scarcity of experienced professionals in our industry. If we are not able to retain and recruit personnel with the requisite technical skills, we may be unable to successfully execute our business strategy.

The specialized nature of our industry results in an inherent scarcity of experienced personnel in the field. Our future success depends upon our ability to attract and retain highly skilled personnel, including scientific, technical, commercial, business, regulatory and administrative personnel, necessary to support our anticipated growth, develop our business and perform certain contractual obligations. Given the scarcity of professionals with the scientific knowledge that we require and the competition for qualified personnel among life science businesses, we may not succeed in attracting or retaining the personnel we require to continue and grow our operations.

Our failure to continue to attract, hire and retain a sufficient number of qualified sales professionals would hamper our ability to increase demand for our products and diagnostic assays, to expand geographically and to successfully commercialize any other products or assays we may develop.

To succeed in selling our products and diagnostic assays and any other products or assays that we are able to develop, we must expand our sales force in the United States and/or internationally by recruiting additional sales representatives with extensive

46

experience in oncology and established relationships with medical oncologists, neuro-oncologists, surgical oncologists, urologists, pulmonologists, pathologists, oncology nurses, and other physicians and hospital personnel, as well as laboratory supply distributors. To achieve our marketing and sales goals, we will need to continue to build our sales and commercial infrastructure. Sales professionals with the necessary technical and business qualifications are in high demand, and there is a risk that we may be unable to attract, hire and retain the number of sales professionals with the right qualifications, scientific backgrounds and relationships with decision-makers at potential customers needed to achieve our sales goals. We expect to face competition from other companies in our industry, some of whom are much larger than us and who can pay greater compensation and benefits than we can, in seeking to attract and retain qualified sales and marketing employees. If we are unable to hire and retain qualified sales and marketing personnel, our business will suffer.

Our dependence on commercialization partners for sales of products, assays and services could limit our success in realizing revenue growth.

We intend to grow our business through the use of commercialization partners for the sales, marketing and commercialization of our current products, assays and services, as well as our planned future products, assays and services, and to do so we must enter into agreements with these partners to sell, market or commercialize our products, assays and services. These agreements may contain exclusivity provisions and generally cannot be terminated without cause during the term of the agreement. We may need to attract additional partners to expand the markets in which we sell products or assays. These partners may not commit the necessary resources to market and sell our products and diagnostics assays to the level of our expectations, and we may be unable to locate suitable alternatives should we terminate our agreement with such partners or if such partners terminate their agreement with us.

If current or future commercialization partners do not perform adequately, or we are unable to locate commercialization partners, we may not realize revenue growth.

We depend on third parties for the supply of blood samples and other biological materials that we use in our research and development efforts. If the costs of such samples and materials increase or our third-party suppliers terminate their relationship with us, our business may be materially harmed.

We have relationships with suppliers and institutions that provide us with blood samples and other biological materials that we use in developing and validating our current assays and our planned future assays. If one or more suppliers terminate their relationship with us or are unable to meet our requirements for samples, we will need to identify other third parties to provide us with blood samples and biological materials, which could result in a delay in our research and development activities and negatively affect our business. In addition, as we grow, our research and academic institution collaborators may seek additional financial contributions from us, which may negatively affect our results of operations. To the extent that the third parties supplying us with blood samples or other biological materials are impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic or other supply chain issues, our costs and availability of such supplies may be impacted.

We currently rely on third-party suppliers for our SCTs, shipping kits, and critical materials needed to perform our current assays, as well as our planned future products, assays and services, and any problems experienced by them could result in a delay or interruption of their supply to us.

We currently purchase our SCTs and raw materials for our microfluidic channels and assay reagents under purchase orders and do not have long-term contracts with most of the suppliers of these materials. If suppliers were to delay or stop producing our SCTs, shipping kits, materials or reagents, or if the prices they charge us were to increase significantly, or if they elected not to sell to us, we would need to identify other suppliers. We could experience delays in obtaining SCTs and shipping kits, manufacturing the microfluidic channels, or performing assays while finding another acceptable supplier, which could impact our results of operations. The changes could also result in increased costs associated with qualifying the new SCTs, shipping kits, materials or reagents and in increased operating costs. Further, any prolonged disruption in a supplier’s operations could have a significant negative impact on our ability to perform diagnostic assays in a timely manner and sell our products. If our third-party suppliers’ operations are impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, or other supply chain issues, we may experience supply delays or interruptions.

Some of the components used in our current or planned future products are currently sourced from a supplier for which alternative suppliers exist but we have not validated the products of such alternative suppliers, and substitutes for these components might not be able to be obtained easily or may require substantial design or manufacturing modifications. Any

47

significant problem experienced by any one of our suppliers may result in a delay or interruption in the supply of components to us until that supplier cures the problem or an alternative source of the component is located and qualified. Any delay or interruption would likely lead to a delay or interruption in our manufacturing operations or product sales. The inclusion of substitute components must meet our product specifications and could require us to qualify the new supplier with the appropriate government regulatory authorities.

If we were sued for product liability or professional liability, we could face substantial liabilities that exceed our resources.

The marketing, sale and use of our products and current assays, as well our planned future products, assays and services, could lead to the filing of product liability claims against us if someone alleges that our products or assays failed to perform as designed. We may also be subject to liability for errors in the assay results we provide to physicians or for a misunderstanding of, or inappropriate reliance upon, the information we provide. A product liability or professional liability claim could result in substantial damages and be costly and time-consuming for us to defend.

Although we believe that our existing product and professional liability insurance is adequate, our insurance may not fully protect us from the financial impact of defending against product liability or professional liability claims. Any product liability or professional 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 damage our reputation, result in the recall of products or assays, or cause current partners to terminate existing agreements and potential partners to seek other partners, any of which could impact our results of operations.

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

Our activities currently require the controlled use of potentially harmful biological materials and chemicals. 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, and any liability could exceed our resources or any applicable insurance coverage we may have. Additionally, we are subject to, on an ongoing basis, federal, state and local laws and regulations governing the use, storage, handling and disposal of these materials and specified waste products. The cost of compliance with these laws and regulations may become significant and could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. In the event of an accident or if we otherwise fail to comply with applicable regulations, we could lose our permits or approvals or be held liable for damages or penalized with fines.

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

As part of our business strategy, we may pursue acquisitions of businesses and assets. We also may pursue strategic alliances and joint ventures that leverage our core technology and industry experience to expand our offerings or distribution. We have no experience with acquiring other companies and limited experience with forming strategic alliances and joint ventures. We may not be able to find suitable partners or acquisition candidates, and we may not be able to complete such transactions on favorable terms, if at all. If we make any acquisitions, we may not be able to integrate these acquisitions successfully into our existing business, and we could assume unknown or contingent liabilities. Any future acquisitions also could result in significant write-offs or the incurrence of debt and contingent liabilities, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. Integration of an acquired company also may disrupt ongoing operations and require management resources that would otherwise focus on developing our existing business. We may experience losses related to investments in other companies, which could have a material negative effect on our results of operations. 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 or joint venture.

To finance any acquisitions or joint ventures, we may choose to issue shares of our common 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 or fund a joint venture project using our stock as consideration. Alternatively, it may be necessary for us to raise additional funds for acquisitions through public or private financings. Additional funds may not be available on terms that are favorable to us, or at all.

. 

48

If we cannot support demand for our current products, assays and services, as well as our planned future products, assays and services, including successfully managing the evolution of our laboratory service, our business could suffer.

As our product and assay volume grows, we will need to increase our assay capacity, implement automation, increase our scale and related processing, customer service, billing, collection and systems process improvements and expand our internal quality assurance program and technology to support assays on a larger scale. Examples of challenges we may face include, but are not limited to, maintaining the same validated sensitivity in our assays for both CTC and ctDNA analysis as our assay volume increases. We will also need additional clinical laboratory scientists and other scientific and technical personnel to process these additional assays. Any increases in scale, related improvements and quality assurance may not be successfully implemented and appropriate personnel may not be available. As additional products, assays and services are commercialized, we may need to bring new equipment online, implement new systems, technology, controls and procedures and hire personnel with different qualifications. Failure to implement or maintain necessary procedures or to hire the necessary personnel could result in a higher cost of processing or an inability to meet market demand. We cannot assure you that we will be able to perform assays on a timely basis, or procure SCTs, shipping kits or other materials we sell, at a level consistent with demand, that our efforts to scale our commercial operations will not negatively affect the quality of our assay results, or that we will respond successfully to the growing complexity of our operations. If we encounter difficulty meeting market demand or quality standards for our current products, assays and services and our planned future products, assays and services, including with respect to our assays our ability to maintain the sensitivity, specificity, concordance and reproducibility of such assays, our reputation could be harmed, and our future prospects and business could suffer, which may have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

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

Billing for clinical laboratory assay 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 assays 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 doubtful accounts and long collection cycles, which could adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Several factors make the billing process complex, including:

We use standard industry billing codes, known as Current Procedural Terminology, or CPT, codes, to bill for our diagnostic assays. These 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. 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.

49

As we introduce new assays, 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.

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. These billing complexities, and the related uncertainty in obtaining payment for our assays, 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 third-party billing provider software, and an in-house billing function, 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 third-party billing provider software 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. Additionally, coding for diagnostic assays 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 software 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.

We may encounter manufacturing problems or delays that could result in lost revenue.

We currently manufacture our proprietary microfluidic channels at our San Diego facility and intend to continue to do so. We believe we currently have adequate manufacturing capacity for our microfluidic channels. If demand for our current products, assays and services and our planned future products, assays and services increases significantly, we will need to either expand our manufacturing capabilities or outsource to other manufacturers. If we or third-party manufacturers engaged by us fail to manufacture and deliver our microfluidic channels or certain reagents in a timely manner, our relationships with our customers could be seriously harmed. We cannot assure you that manufacturing, or quality control problems will not arise as we attempt to increase the production of our microfluidic channels or reagents or that we can increase our manufacturing capabilities and maintain quality control in a timely manner or at commercially reasonable costs. If we cannot manufacture our microfluidic channels consistently on a timely basis because of these or other factors, it could have a significant negative impact on our ability to perform assays and generate revenues. We may encounter supply chain constraints in obtaining the raw materials needed to manufacture our products for a variety of reasons, including events outside of our control such as the COVID-19 pandemic and geopolitical events.

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

Our business strategy is to pursue increased international expansion, including partnering with academic and commercial testing laboratories, and introducing our technology outside the United States as part of in vitro diagnostic, or IVD, test kits and/or testing systems utilizing our technologies. Doing business internationally involves a number of risks, including:

50

Any of these risks, if encountered, could significantly harm our future international expansion and operations and consequently, have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

General economic or business conditions may have a negative impact on our business.

The global economy, including credit and financial markets, has experienced extreme volatility and disruptions, including severely diminished liquidity and credit availability, declines in consumer confidence, declines in economic growth, increases in unemployment rates, increases in inflation rates and uncertainty about economic stability. For example, the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in increased unemployment, economic slowdown and extreme volatility in the capital markets. Similarly, the current Russia-Ukraine conflict has created extreme volatility in the global capital markets and is expected to have further global economic consequences, including disruptions of the global supply chain and energy markets. Continuing concerns over United States health care reform legislation have also contributed to increased volatility. Any such volatility and disruptions may have adverse consequences on us or the third parties on whom we rely. If the equity and credit markets deteriorate, including as a result of political unrest or war, it may make any necessary debt or equity financing more difficult to obtain in a timely manner or on favorable terms, more costly or more dilutive.

If our information technology systems or data, or those of third parties upon which we rely, are or were compromised, we could experience adverse consequences, including, without limitation, regulatory investigations or actions, litigation, interruption to our operations, harm to our reputation, fines, penalties, liability, or a loss of revenues, customers or sales, or other adverse consequences.

In the ordinary course of our business, we may process proprietary, confidential and sensitive information, personal data (including health information), intellectual property, trade secrets, and other sensitive business information owned or controlled by ourselves or other parties (collectively, sensitive information). In addition, we rely upon third-party service providers and technologies to operate critical business systems to process sensitive information in a variety of contexts, including without limitation, assay processing, sample tracking, quality control, customer service and support, billing and reimbursement, research and development activities and our general and administrative activities.  Our ability to monitor these third parties’ information security practices is limited, and these third parties may not have adequate information security measures in place.  We may share or receive sensitive information with or from third parties.

Despite the implementation of security measures, we and the third parties upon whom we rely (including the Internet and related systems) may be vulnerable to cyberattacks, malicious internet-based activity and online and offline fraud, which are becoming increasingly prevalent and difficult to detect. These threats come from a variety of sources, including traditional computer “hackers,” threat actors, personnel misconduct or error, employee theft or misuse, sophisticated nation-state and nation-state supported actors. Some actors now engage and are expected to continue to engage in cyberattacks, including without limitation nation-state actors for geopolitical reasons and in conjunction with military conflicts and defense activities.  During times of war and other major conflicts, we and the third parties upon which we rely may be vulnerable to a heightened risk of these attacks, including cyberattacks, that could materially disrupt our systems and operations, supply chain, and ability to produce, sell and distribute our products.  

We and the third parties upon whom we rely are subject to a variety of evolving threats, including but are not limited to social engineering attacks, software bugs, malicious code (such as viruses and worms), denial-of-service attacks (such as credential

51

stuffing), ransomware attacks, supply chain attacks, malware installation, server malfunction, software or hardware failures, loss of data or other computer assets, adware,  physical break-ins, fires, telecommunications or network failures, malicious human acts, natural disasters, or other similar issues. Ransomware attacks, including those from organized criminal threat actors, nation-states, and nation-state supported actors, are becoming increasingly prevalent and severe and can lead to significant interruptions, delays, or outages in our operations, disruption of clinical trials, loss of sensitive information (including data related to clinical trials), loss of income, significant extra expenses to restore data or systems, reputational loss and the diversion of funds. To alleviate the financial, operational and reputational impact of a ransomware attack, it may be preferable to make extortion payments, but we may be unwilling or unable to do so (including, for example, if applicable laws or regulations prohibit such payments). Similarly, supply chain attacks have increased in frequency and severity, and we cannot guarantee that third parties and infrastructure in our supply chain have not been compromised or that they do not contain exploitable defects or bugs that could result in a breach of or disruption to our platform, systems and networks or the systems and networks of third parties that support us and our services. Despite the security controls we have in place, such attacks are very difficult to avoid.

Any of the aforementioned threats and other similar attacks, disruptions or accidents could cause a security incident, which, in turn, could result in unauthorized access to, damage to, disablement or encryption of, use or misuse of, disclosure of, modification of, destruction of, or loss of our sensitive information, or disrupt our ability to provide our platform or our service providers’ ability to support our services or develop or deliver our products. We may expend significant resources, fundamentally change our business activities and practices, or modify our operations in an effort to protect against security incidents and to mitigate, detect and address actual and potential vulnerabilities. Certain data privacy and security obligations may require us to implement and maintain specific, industry-standard or reasonable security measures to protect our information technology systems and sensitive information.  Despite the precautionary measures we have taken to try to prevent a security incident, there can be no assurance that these measures will be effective.  We may be unable in the future to detect vulnerabilities in our information technology systems because such threats and techniques change frequently, are often sophisticated in nature, and may not be detected until after a security incident has occurred.  Despite our effects to identify and address vulnerabilities, if any, in our information technology systems, our efforts may not be successful.  Further, we may experience delays in developing and deploying remedial measures designed to address any such identified vulnerabilities.  

Applicable data privacy and security obligations may require us to notify relevant stakeholders of security incidents.  Such disclosures are costly, and the disclosure of any security incident or the failure to comply with such requirements could lead to adverse consequences.  Any disruption or loss of information technology or telecommunications systems on which critical aspects of our operations depend could have an adverse effect on our business, such as preventing us from processing assays; providing assay results to medical oncologists, neuro-oncologists, surgical oncologists, urologists, pulmonologists, pathologists, and other physicians; billing payers; processing reimbursement appeals; handling patient or physician inquiries; conducting research and development activities and managing the administrative aspects of our business.

Furthermore, if we or any third party upon whom we rely experience a security incident, or are perceived to have experienced a security incident, it could result in: government enforcement actions that could include investigations, fines, penalties, audits and inspections; additional reporting requirements and/or oversight; restrictions on processing personal data or sensitive information (which could impact our ability to conduct tests or develop our products); litigation (including class claims); indemnification obligations; negative publicity; reputational harm; monetary fund diversions; interruptions in our operations; financial loss; and other similar harms.

Furthermore, there can be no assurance that our contracts contain limitations of liability, and even where they do, such limitations may not be enforceable, adequate or otherwise protect us from liabilities or damages if we fail to comply with obligations related to security incidents.  We cannot be sure that our insurance coverage will be adequate or sufficient to protect us from or mitigate liabilities arising out of our privacy and security practices, that such coverage will continue to be available on commercial reasonable terms or at all, or that such coverage will pay future claims.

52

Regulatory Risks Relating to Our Business

Healthcare policy changes, including recently enacted legislation reforming the U.S. health care system, may have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, or collectively the ACA, enacted in March 2010, made a number of substantial changes in the way health care is financed by both governmental and private insurers.

Although some of these provisions may negatively impact payment rates for clinical laboratory tests, the ACA also extends coverage to over 30 million previously uninsured people, which resulted in an increase in the demand for our current assays and our planned future assays. There have been executive, judicial and congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA. For example, President Trump signed several executive orders and other directives designed to delay, circumvent, or loosen certain requirements mandated by the ACA. Concurrently, Congress considered legislation that would repeal or repeal and replace all or part of the ACA. While Congress has not passed repeal legislation, it has enacted laws that modify certain provisions of the ACA such as removing penalties effective January 1, 2019, for not complying with the ACA’s individual mandate to carry health insurance and eliminating the implementation of certain ACA-mandated fees, including but not limited the Medical Device Excise Tax. On June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed a challenge on procedural grounds that argued the ACA is unconstitutional in its entirety because the “individual mandate” was repealed by Congress. Thus, the ACA will remain in effect in its current form. Further, prior to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, on January 28, 2021, President Biden issued an executive order that initiated a special enrollment period for purposes of obtaining health insurance coverage through the ACA marketplace.  The executive order also instructed certain governmental agencies to review and reconsider their existing policies and rules that limit access to healthcare, including among others, reexamining Medicaid demonstration projects and waiver programs that include work requirements, and policies that create unnecessary barriers to obtaining access to health insurance coverage through Medicaid or the ACA. It is possible that the ACA will be subject to judicial or congressional challenges in the future. It is unclear how such challenges and the healthcare reform measures of the Biden administration will impact the ACA.

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted. The Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014, or PAMA, was signed to law, which, among other things, significantly altered the current payment methodology under the Medicare Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule, or CLFS. Beginning in 2017 and every three years thereafter (or annually in the case of advanced diagnostic laboratory tests), applicable clinical laboratories must report laboratory test payment data for each Medicare-covered clinical diagnostic laboratory test that it furnishes during the specified time period. The reported data must include the payment rate (reflecting all discounts, rebates, coupons and other price concessions) and the volume of each test that was paid by each private payer (including health insurance issuers, group health plans, Medicare Advantage plans and Medicaid managed care organizations). Effective January 1, 2018, the Medicare payment rate for each clinical diagnostic laboratory test is equal to the weighted median amount for the test from the most recent data collection period. The payment rate applies to laboratory tests furnished by a hospital laboratory if the test is separately paid under the hospital outpatient prospective payment system. The PAMA rate changes did not materially affect our payments beginning in 2018; however, we cannot predict how this may affect future payment in coming years. Reporting of payment data under PAMA for clinical diagnostic laboratory tests has been delayed on numerous occasions. Based on current law, between January 1, 2023 and March 31, 2023, applicable laboratories will be required to report on data collected during January 1, 2019 and June 30, 2019. This data will be utilized to determine 2024 to 2026 CLFS rates. In addition, CMS updated the statutory phase-in provisions such that the rates for clinical diagnostic laboratory tests in 2020 could not be reduced by more than 10% of the rates for 2019. Pursuant to the CARES Act, the statutory phase-in of the payment reductions has been extended through 2024, with a 0% reduction cap for 2021-2022 and a 15% reduction cap for 2023 through 2025. It is unclear what impact new quality and payment programs or new pricing structures, such as those adopted under PAMA, may have on our business, financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

Also, under PAMA, CMS is required to adopt temporary billing codes to identify new tests and new advanced diagnostic laboratory tests that have been cleared or approved by the FDA. For an existing test that is cleared or approved by the FDA and for which Medicare payment is made as of April 1, 2014, CMS is required to assign a unique billing code if one has not already been assigned by the agency. In addition to assigning the code, CMS is required to publicly report payment for the tests. Further, under PAMA, CMS is required to adopt temporary billing codes to identify new tests and new advanced diagnostic laboratory tests that have been cleared or approved by the FDA. We cannot determine at this time the full impact of PAMA, including its implementing regulations, on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

53

Additionally, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, created the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction to recommend proposals in spending reductions to Congress. The Joint Select Committee did not achieve its targeted deficit reduction of at least $1.2 trillion for the years 2013 through 2021, triggering the legislation’s automatic reduction to several government programs. This includes aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers and suppliers of up to 2% per fiscal year, starting in 2013, and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, will remain in effect through 2031 unless additional congressional action is taken. COVID-19 relief legislation suspended the 2% Medicare sequester from May 1, 2020 through March 31, 2022.  Under current legislation, the actual reduction in Medicare payments will vary from 1% in 2022 to up to 3% in the final fiscal year of this sequester.  The full impact on our business the sequester law is uncertain. In addition, the Middle-Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, or MCTRJCA, mandated an additional change in Medicare reimbursement for clinical laboratory tests. In addition, Congress is considering additional health reform measures as part of other reform initiatives.  

In April 2020, the CMS announced that it would increase the reimbursement for certain COVID-19 molecular tests making use of high-throughput technologies developed by the private sector that allow for increased testing capacity, faster results, and more effective means of combating the spread of the virus to $100 per test, effective April 14, 2020. However, beginning January 1, 2021, Medicare changed the base reimbursement rate for COVID-19 diagnostic tests run on high-throughput technologies to $75 per test with an additional payment of $25 per test if certain additional requirements are met. Moreover, federal COVID-19 relief funding for uninsured individuals to receive testing and treatment for COVID-19 has sunset, and it is unclear whether Congress will take additional action to extend this program. We are currently reviewing how these reimbursement policies will impact laboratories and the patients we serve.

Some of our laboratory assay business is subject to the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule and, under the current statutory formula, the rates for these services are updated annually. For the past several years, the application of the statutory formula would have resulted in substantial payment reductions if Congress failed to intervene. In the past, Congress passed interim legislation to prevent the decreases. If Congress fails to intervene to prevent the negative update factor in future years, the resulting decrease in payment may adversely affect our revenue and results of operations. If in future years Congress does not adopt interim legislation to block or offset, and/or CMS does not moderate, any substantial CMS-proposed reimbursement reductions, the resulting decrease in payments from Medicare could adversely impact our revenues and results of operations.

In addition, it is possible that additional governmental action is taken in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

We cannot predict whether future health care initiatives will be implemented at the federal or state level.  For example, based on a recent executive order, the Biden administration expressed its intent to pursue certain policy initiatives to reduce drug prices. The expansion of government’s role in the U.S. health care industry, and changes to the reimbursement amounts paid by Medicare and other payers for our current assays and our planned future assays, may reduce our profits, if any, and have a materially adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. Moreover, Congress has proposed on several occasions to impose a 20% coinsurance payment requirement on patients for clinical laboratory tests reimbursed under the CLFS, which would require us to bill patients for these amounts. In the event that Congress were to ever enact such legislation, the cost of billing and collecting for our assays could often exceed the amount actually received from the patient.

Our commercial success could be compromised if hospitals or other clients do not pay our invoices or if third-party payers, including managed care organizations and Medicare, do not provide coverage and reimbursement, breach, rescind or modify their contracts or reimbursement policies or delay payments for our current assays and our planned future assays.

Medical oncologists, neuro-oncologists, surgical oncologists, urologists, pulmonologists, pathologists and other physicians may not order our current assays and our planned future assays unless third-party payers, such as managed care organizations and government payers (e.g., Medicare and Medicaid), pay a substantial portion of the assay price. Coverage and reimbursement by a third-party payer may depend on a number of factors, including a payer’s determination that assays using our technologies are:

•not experimental or investigational;

•medically necessary;

•appropriate for the specific patient;

•cost-effective;

54

•supported by peer-reviewed publications; and

•included in clinical practice guidelines.

Uncertainty surrounds third-party payer coverage and adequate reimbursement of any test incorporating new technology, including tests developed using our technologies. Technology assessments of new medical tests conducted by research centers and other entities may be disseminated to interested parties for informational purposes. Third-party payers and health care providers may use such technology assessments as grounds to deny coverage for a test or procedure. Technology assessments can include evaluation of clinical utility studies, which define how a test is used in a particular clinical setting or situation.

Because each payer generally determines for its own enrollees or insured patients whether to cover or otherwise establish a policy to reimburse our diagnostic assays, seeking payer approvals is a time-consuming and costly process. We cannot be certain that coverage for our current assays and our planned future assays will be provided in the future by additional third-party payers or that existing agreements, policy decisions or reimbursement levels will remain in place or be fulfilled under existing terms and provisions. If we cannot obtain coverage and adequate reimbursement from private and governmental payers such as Medicare and Medicaid for our current assays, or new assays or assay enhancements that we may develop in the future, our ability to generate revenues could be limited, which may have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flow. Further, we may experience delays and interruptions in the receipt of payments from third-party payers due to missing documentation and/or other issues, which could cause delay in collecting our revenue.

In addition, to the extent that our assays are ordered for Medicare inpatients and outpatients, only the hospital may receive payment from the Medicare program for the technical component of pathology services and any clinical laboratory services that we perform, unless the testing is ordered at least 14 days after discharge and certain other requirements are met. We therefore must look to the hospital for payment for these services under these circumstances. If hospitals refuse to pay for the services or fail to pay in a timely manner, our ability to generate revenues could be limited, which may have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flow.

We expect to depend on Medicare and a limited number of private payers for a significant portion of our revenues and if these or other payers stop providing reimbursement or decrease the amount of reimbursement for our current assays and our planned future assays, our revenues could decline.

Approximately 51% and 56% of total net revenues during the years ended December 31, 2020 and 2021, respectively, were associated with Medicare and CARES Act reimbursement. Approximately 20% and 17% of total net revenues during the years ended December 31, 2020 and 2021, respectively, were associated with Blue Cross Blue Shield reimbursement. We cannot assure you that, even if our current assays and our planned future assays are otherwise successful, reimbursement for the currently Medicare and Blue Cross Blue Shield covered-portions of our current assays and our planned future assays would, without such contracted payer reimbursement for the capture/enumeration portion, produce sufficient revenues to enable us to reach profitability and achieve our other commercial objectives.

Medicare and other third-party payers may change their coverage policies or cancel future contracts with us at any time, review and adjust the rate of reimbursement or stop paying for our assays altogether, which would reduce our total revenues. Payers have increased their efforts to control the cost, utilization and delivery of health care services. In the past, measures have been undertaken to reduce payment rates for and decrease utilization of clinical laboratory testing generally. Because of the cost-trimming trends, third-party payers that currently cover and provide reimbursement for our current assays and our planned future assays may suspend, revoke or discontinue coverage at any time, or may reduce the reimbursement rates payable to us. Any such action could have a negative impact on our revenues, which may have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

In addition, we are currently considered a “non-contracted provider” by many private payers because we have not entered into a specific contract to provide diagnostic assays to their insured patients at specified rates of reimbursement. Additionally, a significant amount of our non-Medicare business (private payers) has historically not been contracted, and reimbursement for this business has historically not been at “in network” rates and has therefore been inconsistent. We first began to contract private payer networks in 2015, and since then our number of accessions treated as “in network” has increased as we continue to execute additional contracts, and reimbursement is improving. We are currently contracted with nine preferred provider organization networks, three large health plans, and five regional independent physician associations, and expect to continue to gain contracts in order to be considered as an “in-network” provider with additional plans. If we were to become a contracted

55

provider with additional payers in the future, the amount of overall reimbursement we receive would likely decrease because we could be reimbursed less money per assay performed at a contracted rate than at a non-contracted rate, which could have a negative impact on our revenues. Further, we typically are unable to collect payments from patients beyond that which is paid by their insurance and will continue to experience lost revenue as a result.

Because of certain Medicare billing policies, we may not receive complete reimbursement for assays provided to Medicare patients. Medicare reimbursement revenues are an important component of our business model, and private payers sometimes look to Medicare determinations when making their own payment determinations; therefore, incomplete or inadequate reimbursement from Medicare would negatively affect our business.

Medicare has coverage policies that can be national or regional in scope. Coverage means that assay is approved as a benefit for Medicare beneficiaries. If there is no coverage, neither the supplier nor any other party, such as a reference laboratory, may receive reimbursement from Medicare for the service. There is currently no national coverage policy regarding the CTC enumeration portion of our assays. Because our laboratory is in California, the regional Medicare Administrative Contractor, or MAC, for California is the relevant MAC for all our assays. The previous MAC for California, Palmetto, which is contracted with CMS to administer the Molecular Diagnostic Services, or MolDx, program that sets guidelines for coding, coverage and reimbursement of molecular diagnostic assays, adopted a negative coverage policy for CTC enumeration. The current MAC for California, Noridian Healthcare Solutions, LLC, is adopting the coverage policies from Palmetto. Therefore, the enumeration portion of our assays is not currently covered, and we will receive no payment from Medicare for this portion of the service unless and until the coverage policy is changed. Although approximately 92% of all billable cases received during the years ended December 31, 2020 and 2021 relate to our Target Selector biomarker assays, we continue to receive orders for traditional enumeration testing, which counts disease burden, and therefore the enumeration testing receives no payment from Medicare based upon the existing coverage decision. The CTC enumeration counts disease burden and is a prognostic assay, and although valuable, it does not meet many of the medical necessity requirements of Medicare and the payers. We intend to pursue payment for the capture portion of our CTC technology that allows us to run our diagnostic testing for some of our Target Selector assays.

We cannot assure you that, even if our current assays and our planned future assays are otherwise successful, reimbursement for the currently Medicare, Blue Cross Blue Shield, and United Healthcare-covered portions of our current assays and our planned future assays would, without such contracted payer reimbursement for the capture/enumeration portion, produce sufficient revenues to enable us to reach profitability and achieve our other commercial objectives.

The processing of Medicare claims is subject to change at CMS’ discretion at any time. Cost containment initiatives may be a threat to Medicare reimbursement levels (including for the covered components of our current assays and our planned future assays, including FISH analysis and molecular assays) for the foreseeable future.

We may not receive breakthrough device designation by the FDA for our Target Selector CSF Assay, and even if we do, such designation may not lead to a faster development, regulatory review or clearance process, and it may not increase the likelihood that the assay will receive marketing authorization from the FDA.

Following the full commercial launch of our CSF assay, CNSide, we submitted an initial application for Breakthrough Device Designation to the FDA in the second quarter of 2021. While that initial submission was denied, we intend to continue to pursue Breakthrough Device Designation for CNSide and are gathering data based on the feedback provided by the FDA to further support the submission. The FDA’s breakthrough devices program is a voluntary program for certain medical devices that provide for more effective treatment or diagnosis of life-threatening or irreversibly debilitating diseases or conditions. The goal of the program is to provide patients and healthcare providers with timely access to these medical devices by speeding up their development, assessment and review, while preserving the statutory standards for premarket approval, 510(k) clearance and de novo marketing authorization, consistent with the FDA’s mission to protect and promote public health.

Even if received, breakthrough device designation may not result in a faster development process, review or clearance compared to conventional FDA procedures and does not assure ultimate marketing authorization by the FDA. In addition, even if a product qualifies as a breakthrough device, the FDA may later decide that the product no longer meets the conditions for qualification and revoke such designation.

56

Long payment cycles of Medicare, Medicaid and/or other third-party payers, or other payment delays, could hurt our cash flows and increase our need for working capital.

Medicare and Medicaid have complex billing and documentation requirements that we must satisfy in order to receive payment, and the programs can be expected to carefully audit and monitor our compliance with these requirements. We must also comply with numerous other laws applicable to billing and payment for healthcare services, including, for example, privacy laws. Failure to comply with these requirements may result in, among other things, non-payment, refunds, exclusion from government healthcare programs, and civil or criminal liabilities, any of which may have a material adverse effect on our revenues and earnings. In addition, failure by third-party payers to properly process our payment claims in a timely manner could delay our receipt of payment for our products and services, which may have a material adverse effect on our cash flows.

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

We are subject to CLIA, a federal law regulating clinical laboratories that perform testing on specimens derived from humans for the purpose of providing information for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of disease. Our clinical laboratory must be certified under CLIA in order for us to perform testing on human specimens. CLIA is intended to ensure the quality and reliability of clinical laboratories in the United States by mandating specific standards in the areas of personnel qualifications, administration, and participation in proficiency testing, patient test management, quality control, quality assurance and inspections. We have a current certificate of accreditation under CLIA to perform high complexity testing, and our laboratory is accredited by one of the CLIA-approved accreditation organizations. To renew this certificate, we are subject to survey and inspection every two years. Moreover, CLIA and CAP inspectors may make periodic inspections of our clinical laboratory outside of the renewal process. The failure to comply with CLIA or CAP requirements can result in enforcement actions, including the revocation, suspension, or limitation of our CLIA and/or CAP certificate of accreditation, as well as a directed plan of correction, state on-site monitoring, civil money penalties, civil injunctive suit and/or criminal penalties. We must maintain CLIA compliance and certification to be eligible to bill for assays provided to Medicare beneficiaries. If we were to be found out of compliance with CLIA program requirements and subjected to sanctions, our business and reputation could be harmed. Even if it were possible for us to bring our laboratory back into compliance, we could incur significant expenses and potentially lose revenue in doing so.

In addition, our laboratory is located in California and is required by state law to have a California state license; as we expand our geographic focus, we may need to obtain laboratory licenses from additional states. California laws establish standards for operation of our clinical laboratory, including the training and skills required of personnel and quality control. In addition, we hold licenses from the states of Pennsylvania, Maryland and Rhode Island to test specimens from patients in those states or received from ordering physicians in those states. In addition, our clinical reference laboratory is required to be licensed on a product-specific basis by New York as an out of state laboratory and our products, as LDTs, must be approved by the New York State Department of Health before they are offered in New York. As part of this process, the State of New York requires validation of our assays. We currently do not have the necessary New York license, but we are in the process of addressing the requirements for licensure in New York. Other states may have similar requirements or may adopt similar requirements in the future. Finally, we may be subject to regulation in foreign jurisdictions if we seek to expand international distribution of our assays outside the United States.

If we were to lose our CLIA certification or California or other state laboratory license, whether as a result of a revocation, suspension or limitation, we would no longer be able to offer our assays, which would limit our revenues and harm our business. If we were to lose, or fail to obtain, a license in any other state where we are required to hold a license, we would not be able to test specimens from those states. If we were to lose our CAP accreditation, our reputation for quality, as well as our business, financial condition and results of operations, could be significantly and adversely affected.

If the FDA were to begin requiring approval or clearance of our current products or assays and our planned future products or assays, we could incur substantial costs and time delays associated with meeting requirements for pre-market clearance or approval or we could experience decreased demand for, or reimbursement of, our assays.

We provide our assays as LDTs. Historically; the FDA has exercised enforcement discretion with respect to most LDTs and has not required laboratories that offer LDTs to comply with the agency’s requirements for medical devices (e.g., establishment registration, device listing, quality systems regulations, premarket clearance or premarket approval, and post-market controls). In recent years, however, the FDA has stated it intends to end its policy of enforcement discretion and regulate certain LDTs

57

as medical devices. To this end, on October 3, 2014, the FDA issued two draft guidance documents, entitled “Framework for Regulatory Oversight of Laboratory Developed Tests (LDTs)” and “FDA Notification and Medical Device Reporting for Laboratory Developed Tests (LDTs)”, respectively, that set forth a proposed risk-based regulatory framework that would apply varying levels of FDA oversight to LDTs. The FDA has indicated that it does not intend to modify its policy of enforcement discretion until the draft guidance documents are finalized. In January 2017, the FDA announced that final guidance on the oversight of LDTs would allow for further public discussion. On January 13, 2017 the FDA issued a “Discussion Paper on Laboratory Developed Tests (LDTs),” which states that the material in the document does not represent a final version of the LDT draft guidance documents that were published in 2014 or position of the FDA; rather, the document is a method to encourage additional dialogue. The timing of when, if at all, the draft guidance documents will be finalized is unclear, and even then, the new regulatory requirements are proposed to be phased-in consistent with the schedule set forth in the guidance. Nevertheless, the FDA may decide to regulate certain LDTs on a case-by-case basis at any time. LDTs with the same intended use as a cleared or approved companion diagnostic are defined in FDA’s draft guidance as “high-risk LDTs (Class III medical devices)” for which premarket review would be first to occur.

FDA review, if required and successfully accomplished, would be expected to have some advantages. Certain health insurance payers have paid higher amounts over LDT prices for FDA approved or cleared tests, recognizing the additional costs of bringing a test through regulatory review. Some payers also accept FDA approval or clearance as a presumptive evidence of an assay’s analytic validity and clinical validity, which can reduce the barriers to coverage since the payer can focus its review on clinical utility.

The container we provide for collection and transport of blood samples from a health care provider to our clinical laboratory, as well as our SCTs, may be medical devices subject to the FDA regulation but are currently exempt from pre-market review by the FDA. While we believe that we are currently in material compliance with applicable laws and regulations, we cannot assure you that the FDA or other regulatory agencies would agree with our determination, and a determination that we have violated these laws, or a public announcement that we are being investigated for possible violations of these laws, could adversely affect our business, prospects, results of operations or financial condition.

Some of the materials we use for our current products, assays and services and may use in our planned future products, assays and services are labeled for RUO. In November 2013, the FDA finalized guidance regarding the sale and use of products labeled for research or investigational use only. 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 misbranded and adulterated within the meaning of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. Some of the materials and reagents obtained by us from suppliers for use in our current products, assays and services and our planned future products, assays and services are currently labeled as research or investigational use only products. If the FDA were to undertake enforcement actions, some of our suppliers might cease selling research or investigational use products 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 materials or reagents used in our current products, assays and services or planned future products, assays and services or delaying, limiting or prohibiting the purchase of materials or reagents necessary to sell our current products or planned future products or to perform our current assays or our planned future assays.

Our SCTs and Target Selector kits are marketed for RUO and distributed and sold to end users, some of which will be researchers and institutions while other end users could be labs performing clinical testing that will create their own LDTs. Some end users may assert that our ROU products caused their assays to perform inadequately or give erroneous results. If that was the case, we could potentially incur additional liabilities.

Further, the Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, requested that its Advisory Committee on Genetics, Health and Society make recommendations about the oversight of genetic testing. A final report was published in April 2008. If the report’s recommendations for increased oversight of genetic testing were to result in further regulatory burdens, they could negatively affect our business and delay the commercialization of assays in development.

Additionally, on March 16, 2018 CMS issued a final determination decision memo for Next-Generation Sequencing, or NGS, tests for Medicare Beneficiaries with Advanced Cancer (CAG-00450N).  Under this final determination, NGS tests that gain

58

FDA approval or clearance as a companion diagnostic will receive coverage, and the final determination of coverage for NGS tests that are LDTs will be left up to the local MAC. Currently, only 1 of our 15 CLIA validated assays is NGS-based; however, we plan to offer additional NGS assays in the future. To gain coverage for those assays, we will need to apply to Palmetto, which is the MAC that evaluates and recommends payment coverage or denial for molecular testing in our jurisdiction. Historically, Palmetto has offered a path to reimbursement by providing coverage while data is being gathered known as Coverage with Data Development, or CDD. Going forward, the extent to which CDD will be continued, if at all, or to the extent that a process will be available in its place, if any, are unclear.  

The requirement of pre-market review could negatively affect our business until such review is completed and clearance to market or approval is obtained. The FDA could require that we stop selling our products or diagnostic assays pending pre-market clearance or approval. If the FDA allows our products or assays to remain on the market but there is uncertainty about our products or assays, if they are labeled investigational by the FDA or if labeling claims the FDA allows us to make are very limited, orders from laboratory supply distributors and physicians, or reimbursement from third-party payers, may decline. The regulatory approval process may involve, among other things, successfully completing additional clinical trials and making a 510(k) submission or filing a pre-market approval application with the FDA. If the FDA requires pre-market review, our products or assays may not be cleared or approved on a timely basis, if at all. We may also decide voluntarily to pursue FDA pre-market review of our products or assays if we determine that doing so would be appropriate.

If we were required to conduct additional clinical studies or trials before continuing to offer assays that we have developed or may develop as LDTs, those studies or trials could lead to delays or failure to obtain necessary regulatory approval, which could cause significant delays in commercializing any future products and harm our ability to achieve sustained profitability.

If the FDA decides to require that we obtain clearance or approvals to commercialize our current assays or our planned future assays, we may be required to conduct additional pre-market clinical testing before submitting a regulatory notification or application for commercial sales. In addition, as part of our long-term strategy we may plan to seek FDA clearance or approval, so we can sell our assays outside our CLIA laboratory; however, we would need to conduct additional clinical validation activities on our assays before we can submit an application for FDA approval or clearance. Clinical trials must be conducted in compliance with FDA regulations or the FDA may take enforcement action or reject the data. The data collected from these clinical trials may ultimately be used to support market clearance or approval for our assays. It may take two years or more to conduct the clinical studies and trials necessary to obtain approval from the FDA to commercially launch our current assays and our planned future assays outside of our clinical laboratory. Even if our clinical trials are completed as planned, we cannot be certain that their results will support our assay claims or that the FDA or foreign authorities will agree with our conclusions regarding our assay results. Success in early clinical trials does not ensure that later clinical trials will be successful, and we cannot be sure that the later trials will replicate the results of prior clinical trials and studies. If we are required to conduct pre-market clinical trials, whether using prospectively acquired samples or archival samples, delays in the commencement or completion of clinical testing could significantly increase our assay development costs and delay commercialization. Many of the factors that may cause or lead to a delay in the commencement or completion of clinical trials may also ultimately lead to delay or denial of regulatory clearance or approval. The commencement of clinical trials may be delayed due to insufficient patient enrollment, which is a function of many factors, including the size of the patient population, the nature of the protocol, the proximity of patients to clinical sites and the eligibility criteria for the clinical trial. Moreover, the clinical trial process may fail to demonstrate that our current assays and our planned future assays are effective for the proposed indicated uses, which could cause us to abandon an assay candidate and may delay development of other assays.

We may find it necessary to engage contract research organizations to perform data collection and analysis and other aspects of our clinical trials, which might increase the cost and complexity of our trials. We may also depend on clinical investigators, medical institutions and contract research organizations to perform the trials properly. If these parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or obligations or meet expected deadlines, or if the quality, completeness or accuracy of the clinical data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to our clinical protocols or for other reasons, our clinical trials may have to be extended, delayed or terminated. Many of these factors would be beyond our control. We may not be able to enter into replacement arrangements without undue delays or considerable expenditures. If there are delays in testing or approvals as a result of the failure to perform by third parties, our research and development costs would increase, and we may not be able to obtain regulatory clearance or approval for our current assays and our planned future assays. In addition, we may not be able to establish or maintain relationships with these parties on favorable terms, if at all. Each of these outcomes would harm our ability to market our assays or to achieve sustained profitability.

59

We are subject to federal and state healthcare fraud and abuse laws and regulations and could face substantial penalties if we are unable to fully comply with such laws.

We are subject to health care fraud and abuse regulation and enforcement by both the federal government and the states in which we conduct our business. These health care laws and regulations include, for example:

Further, the ACA, among other things, amended the intent requirement of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and certain criminal health care fraud statutes. Where the intent requirement has been lowered, a person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of this statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation. In addition, the government may now assert that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the false claims statutes. Any action brought against us for violation of these 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, among others, significant administrative, civil and criminal penalties, damages and fines, imprisonment, integrity oversight and reporting obligations, and exclusion from participation in government funded healthcare programs such as Medicare, Medicaid programs, including the California Medical Assistance Program (Medi-Cal-the California Medicaid program) or other state or federal health care programs. Additionally, 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.

We are or may become subject to stringent and changing U.S. and foreign  laws, regulations, rules, standards, policies, contractual obligations and other obligations related to data privacy and security, including laws and regulations related to

60

health information. Our failure or perceived failure to comply with such obligations could result in regulatory investigations or actions, enforcement or litigation, fines and penalties), a disruption of the development or delivery of our products and services, reputational harm, loss of revenue or profits, or other adverse effects.

We collect, receive, store, process, use, generate, transfer, disclose, make accessible, protect, secure, dispose of, transmit and share (commonly known as processing) personal data and other sensitive information, including but not limited to proprietary and confidential business information, trade secrets, intellectual property, health information and sensitive third-party information. Accordingly, we are, or may become, subject to numerous federal, state, local and foreign data privacy and security laws, regulations, guidance and industry standards, including laws that specifically regulate health information, as well as external and internal privacy and security policies, contracts and other obligations that apply to the processing of personal data by us and on our behalf.

In the United States, federal, state, and local governments have enacted numerous data privacy and security laws, including data breach notification laws, personal data privacy laws, and consumer protection laws.  For example, HIPAA, as amended by HITECH, and the respective implementing regulations, imposes limitations on certain entities’ processing of individual health information, and also grants individuals rights with respect to their health information. HITECH also made significant increases in the penalties for improper processing of an individual’s health information under HIPAA and extended enforcement authority to state attorneys general.

As another example, the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, or CCPA, imposes several obligations on covered businesses, including requiring specific disclosures related to a business’s processing of personal data, new operational practices, and requirements to respond to certain requests from California residents related to their personal data. The CCPA provides for significant civil penalties as well as a private right of action for data breaches and statutory damages. Although there are limited exemptions for clinical trial data and some other health data under the CCPA, the CCPA and other similar laws may impact our business activities and increase our compliance costs. In addition, it is anticipated that the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020, or CPRA, effective January 1, 2023, will expand the CCPA. The CPRA will, among other things, give California residents the ability to limit use of certain sensitive personal data, establish restrictions on the retention of personal data, expand the types of data breaches subject to the CCPA’s private right of action, and establish a new California Privacy Protection Agency to implement and enforce the new law. In addition, other states have enacted or proposed data privacy laws, which could further complicate the legal landscape. For example, Virginia recently passed the Consumer Data Protection Act, and Colorado recently passed the Colorado Privacy Act, both of which differ from the CPRA and become effective in 2023. Other data privacy and security laws have also been proposed at the federal, state, and local levels, and may be enacted.

Additionally, outside the United States, an increasing number of laws, regulations, and industry standards apply to data privacy and security. For example, the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation, or EU GDPR, governs the processing of personal data of European persons, and sets out extensive compliance requirements. The EU GDPR provides for fines up to the greater of €20 million (£17.5 million) or 4% of global turnover. Additionally, we may be subject to the United Kingdom’s GDPR or UK GDPR, which largely mirrors the EU GDPR in UK national law. In addition, privacy advocates and industry groups have proposed, and may propose, standards with which we may be legally or contractually bound to comply.

Certain jurisdictions have enacted data localization laws and cross-border personal data transfer laws, which could make it more difficult to transfer information across jurisdictions (such as transferring or receiving personal data that originates in the EU or in other foreign jurisdictions).  Existing mechanisms that facilitate cross-border personal data transfers may change or be invalidated.  The more reliant our business is on the ability to effectuate cross-border data transfers, the more impact we may experience in light of any changes in the legal landscape.

The number and scope of obligations related to data privacy and security, including but not limited to the complex requirements of HIPAA and GDPR, are rapidly evolving, subject to change and potentially in conflict with each other. As a result, preparing for and complying with these obligations requires significant resources and potentially significant changes to our technologies, systems and practices, as well as those of any third-party collaborators, service providers, contractors, consultants or other third parties that process personal data on our behalf, any of which could have a negative impact on our operations. Our business model materially depends on our ability to process personal data, so we are particularly exposed to the risks associated with the rapidly changing legal landscape.  Adding to the complexity is that our operations are evolving, and these laws will apply differently depending on our operations, for example whether we electronically bill for our services.

61

Although we endeavor to comply with all applicable data privacy and security obligations, we may at times fail to do so or may be perceived to have failed to do so. Moreover, despite our efforts, we may not be successful in achieving compliance if our employees, partners, third-party collaborators, service providers, contractors or consultants fail to comply with such obligations. If we fail, or are perceived to have failed, to address or comply with obligations related to data privacy and security, we could face significant consequences, including but not limited to foreign, federal, state, or local government enforcement actions that could include investigations, fines, penalties, audits and inspections; litigation; additional reporting requirements and/or oversight; temporary or permanent bans on all or some processing of personal data; and orders to destroy or not use personal data. Any of these events could have a material adverse effect on our reputation, business, or financial condition, including but not limited to loss of actual or prospective customers, collaborators or partners; interruption or stoppage in clinical trials; inability to process personal data or to operate in certain jurisdictions; limit our ability to develop or commercialize our products; or require us to revise or restructure our operations. Moreover, such claims, even if we are not found liable, could be expensive and time-consuming to defend and could divert management’s attention and cause adverse publicity that could harm our business or have other material adverse effects.

Clinical research is heavily regulated and failure to comply with human subject protection regulations may disrupt our research program leading to significant expense, regulatory enforcement, private lawsuits and reputational damage.

Clinical research is subject to federal, state and, for studies conducted outside of the United States, foreign regulation. At the federal level, the FDA imposes regulations for the protection of human subjects and requirements such as initial and ongoing institutional review board review; informed consent requirements, adverse event reporting and other protections to minimize the risk and maximize the benefit to research participants. Many states impose human subject protection laws that mirror or in some cases exceed federal requirements. HIPAA also regulates the use and disclosure of protected health information in connection with research activities. Research conducted overseas is subject to a variety of national protections such as mandatory ethics committee review, as well as laws regulating the use, disclosure and cross-border transfer of personal data. For example, if we obtain certain personal information regarding residents in the European Union, we may be subject to the GDPR. The costs of compliance with these laws may be significant and compliance with regulatory requirements may result in delay of our clinical research and other business operations. Noncompliance may disrupt our research and result in data that is unacceptable to regulatory authorities, data lock or other sanctions that may significantly disrupt our operations.

Violation of a state’s prohibition on the corporate practice of medicine could result in a material adverse effect on our business.

A number of states, including California, do not allow business corporations to employ physicians to provide professional services. This prohibition against the “corporate practice of medicine” is aimed at preventing corporations such as us from exercising control over the medical judgments or decisions of physicians. The state licensure statutes and regulations and agency and court decisions that enumerate the specific corporate practice rules vary considerably from state to state and are enforced by both the courts and regulatory authorities, each with broad discretion. If regulatory authorities or other parties in any jurisdiction successfully assert that we are engaged in the unauthorized corporate practice of medicine, we could be required to restructure our contractual and other arrangements. In addition, violation of these laws may result in significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties imposed against us and/or the professional through licensure proceedings, and exclusion from state and federal health care programs.

Intellectual Property Risks Related to Our Business

If we are unable to obtain and maintain effective patent rights for our products or services, we may not be able to compete effectively in our markets.

We rely upon a combination of patents, trade secret protection, and confidentiality agreements to protect the intellectual property related to our technologies, products and services. Our success depends in large part on our ability to obtain and maintain patent and other intellectual property protection in the United States and in other countries with respect to our proprietary technology and products.

We have sought to protect our proprietary position by filing patent applications in the United States and abroad related to our novel technologies and products that are important to our business. This process is expensive and time consuming, and we may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner. The

62

possibility exists that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development output before it is too late to obtain patent protection.

The patent position of diagnostic companies generally is highly uncertain and involves complex legal and factual questions for which legal principles remain unsolved. The patent applications that we own, or in-license, may fail to result in issued patents with claims that cover our products or services in the United States or in other foreign countries. There is no assurance that all potentially relevant prior art relating to our patents and patent applications has been found, which can invalidate a patent or prevent a patent from issuing from a pending patent application. Even if patents do successfully issue, and even if such patents cover our products and services, third parties may challenge their validity, enforceability, or scope, which may result in such patents being narrowed, found unenforceable or invalidated. Furthermore, even if they are unchallenged, our patents and patent applications may not adequately protect our intellectual property, provide exclusivity for our products and services, or prevent others from designing around our claims. Any of these outcomes could impair our ability to prevent competition from third parties, which may have an adverse impact on our business.

We, independently or together with our licensors, have filed several patent applications covering various aspects of our products and services. We cannot offer any assurances about which, if any, patents will issue, the breadth of any such patent or whether any issued patents will be found invalid and unenforceable or will be threatened by third parties. For example, our U.S. patent related to our SCTs is currently under a reexamination procedure in the U.S. Patent Office. Any successful opposition to these patents or any other patents owned by or licensed to us after patent issuance could deprive us of rights necessary for the successful commercialization of any products and services that we may offer. Further, if we encounter delays in regulatory approvals, the period of time during which we could market a product or service under patent protection could be reduced.

Patent policy and rule changes could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents.

Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of the patent laws in the United States and other countries may diminish the value of our patents or narrow the scope of our patent protection. The laws of foreign countries may not protect our rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States. Publications of discoveries in the scientific literature often lag behind the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the United States and other jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing, or in some cases not at all. We therefore cannot be certain that we or our licensors were the first to make the invention claimed in our owned and licensed patents or pending applications, or that we or our licensor were the first to file for patent protection of such inventions. Assuming the other requirements for patentability are met, in the United States prior to March 15, 2013, the first to make the claimed invention is entitled to the patent, while outside the United States, the first to file a patent application is entitled to the patent. After March 15, 2013, under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or the Leahy-Smith Act, enacted on September 16, 2011, the United States has moved to a first to file system. The Leahy-Smith Act also includes a number of significant changes that affect the way patent applications will be prosecuted and may also affect patent litigation. The effects of these changes are currently unclear as the United States Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, must still implement various regulations, the courts have yet to address any of these provisions and the applicability of the act and new regulations on specific patents discussed herein have not been determined and would need to be reviewed. In general, the Leahy-Smith Act and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition.

If we are unable to maintain effective proprietary rights for our products or services, we may not be able to compete effectively in our markets.

In addition to the protection afforded by patents, we rely on trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect proprietary know-how that is not patentable or that we elect not to patent, processes for which patents are difficult to enforce and any other elements of our products and services that involve proprietary know-how, information or technology that is not covered by patents. However, trade secrets can be difficult to protect. We seek to protect our proprietary technology and processes, in part, by entering into confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants, scientific advisors, and contractors. We also seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our data and trade secrets by maintaining physical security of our premises and physical and electronic security of our information technology systems. While we have conducted commercially reasonable due diligence on these individuals, organizations and systems, our agreements with such partners or our or their security measures may nevertheless be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies for any breach. In addition, our trade secrets may otherwise become known or be independently discovered by competitors.

63

Although we expect all of our employees and consultants to assign their inventions to us, and all of our employees, consultants, advisors, and any third parties who have access to our proprietary know-how, information, or technology to enter into confidentiality agreements, we cannot provide any assurances that all such agreements have been duly executed or that our trade secrets and other confidential proprietary information will not be disclosed or that competitors will not otherwise gain access to our trade secrets or independently develop substantially equivalent information and techniques. Misappropriation or unauthorized disclosure of our trade secrets could impair our competitive position and may have a material adverse effect on our business. Additionally, if the steps taken to maintain our trade secrets are deemed inadequate, we may have insufficient recourse against third parties for misappropriating the trade secret.

Third-party claims of intellectual property infringement may prevent or delay our development and commercialization efforts.

Our commercial success depends in part on our avoiding infringement of the patents and proprietary rights of third parties. There have been many lawsuits and other proceedings involving patent and other intellectual property rights in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, including patent infringement lawsuits, interferences, oppositions, and reexamination proceedings before the USPTO and corresponding foreign patent offices. Numerous U.S. and foreign issued patents and pending patent applications, which are owned by third parties, exist in the fields in which we are developing products and services. As the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries expand and more patents are issued, the risk increases that our products and services may be subject to claims of infringement of the patent rights of third parties.

Third parties may assert that we are employing their proprietary technology without authorization. There may be third-party patents or patent applications with claims to materials, formulations, methods of manufacture, or methods for treatment related to the use or manufacture of our products and services. We have conducted freedom to operate analyses with respect to only certain of our products and services, and therefore we do not know whether there are any third-party patents that would impair our ability to commercialize these products and services. We also cannot guarantee that any of our analyses are complete and thorough, nor can we be sure that we have identified each and every patent and pending application in the United States and abroad that is relevant or necessary to the commercialization of our products and services. Because patent applications can take many years to issue, there may be currently pending patent applications that may later result in issued patents that our products or services may infringe.

For example, in August 2016, we received a letter from MolecularMD Corp. offering a license to two U.S. Patents owned by the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, and licensed to MolecularMD Corp., that are relevant to one of the biomarkers we detect in our Liquid Biopsy Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Profile Target Selector assay and our Liquid Biopsy Lung Cancer Resistance Profile Target Selector assay. One of the two patents is expected to expire in 2026. The other patent is expected to expire in 2028. Although we believe that the claims of both patents relevant to our assays would likely be held invalid, we cannot provide any assurances that a court or an administrative agency would agree with our assessment. If the validity of the relevant claims in question is upheld upon a validity challenge, then we may be liable for past damages and would need a license in order to continue commercializing our Liquid Biopsy Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Profile Target Selector Assay and our Liquid Biopsy Lung Cancer Resistance Profile Target Selector Assay in the United States. However, such a license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all, which could materially and adversely affect our business.

In addition, we are aware of a U.S. Patent owned by Amgen, Inc. that is relevant to one of the biomarkers we detect in our Liquid Biopsy Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Profile Target Selector assay and our Liquid Biopsy Lung Cancer Resistance Profile Target Selector assay. The patent is expected to expire in 2028. Although we believe that the claims of the patent relevant to our assays would likely be held invalid, we cannot provide any assurances that a court or an administrative agency would agree with our assessment. If the validity of the relevant claims in question is upheld upon a validity challenge, then we may be liable for past damages and would need a license in order to continue commercializing our Liquid Biopsy Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Profile Target Selector assay and our Liquid Biopsy Lung Cancer Resistance Profile Target Selector assay in the United States. However, such a license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all, which could materially and adversely affect our business.

We are also aware of a U.S. Patent owned by Genentech, Inc. that is relevant to one of the biomarkers we detect in our Liquid Biopsy Lung Cancer Resistance Profile Target Selector assay and our Liquid Biopsy Colon Cancer Profile Target Selector assay. The patent is expected to expire in 2025. Although we believe that the claims of the patent relevant to our assays would likely be held invalid, we cannot provide any assurances that a court or an administrative agency would agree with our assessment. If the validity of the relevant claims in question is upheld upon a validity challenge, then we may be liable for past

64

damages and would need a license in order to continue commercializing our Liquid Biopsy Lung Cancer Resistance Profile Target Selector assay and our Liquid Biopsy Colon Cancer Profile Target Selector assay in the United States. However, such a license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all, which could materially and adversely affect our business.

In addition, in December 2020, we received a communication from counsel for RavGen, Inc., or RavGen, offering to discuss licensing terms for certain patents owned by RavGen, which RavGen’s communication alleged are relevant to Biocept’s Target Selector Liquid Biopsy test kits and panels. If we are unable to secure a license on commercially reasonable terms, and if RavGen subsequently files suit and a court or jury makes a determination that our test kits and panels infringe any valid RavGen patent claims, then we may be liable for damages, and our business could be materially and adversely affected. In addition, third parties may obtain patents in the future and claim that use of our technologies infringes upon these patents. If any third-party patents were held by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover aspects of our products or services, the holders of any such patents may be able to block our ability to commercialize such products or services unless we obtained a license under the applicable patents, or until such patents expire or are finally determined to be invalid or unenforceable. Such a license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all.

Parties making claims against us may obtain injunctive or other equitable relief, which could effectively block our ability to further develop and commercialize one or more of our products or services. Defense of these claims, regardless of their merit, would involve substantial litigation expense and would be a substantial diversion of employee resources from our business. In the event of a successful claim of infringement against us, we may have to pay substantial damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees for willful infringement, pay royalties, redesign our infringing products or obtain one or more licenses from third parties, which may be impossible or require substantial time and monetary expenditure.

We may not be successful in obtaining or maintaining necessary rights to our products or services through acquisitions and in-licenses.

We currently have rights to the intellectual property, through licenses from third parties and under patents that we own, to develop our products and services. Because our programs may require the use of proprietary rights held by third parties, the growth of our business will likely depend in part on our ability to acquire, in-license, or use these proprietary rights. We may be unable to acquire or in-license any compositions, methods of use, processes, or other third-party intellectual property rights from third parties that we identify as necessary for our products or services. The licensing and acquisition of third-party intellectual property rights is a competitive area, and a number of more established companies are also pursuing strategies to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights that we may consider attractive. These established companies may have a competitive advantage over us due to their size, cash resources, and greater clinical development and commercialization capabilities. In addition, companies that perceive us to be a competitor may be unwilling to assign or license rights to us. We also may be unable to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights on terms that would allow us to make an appropriate return on our investment.

We sometimes collaborate with U.S. and foreign institutions to accelerate our research or development under written agreements with these institutions. Typically, these institutions provide us with an option to negotiate a license to any of the institution’s rights in technology resulting from the collaboration. Regardless of such option, we may be unable to negotiate a license within the specified timeframe or under terms that are acceptable to us. If we are unable to do so, the institution may offer the intellectual property rights to other parties, potentially blocking our ability to pursue our program.

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

Although we are not currently involved in any litigation, we may be involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our patents or the patents of our licensors, which could be expensive, time consuming, and unsuccessful.

Competitors may infringe our patents or the patents of our licensors. Although we are not currently involved in any litigation, if we or one of our licensing partners were to initiate legal proceedings against a third-party to enforce a patent covering one of our products or services, the defendant could counterclaim that the patent covering our product or service is invalid and/or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity and/or unenforceability are commonplace. Grounds for a validity challenge could be an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements,

65

including lack of novelty, obviousness, or non-enablement. Grounds for an unenforceability assertion could be an allegation that someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld relevant information from the USPTO, or made a misleading statement, during prosecution. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable.

Interference proceedings provoked by third parties or brought by us or declared by the USPTO may be necessary to determine the priority of inventions with respect to our patents or patent applications or those of our licensors. An unfavorable outcome could require us to cease using the related technology or to attempt to license rights to it from the prevailing party. Our business could be harmed if the prevailing party does not offer us a license on commercially reasonable terms. Our defense of litigation or interference proceedings may fail and, even if successful, may result in substantial costs and distract our management and other employees. In addition, the uncertainties associated with litigation could have a material adverse effect on our ability to raise sufficient capital to continue our research programs, license necessary technology from third parties, or enter into development partnerships that would help commercialize our products or services.

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. There could also 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 material adverse effect on the price of our common stock.

. 

We may be subject to claims that our employees, consultants, or independent contractors have wrongfully used or disclosed confidential information of third parties or that our employees have wrongfully used or disclosed alleged trade secrets of their former employers.

We employ certain individuals who were previously employed at universities or other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. Although we try to ensure that our employees, consultants, and independent contractors do not use the proprietary information or know-how of others in their work for us, and we are not currently subject to any claims that our employees, consultants, or independent contractors have wrongfully used or disclosed confidential information of third parties, we may in the future be subject to such claims. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel, which could adversely impact our business. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management and other employees.

We may be subject to claims challenging the inventorship of our patents and other intellectual property.

Although we are not currently experiencing any claims challenging the inventorship of our patents or ownership of our intellectual property, we may in the future be subject to claims that former employees, collaborators or other third parties have an interest in our patents or other intellectual property as an inventor or co-inventor. For example, we may have inventorship disputes arise from conflicting obligations of consultants or others who are involved in developing our products or services. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these and other claims challenging inventorship. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights, such as exclusive ownership of, or right to use, valuable intellectual property. Such an outcome could have a material adverse effect on our business. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management and other employees.

Changes in U.S. patent law could diminish the value of patents in general, thereby impairing our ability to protect our products.

As is the case with other biopharmaceutical companies, our success is heavily dependent on intellectual property, particularly patents. Obtaining and enforcing patents in the biotechnology industry involves both technological and legal complexity. Therefore, obtaining and enforcing biotechnology patents is costly, time consuming, and inherently uncertain. In addition, the United States has recently enacted and is currently implementing wide-ranging patent reform legislation. Recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings have narrowed the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances and weakened the rights of patent owners in certain situations. In addition to increasing uncertainty with regard to our ability to obtain patents in the future, this combination of events has created uncertainty with respect to the value of patents, once obtained. Depending on future actions by the U.S. Congress, the federal courts, and the USPTO, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in

66

unpredictable ways that would weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce our existing patents and patents that we might obtain in the future.

We may not be able to protect our intellectual property rights throughout the world.

Filing, prosecuting, and defending patents on products and services in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and our intellectual property rights in some countries outside the United States can be less extensive than those in the United States. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as federal and state laws in the United States. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in all countries outside the United States, or from selling or importing products made using our inventions in and into the United States or other jurisdictions. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to develop their own products and may also export infringing products to territories where we have patent protection, but enforcement is not as strong as that in the United States. These products may compete with our products and our patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing.

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

Our collaborators may assert ownership or commercial rights to inventions we develop from our use of the biological materials which they provide to us, or otherwise arising from the collaboration.

We collaborate with several institutions, physicians and researchers in scientific matters. We do not have written agreements with certain of such collaborators, or the written agreements we have do not cover intellectual property rights. Also, we rely on numerous third parties to provide us with blood samples and biological materials that we use to develop assays. If we cannot successfully negotiate sufficient ownership and commercial rights to any inventions that result from our use of a third-party collaborator’s materials, or if disputes arise with respect to the intellectual property developed with the use of a collaborator’s samples, or data developed in a collaborator’s study, we may be limited in our ability to capitalize on the market potential of these inventions or developments.

Risks Relating to Our Common Stock

The price of our common stock may be volatile.

Market prices for our common stock have historically been volatile. The factors that may cause the market price of our common stock to fluctuate include, but are not limited to:

67

In addition, the equity markets have experienced significant price and volume fluctuations that have affected the market prices for the securities of public companies for a number of reasons, including reasons that may be unrelated to our business or operating performance. These broad market fluctuations may result in a material decline in the market price of our common stock and you may not be able to sell your shares at prices you deem acceptable. In the past, following periods of volatility in the equity markets, securities class action lawsuits have been instituted against public companies. Such litigation, if instituted against us, could result in substantial cost and the diversion of management attention.

Our failure to meet the continued listing requirements of The Nasdaq Capital Market could result in a de-listing of our common stock.

If we fail to satisfy the continued listing requirements of The Nasdaq Capital Market, such as the corporate governance requirements, the minimum closing bid price requirement, or the minimum stockholders’ equity requirement, Nasdaq may take steps to de-list our common stock. For example, in May 2016, we received a letter from Nasdaq indicating that we are not in compliance with the minimum stockholders’ equity requirement of Nasdaq Listing Rule 5550(b)(1), and in each of June 2016, November 2016, January 2018 and September 2019, we received letters from Nasdaq indicating that we were not in compliance with the minimum bid price requirement of Nasdaq Listing Rule 5550(a)(2), which requires that companies listed on The Nasdaq Capital Market maintain a minimum closing bid price of at least $1.00 per share. Although we were able to regain compliance with the Nasdaq continued listing requirements discussed in the May 2016, June 2016, November 2016, January 2018 and September 2019 letter, there can be no assurance that we will be able to maintain compliance with the continued listing requirements of the Nasdaq Capital Market. If we fail to maintain compliance with Nasdaq’s continued listing requirements, Nasdaq may take steps to de-list our common stock. Such a de-listing would likely have a negative effect on the price of our common stock and would impair your ability to sell or purchase our common stock when you wish to do so. In the event of a de-listing, we would take actions to restore our compliance with Nasdaq’s listing requirements, but we can provide no assurance that any such action taken by us would allow our common stock to become listed again, stabilize the market price or improve the liquidity of our common stock, or prevent future non-compliance with Nasdaq’s listing requirements.

Our quarterly operating results may fluctuate significantly.

We expect our operating results to be subject to quarterly fluctuations. Our net loss and other operating results will be affected by numerous factors, including:

68

If our quarterly operating results fall below the expectations of investors or securities analysts, the price of our common stock could decline substantially. Furthermore, any quarterly fluctuations in our operating results may, in turn, cause the price of our stock to fluctuate substantially.

Future sales of our common stock or other securities, or the perception that future sales may occur, may cause the market price of our common stock to decline, even if our business is doing well.

Sales of substantial amounts of our common stock or other securities, or the perception that these sales may occur, could materially and adversely affect the price of our common stock and could impair our ability to raise capital through the sale of additional equity securities. For example, in May 2020, the SEC declared effective a shelf registration statement filed by us. This shelf registration statement allows us to issue any combination of our common stock, preferred stock, debt securities and warrants from time to time for an aggregate initial offering price of up to $100 million. In May 2021, we entered into a Controlled Equity Offering^SM Sales Agreement, or the Sales Agreement, with Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., or the Sales Agent, under which we may issue and sell from time to time up to $25,000,000 of our common stock through or to the Sales Agent, as sales agent or principal. Any sale of shares of our common stock under the Sales Agreement will be made under our shelf registration statement on Form S-3. Sales of our common stock under the Sales Agreement are made at market prices by any method that is deemed to be an “at the market offering” as defined in Rule 415(a)(4) under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. As of December 31, 2021, $10.2 million of our common stock remained available for sale under the Sales Agreement.  Depending on a variety of factors, including market liquidity of our common stock, the sale of shares under this shelf registration statement may cause the trading price of our common stock to decline. The sale of a substantial number of shares of our common stock under this shelf registration statement, or anticipation of such sales, could cause the trading price of our common stock to decline or make it more difficult for us to sell equity or equity-related securities in the future at a time and at a price that we might otherwise desire.

We had outstanding 16,849,805 shares of common stock as of December 31, 2021, most of which are not subject to resale restrictions under Rule 144 of the Securities Act. In addition, as of December 31, 2021, we had outstanding preferred stock convertible into 46,541 shares of our common stock, options to purchase 2,413,194 shares of our common stock, 36 shares of common stock were issuable upon the settlement of outstanding restricted stock units, or RSUs, and 868,372 shares of our common stock were issuable upon the exercise of outstanding warrants. Shares issued upon the exercise of stock options or upon the settlement of outstanding RSUs generally will be eligible for sale in the public market, except that affiliates will continue to be subject to volume limitations and other requirements of Rule 144 under the Securities Act. The issuance or sale of such shares could depress the market price of our common stock.

In the future, we also may issue our securities if we need to raise additional capital. The number of new shares of our common stock issued in connection with raising additional capital could constitute a material portion of the then-outstanding shares of our common stock.

If we fail to maintain proper and effective internal control over financial reporting, our ability to produce accurate financial statements on a timely basis could be impaired and our public reporting may be unreliable.

Effective internal controls over financial reporting are necessary for us to provide reliable financial reports and, together with adequate disclosure controls and procedures, are designed to prevent fraud. In connection with the restatement of our condensed financial statements as of, and for the three and nine months ended, September 30, 2021, we determined that we had a material weakness as of September 30, 2021, namely that our review control over the completeness and accuracy of our accounts payable did not operate effectively, resulting in a material error in the financial statements.  Additionally, management subsequently determined that a deficiency related to the methods used to develop certain estimates and the timely review of such estimates existed.  A material weakness means a deficiency, or combination of deficiencies, in internal control over financial reporting such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of a company’s annual or interim financial statements will not be prevented or detected on a timely basis.

We have implemented a plan to remediate the material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting, including steps to design and implement new controls and expand the review of any potential unrecorded liabilities. However, we cannot assure you that these efforts will remediate our material weakness in a timely manner, or at all, or that we will be able to maintain effective controls and procedures even if we remediate our material weakness. If we are unable to successfully remediate our

69

material weakness, implement and maintain effective controls and procedures, or identify any future material weaknesses, the accuracy and timing of our financial reporting may be adversely affected, we may be unable to maintain compliance with securities law requirements regarding timely filing of periodic reports and we may experience a loss of public confidence, which could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and the market price of our common stock.

We are required to disclose changes made in our internal control procedures on a quarterly basis and our management is required to assess the effectiveness of these controls annually. However, for as long as we are a “non-accelerated filer”, our independent registered public accounting firm will not be required to attest to the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting pursuant to Section 404. An independent assessment of the effectiveness of our internal controls could detect problems that our management’s assessment might not. Undetected material weaknesses in our internal controls could lead to future financial statement restatements and require us to incur additional expenses of remediation.

Anti-takeover provisions of our certificate of incorporation, our bylaws and Delaware law could make an acquisition of us, which may be beneficial to our stockholders, more difficult and may prevent attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove the current members of our board and management.

Certain provisions of our amended certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws could discourage, delay or prevent a merger, acquisition or other change of control that stockholders may consider favorable, including transactions in which you might otherwise receive a premium for your shares. Furthermore, these provisions could prevent or frustrate attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove members of our Board of Directors. For example, Delaware law provides that if a corporation has a classified board of directors, stockholders cannot remove any director during his or her term without cause. These provisions also could limit the price that investors might be willing to pay in the future for our common stock, thereby depressing the market price of our common stock. Stockholders who wish to participate in these transactions may not have the opportunity to do so. These provisions, among other things:

In addition, we are governed by the provisions of Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, or DGCL, which may, unless certain criteria are met, prohibit large stockholders, in particular those owning 15% or more of the voting rights on our common stock, from merging or combining with us for a prescribed period of time.

Because we do not expect to pay cash dividends for the foreseeable future, you must rely on appreciation of our common stock price for any return on your investment. Even if we change that policy, we may be restricted from paying dividends on our common stock.

We do not intend to pay cash dividends on shares of our common stock for the foreseeable future. Any determination to pay dividends in the future will be at the discretion of our Board of Directors and will depend upon results of operations, financial performance, contractual restrictions, restrictions imposed by applicable law and other factors our Board of Directors deems relevant. Accordingly, you will have to rely on capital appreciation, if any, to earn a return on your investment in our common stock. Investors seeking cash dividends in the foreseeable future should not purchase our common stock.

Changes in tax laws or regulations that are applied adversely to us or our customers may have a material adverse effect on our business, cash flow, financial condition or results of operations.

70

New income, sales, use or other tax laws, statutes, rules, regulations or ordinances could be enacted at any time, which could adversely affect our business operations and financial performance. Further, existing tax laws, statutes, rules, regulations or ordinances could be interpreted, changed, modified or applied adversely to us.  For example, the Biden administration and Congress have proposed various U.S. federal tax law changes, which if enacted could have a material impact on our business, cash flow, financial condition or results of operations. In addition, it is uncertain if and to what extent various states will conform to federal tax laws. Future tax reform legislation could have a material impact on the value of our deferred tax assets, could result in significant one-time charges, and could increase our future U.S. tax expense.

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

We are subject to taxation in numerous U.S. states and territories. As a result, our effective tax rate is derived from a combination of applicable tax rates in the various places that we operate. In preparing our financial statements, we estimate the amount of tax that will become payable in each of such places. Nevertheless, our effective tax rate may be different than experienced in the past due to numerous factors, including the results of examinations and audits of our tax filings, our inability to secure or sustain acceptable agreements with tax authorities, changes in accounting for income taxes and changes in tax laws. Any of these factors could cause us to experience an effective tax rate significantly different from previous periods or our current expectations and may result in tax obligations in excess of amounts accrued in our financial statements.

Our ability to use our estimated net operating loss carryforwards and certain other tax attributes may be limited.

Under current law, federal net operating losses incurred in tax years beginning after December 31, 2017, may be carried forward indefinitely, but the deductibility of such federal net operating losses in tax years beginning after December 31, 2020, is limited to 80% of taxable income. It is uncertain if and to what extent various states will conform to federal tax laws. In addition, under Sections 382 and 383 of the Code, if a corporation undergoes an “ownership change,” generally defined as a cumulative change in its equity ownership by “5-percent shareholders” of greater than 50 percentage points (by value) over a three-year period, the corporation’s ability to use its estimated pre-change net operating loss carryforwards and certain other tax attributes (such as research tax credits) to offset its post-change taxable income and taxes, as applicable, may be limited. As of December 31, 2021, we had estimated federal and state net operating loss carryforwards of approximately $75.5 million and $41.5 million, respectively, and estimated federal and California research and development tax credits of approximately $0.8 million and $0.6 million, respectively, which could be limited if we have experienced or do experience any “ownership changes.” We have not completed a study to assess whether an ownership change has occurred or whether there have been multiple ownership changes since our formation, due to the complexity and cost associated with such a study, and the fact that there may be additional ownership changes in the future. We believe, however, that multiple ownership changes have likely occurred. In addition, at the state level, there may be periods during which the use of net operating loss carryforwards is suspended or otherwise limited, which could accelerate or permanently increase state taxes owed.  We have estimated that the use of our net operating loss is limited and the amounts above remain fully offset by a valuation allowance.

We could be subject to securities class action litigation.

In the past, securities class action litigation has often been brought against a company following a decline in the market price of its securities. This risk is especially relevant for us because early-stage life sciences companies have experienced significant stock price volatility in recent years. If we face such litigation, it could result in substantial costs and a diversion of management’s attention and resources, which could harm our business.

General Risk Factors

We have incurred and will continue to incur significant costs as a result of operating as a public company, and our management will be required to devote substantial time to new compliance initiatives.

As a public company, we are subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, or the Dodd-Frank Act, the listing requirements of The Nasdaq Stock Market and other applicable securities rules and regulations. Compliance with these rules and regulations includes significant legal and financial compliance costs, makes some activities more difficult, time-consuming or costly, and increases demand on our systems and resources. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires, among other things, that we maintain effective

71

disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting. In order to maintain and, if required, improve our disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting to meet this standard, significant resources and management oversight may be required. As a result, management’s attention may be diverted from other business concerns, which could harm our business and operating results. Stockholder activism, the current political environment and the current high level of government intervention and regulatory reform may lead to substantial new regulations and disclosure obligations, which may lead to additional compliance costs and impact the manner in which we operate our business in ways we cannot currently anticipate.

In addition, changing laws, regulations and standards relating to corporate governance and public disclosure are creating uncertainty for public companies, increasing legal and financial compliance costs and making some activities more time consuming. These laws, regulations and standards are subject to varying interpretations, in many cases due to their lack of specificity, and, as a result, their application in practice may evolve over time as new guidance is provided by regulatory and governing bodies. This could result in continuing uncertainty regarding compliance matters and higher costs necessitated by ongoing revisions to disclosure and governance practices. We intend to invest resources to comply with evolving laws, regulations and standards, and this investment may result in increased general and administrative expenses and a diversion of management’s time and attention from revenue-generating activities to compliance activities. If our efforts to comply with new laws, regulations and standards differ from the activities intended by regulatory or governing bodies due to ambiguities related to practice, regulatory authorities may initiate legal proceedings against us and our business may be harmed.

If securities or industry analysts issue an adverse opinion regarding our stock or do not publish research or reports about our company, our stock price and trading volume could decline.

The trading market for our common stock will depend in part on the research and reports that equity research analysts publish about us, our business and our competitors. We do not control these analysts or the content and opinions or financial models included in their reports. Securities analysts may elect not to provide research coverage of our company, and such lack of research coverage may adversely affect the market price of our common stock. The price of our common stock could also decline if one or more equity research analysts downgrade our common stock or if those analysts issue other unfavorable commentary or cease publishing reports about us or our business. If one or more equity research analysts cease coverage of our company, we could lose visibility in the market, which in turn could cause our stock price to decline.

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments.

Not applicable.

Item 2. Properties.

We have a lease for approximately 39,600 square feet of space in San Diego, California for use as a clinical reference laboratory and corporate headquarters, including manufacturing and research laboratories. As of December 31, 2021, the average rent for the remaining lease period is approximately $148,000 per month. This lease expires in June 2031.  We believe that our existing facilities are adequate for our current and reasonably foreseeable future needs.

Item 3. Legal Proceedings.

In the normal course of business, we may be involved in legal proceedings or threatened legal proceedings. We are not party to any legal proceedings or aware of any threatened legal proceedings which are expected to have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity.  

We are currently in discussions with a former employee and certain current employees regarding disputed claims for certain sales commissions.  We are not in agreement with their interpretations or claims and are unable to predict the outcome of this matter.

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures.

Not applicable.

72

PART II

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

Market Information

Our common stock is traded on The Nasdaq Capital Market under the symbol “BIOC.”

Holders of Record

As of March 18, 2022, there were 11 holders of record of our common stock. The actual number of common stockholders is greater than the number of record holders, and includes stockholders who are beneficial owners, but whose shares are held in street name by brokers and other nominees. This number of holders of record also does not include stockholders whose shares may be held in trust by other entities.

Dividend Policy

We have never declared dividends on our equity securities, and currently do not plan to declare dividends on shares of our common stock in the foreseeable future. We expect to retain our future earnings, if any, for use in the operation and expansion of our business. Subject to the foregoing, the payment of cash dividends in the future, if any, will be at the discretion of our Board of Directors and will depend upon such factors as earnings levels, capital requirements, our overall financial condition and any other factors deemed relevant by our Board of Directors. Additionally, any payment of a dividend would require the prior approval of our lender.

Securities Authorized for Issuance under Equity Compensation Plans

Information about our equity compensation plans is incorporated herein by reference to Part III, Item 12 of this Annual Report.

Item 6. [Reserved]

73

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

The following discussion of our financial condition and results of operations should be read together with our financial statements and related notes included elsewhere in the Annual Report. This discussion contains forward-looking statements based upon our current plans, estimates, beliefs and expectations that involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions. Our actual results may differ materially from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements as a result of various factors, including those set forth under the sections entitled “Risk Factors,” “Special Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements” and elsewhere in this Annual Report.

We are a molecular oncology diagnostics company that develops and commercializes proprietary clinical diagnostic laboratory assays designed to identify rare tumor cells and cell-free tumor DNA from blood and cerebrospinal fluid, or CSF.  The identification of tumor cells and cell-free tumor DNA in CSF has become our principal development focus following our early commercial expansion into CSF in 2020.  This product was branded and trademarked as CNSide^TM in April 2021.  

The identification of circulating tumor cells, or CTCs, and circulating cell-free tumor DNA and RNA, or ctDNA and ctRNA, deriving from solid tumors such as breast cancer or lung cancer using a standard blood sample has been described as a “liquid biopsy.” This term reflects the ease with which peripheral blood can be drawn compared to performing a surgical biopsy, but this technology is not limited to a peripheral blood approach.

In January 2020, we adapted and validated our proprietary blood-based liquid biopsy technology for commercial and clinical research use in CSF to identify tumor cells that have metastasized to the central nervous system, or CNS, in patients with advanced lung cancer or breast cancer. CNSide has been designed to improve the clinical management of patients with suspected metastatic cancer involving the CNS by enabling the quantitative analysis and molecular characterization of tumor cells and ctDNA and ctRNA in the CSF.  Since then, we have worked extensively with leading neuro-oncologists and other cancer experts to further define and characterize the use of this unique assay.

Our efforts have culminated in the presentation of our early clinical experience at several leading academic forums, including most recently the Society of Neuro-Oncology, or SNO, Brain Metastases meeting in August 2021, as well as the Annual Society of Neuro-Oncology meeting in November 2021 and the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, or SABCS, in December 2021. We believe these presentations have illustrated the feasibility of this assay to inform three critical questions important for the care of patients with suspected or confirmed metastatic cancer involving the CNS:  Is there tumor (diagnosis)?  Is there target (presence of a biomarker to aid treatment selection)?  Is there trend (a response to therapy)?

The question “Is there tumor?” is essential for the diagnostic work-up of these patients.  Tumor cells in the blood can shed from either primary or metastatic tumors.  They can be rapidly removed in the capillary beds of the spleen, liver, kidneys, lungs and other organs, so they are rarely found.  They are the defining feature of metastasis to the leptomeningeal space within the CNS and hence define the presence or absence of leptomeningeal metastasis, or LM.  To distinguish tumor cells derived from CSF and blood we often refer to tumor cells in CSF as CSF Tumor Cells, or CSFTCs, rather than CTCs.

Regarding the second clinical question, “Is there target?” our CNSide assay provides a vehicle for several different diagnostic assay profiles which combined with our molecular test menu can identify tumor cell biomarkers that are intended to help physicians make decisions related to the evolution or course of metastatic tumor that may inform treatment decisions.  Cancer cells typically acquire genetic alterations which differ from that of normal cells.  Metastatic cancers often acquire additional genetic alterations which distinguish them from the primary tumor site.  This marked genetic variation between areas of tumor growth is termed “genetic heterogeneity,” and findings related to this were featured in our SABCS presentation in December 2021 illustrating the value of CNSide in identifying “genetic heterogeneity” of a targetable biomarker called HER2.  

Finally, regarding the third clinical question, “Is there trend?” over the past year we have gained considerable experience with cases that had been sampled multiple times over the course of a patient’s treatment.  The association of quantitative CSF tumor cell counts with response to treatment has been noted in both lung and breast cancer, as well as other tumors examined.  In August 2021, at the SNO Brain Metastases meeting, we presented data obtained from a single institution experience showing how serial monitoring of CSFTCs by CNSide was used to determine the response to treatment in patients with Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer having LM.  In addition, in November 2021 at SNO, we presented the early findings of several patients with breast cancer having LM which had been followed with multiple CSF samples drawn at different time points on each patient.  The downward progression of tumor cell counts has been noted by several treating physicians to correlate with response to treatment and resolution of symptoms. Serial monitoring of genetic alterations present in CSF tumor cells may create

74

opportunities to change the therapy of certain patients throughout treatment.  These observations presented in abstracts and poster presentations in 2021 have informed our clinical study strategy which is the basis for our 2022 efforts to further explore these observations in a prospective clinical trial.

COVID-19 Pandemic Response Summary

In June 2020, to respond to a national public health emergency precipitated by the COVID-19 pandemic, we introduced molecular testing for SARS-CoV2, the virus responsible for COVID-19, using a United States Food and Drug Administration,  Emergency Use Authorization, based “RT-PCR” method developed by Thermo-Fisher.

In November 2021, we launched a combined COVID-19/Influenza A/Influenza B assay manufactured by Thermo-Fisher which broadened our assay menu to meet the rising demand related to winter testing with emergence of new COVID-19 variants such as Delta (summer 2021) and Omicron (fall/winter 2021-22).

Since launch of our COVID-19 testing program, we have performed more than 800,000 assays for customers.  We have primarily marketed our COVID-19 testing services to skilled nursing facilities in the western United States and also to certain community colleges within California.

Our COVID-19 testing services were responsible for most of our revenues during 2020 and 2021. However, as a result of increased vaccination and immunization levels, as well as decreased  COVID-19 hospitalizations, reported cases and mandatory COVID-19 testing, we are currently seeing reduced demand for our COVID-19 testing services and expect this trend to continue absent a negative and sustained turn in the course of the pandemic.

Additional Oncology Testing Services

In addition to CNSide, our current blood-based testing includes our Target Selector^TM technologies which enable detection of specific gene mutations, such as EGFR, KRAS or BRAF, in cell-free ctDNA from blood samples, as well as specific protein and gene alterations, such as HER2 amplification, in CTCs isolated from blood.  We believe our multi-modality combination of a proprietary cell capture and analysis method with a proprietary ctDNA approach provides both high-sensitivity and specificity and is applicable to a broad range of diagnostic applications in patients with metastatic carcinoma.

In January 2019, we began offering research use only, or RUO, liquid biopsy kits containing our patented and proprietary ctDNA Target Selector molecular (PCR-based) testing for certain specific cancer genes to laboratories and researchers worldwide. In March 2020, we released an update for our RUO EGFR Target Selector Kit which expanded the sample types validated to include both blood and CSF.  In March 2020, we also released a RUO BRAF Target Selector assay  validated for ctDNA.

At our corporate headquarters facility located in San Diego, California, we operate a clinical laboratory that is CLIA-certified, CAP accredited and licensed by the California Department of Public Health. In this facility we also develop novel assays that are part of our project pipeline for future commercial launch and we manufacture our microfluidic channels and various assay reagents and products used in our testing processes.  We also work closely with external manufacturers to outsource certain products such as collection tubes and to manufacture items that we intend to use in the near future to reduce costs and improve efficiency.

The assays we offer and intend to offer are classified as CLIA laboratory developed tests, or LDTs, under CLIA regulations. CLIA certification and state licensure in California and certain other states under the supervision of a qualified laboratory medical director is required before any clinical laboratory, including ours, may perform testing on human specimens for the purpose of obtaining information for the diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of disease or the assessment of health. In addition, we participate in and have received CAP accreditation, which includes rigorous bi-annual laboratory inspections and requires adherence to specific quality standards.

Commercial Strategy

Our primary sales strategy is to engage neuro-oncologists, oncologists and other physicians in the United States at private and group practices, hospitals, laboratories and cancer centers to educate them about our unique products and services.  In addition,

75

we market our clinical trial and research services to pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical companies and clinical research organizations.  We also market and sell molecular assay kits which enable laboratories other than Biocept to perform our testing in house. Sales of these kits began in the first quarter of 2019. Further, sales to laboratory supply distributors of our proprietary specimen collection tubes, or SCTs, commenced in June 2018, which allow for the intact transport of liquid biopsy samples for research use only from regions around the world.

.Our revenue generating efforts are focused in the following areas:

We plan to grow our business by directly offering our CNSide and Target Selector liquid biopsy CTC and molecular assays to neuro-oncologists, oncologists and other physicians or heath care providers who treat patients with cancer. Based on our product development data, as well as discussions with our key collaborators, we believe that our planned future assays, particularly those related to CSF, should provide important information and clinical value to physicians.  

We believe our ability to rapidly translate insights about the utility of cytogenetic, immunocytochemical and molecular biomarkers to provide information to neuro-oncologists, oncologists and other physicians for treatment decisions in the clinical setting will improve patient treatment and management, and that these assays will become a key component of the standard of care for personalized cancer treatment.

Key Factors Affecting our Results of Operations and Financial Condition

Our overall long-term growth plan depends on our ability to continue to develop and commercialize products and assays through our CLIA-certified, CAP-accredited, and state-licensed laboratory. We have commercialized our Target Selector assays for breast cancer, non-small cell lung cancer, or NSCLC, gastric cancer, colorectal cancer, prostate cancer, pancreaticobiliary cancer, and ovarian cancer, and plan to continue to launch a series of cancer diagnostic assays for different predictive biomarkers assays in the United States as LDTs performed in our laboratory and enhance revenue for these products through the efforts of our sales and marketing organization. Our sales strategy is to engage medical oncologists, neuro-oncologists, surgical oncologists, urologists, pulmonologists, pathologists and other physicians in the United States at private and group practices, hospitals and cancer centers. We also plan to continue to evaluate potential opportunities for the commercialization of our products and assays in other countries. Additionally, sales of our proprietary SCTs which allow for the intact transport of liquid biopsy samples for research use only, or RUO, from regions around the world, commenced during 2018. In addition to testing for physicians and their patients, we offer clinical trials testing and research services to help increase the efficiency and economic viability of clinical trials for pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical companies and clinical research organizations both within and outside of the United States. We are currently exploring the possibility of introducing ctDNA technology outside the United States as part of IVD test kits and/or testing systems utilizing our Target Selector technologies. We plan to continue to cooperate with partners on accessing markets internationally either through partnerships with local groups and distributors or through the development of IVDs and/or test systems, including instrumentation. We also have a research and development program focused on technology enhancements, novel platform development, and evaluating clinical applications for our cancer diagnostic tests in different cancer types and clinical settings.

To facilitate market adoption of our products and assays, we anticipate having to successfully complete additional clinical utility studies with clinical samples to generate clinical utility data and then publish our results in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Our ability to complete such clinical studies is dependent upon our ability to leverage our collaborative relationships with leading institutions to facilitate our research, to conduct the appropriate clinical studies and to obtain favorable clinical data.  We currently collaborate with key thought leaders, physicians and clinical researchers across the country, including those at Sarah Cannon Research Institute, University of Colorado, Northwestern University Lurie Cancer Center, Stanford

76

University, Penn State University, University of California, San Diego, St John’s Cancer Institute at Santa Monica (formerly John Wayne Cancer Institute), Columbia University, Emory University, Johns Hopkins Medical Institute, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Yale University, Ohio State University, Vanderbilt University, Georgetown University and many others and plan to expand our collaborative relationships to include other key thought leaders at other institutions for the cancer types we target with our Target Selector commercialized assays and our planned future assays, as well as for our current and planned future products. Such relationships help us develop and validate the effectiveness and utility of our products, commercialized assays and our planned future assays in specific, clinical settings and provide us access to patient samples and data.

We believe that the factors discussed in the following paragraphs have had and are expected to continue to have a material impact on our results of operations and financial condition.

Revenues

The Company's commercial revenues are generated from diagnostic services provided to patient’s physicians and billed to third-party insurance payers such as managed care organizations, Medicare and Medicaid and patients for any deductibles, coinsurance or copayments that may be due. The Company recognizes revenue in accordance with Accounting Standards Code 606, Revenue from Contracts with Customers, or ASC 606, which requires that an entity recognize revenue when it transfers promised goods or services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration to which the entity expects to be entitled to in exchange for those goods or services.

We bill third-party payers on a fee-for-service basis at our list price and third-party commercial revenue is recorded net of contractual discounts, payer-specific allowances and other reserves. Our development services revenues are supported by contractual agreements and generated from assay development services provided to entities, as well as certain other diagnostic services provided to physicians. Diagnostic services are completed upon the delivery of assay results to the prescribing physician, at which time we bill for the service.

Our gross commercial revenues billed are subject to estimated deductions for such contractual discounts, payer-specific allowances and other reserves to arrive at reported net revenues, which relate to differences between amounts billed and corresponding amounts estimated to be subsequently collected. These third-party payer discounts and sales allowances are estimated based on a number of assumptions and factors, including historical payment trends, seasonality associated with the annual reset of patient deductible limits on January 1 of each year, and current and estimated future payments. The estimates of amounts that will ultimately be realized from commercial diagnostic services require significant judgment by us. Patients do not enter into direct agreements with us that commit them to pay any portion of the cost of the tests in the event that they have not met their annual deductible limit under their insurance policy, if any, or if their insurance otherwise declines to reimburse us. Adjustments to the estimated payment amounts are recorded at the time of final collection and settlement of each transaction as an adjustment to commercial revenue.

Costs and Expenses

We classify our costs and expenses into four categories: cost of revenues, research and development, sales and marketing, and general and administrative. Our costs and expenses principally consist of facility costs and overhead, personnel costs, outside services and consulting costs, laboratory consumables, development costs, and legal fees.

Cost of Revenues. Our cost of revenues consists principally of facility costs and overhead, personnel costs, and laboratory and manufacturing supplies and materials. We are pursuing various strategies to reduce and control our cost of revenues, including automating aspects of our processes, developing more efficient technology and methods, and attempting to negotiate improved terms and volume discounts with our suppliers.

Research and Development Expenses. We incur research and development expenses principally in connection with our efforts to develop and improve our tests. Our primary research and development expenses consist of direct personnel costs, laboratory equipment and consumables, and overhead expenses. We anticipate that research and development expenses will increase in the near-term, principally to develop and validate tests in our pipeline and to perform work associated with clinical utility studies and development collaborations. In addition, we expect that our costs related to collaborations with research and academic institutions will increase. All research and development expenses are charged to operations in the periods in which they are incurred.

77

Sales and Marketing Expenses. Our sales and marketing expenses consist principally of personnel and related overhead costs for our sales team and their support personnel, travel and entertainment expenses, and other selling costs including sales collaterals and trade shows. We anticipate sales and marketing expenses to increase as we work on generating higher revenues and marketing additional offerings.

General and Administrative Expenses. General and administrative expenses consist principally of personnel-related expenses, professional fees, such as legal, accounting and business consultants, insurance costs, and other general expenses. We expect that our general and administrative expenses will increase as we expand our business operations. We further expect that general and administrative expenses will increase due to increased information technology, legal, insurance, accounting and financial reporting expenses associated with expanded commercial activities.

Critical Accounting Policies and Significant Judgments and Estimates

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reported periods. While we believe these estimates are reasonable and consistent, they are by their very nature estimates of amounts that will depend on future events. Accordingly, actual results could differ from these estimates. Our Audit Committee periodically reviews our significant accounting policies. Our critical accounting policies arise in conjunction with the following:

Revenue Recognition

We initiate a revenue transaction when we receive a requisition order to perform a diagnostic test. The information provided on the requisition form is used to determine the party that will be billed for the testing performed and the expected reimbursement.  We recognize revenue and satisfy our performance obligation for services rendered when the testing process is complete, and associated results are reported. Revenues flow from clients, patients, Medicare and Medicaid and other third-party payers.  We consider negotiated discounts and anticipated adjustments, including historical collection experience for the payer portfolio, when revenues are recorded.

The following are descriptions of our payers:

Clients

Client payers represent the portion of revenue related to physicians, hospitals, health systems, accountable care organizations, employers and other entities where payment is received exclusively from the entity ordering the testing service.

Patients

Patient revenues include revenue from uninsured patients and member cost-share for insured patients (e.g., coinsurance, deductibles and non-covered services). Uninsured patients are billed based upon our fee schedules. We bill insured patients as directed by their health plan and after consideration of the fees and terms associated with an established health plan contract.

Medicare and Medicaid

Medicare and Medicaid revenues are received from traditional Medicare and Medicaid programs. Net revenue from these programs is based on the fee schedule established by the related government authority. In addition, other adjustments including anticipated payer denials are considered when determining net revenue. Any remaining adjustments to revenue are recorded at the time of final collection and settlement. These adjustments are not material to our results of operations in any period presented.

78

Third Party

Third party includes revenue related to insurance companies. Most of our third-party revenue is reimbursed on a fee-for-service basis. These payers are billed based on our established list price and revenue is recorded net of contractual discounts. Revenues are recorded based upon contractually negotiated fee schedules, with revenues for non-contracted managed care organizations recorded based on historical reimbursement experience.

Revenue Recognition and Related Reserves

Our commercial revenues are generated from diagnostic services provided to patient’s physicians and billed to third-party insurance payers such as managed care organizations, Medicare and Medicaid and patients for any deductibles, coinsurance or copayments that may be due. We recognize revenue in accordance with ASC 606, Revenue from Contracts with Customers, or ASC 606, which requires that an entity recognize revenue when it transfers promised goods or services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration to which the entity expects to be entitled to in exchange for those goods or services.

Contracts

For our commercial revenues, while we market directly to physicians, our customer is the patient. Patients do not enter into direct agreements with us, however, a patient’s insurance coverage requirements would dictate whether or not any portion of the cost of the tests would be patient responsibility. Accordingly, we establish a contract with a commercial patient in accordance with other customary business practices, as follows:

Our development services revenues are supported by contractual agreements and generated from assay development services provided to entities, as well as certain other diagnostic services provided to physicians, and revenues are recognized upon delivery of the performance obligations in the contract.

Performance Obligations

A performance obligation is a promise in a contract to transfer a distinct good or service, or a bundle of goods or services, to the customer. For commercial and development services revenues, our contracts have a single performance obligation, which is satisfied upon rendering of services, which culminates in the delivery of a patient’s assay result(s) to the ordering physician or entity. The duration of time between test order receipt and delivery of a valid assay result to the ordering physician or entity is typically less than two weeks, and for our RT-PCR COVID-19 testing, typically 48 hours or less. Accordingly, we elected the practical expedient and therefore, we do not disclose the value of unsatisfied performance obligations.

Transaction Price

The transaction price is the amount of consideration that we expect to collect in exchange for transferring promised goods or services to a customer, excluding amounts collected on behalf of third parties, such as sales taxes. The consideration expected from a contract with a customer may include fixed amounts, variable amounts, or both. Our gross commercial revenues billed, and corresponding gross accounts receivable, are subject to estimated deductions for such allowances and reserves to arrive at reported net revenues, which relate to differences between amounts billed and corresponding amounts estimated to be subsequently collected and is deemed to be variable although the variability is not explicitly stated in any contract. Rather, the implied variability is due to several factors, such as the payment history or lack thereof for third-party payers, reimbursement rate changes for contracted and non-contracted payers, any patient co-payments, deductibles or compliance incentives, the

79

existence of secondary payers and claim denials. We estimate the amount of variable consideration using the most likely amount approach to estimating variable consideration for third-party payers, including direct patient bills, whereby the estimated reimbursement for services are established by payment histories on CPT codes for each payer, or similar payer types. When no payment history is available, the value of the account is estimated at Medicare rates, with additional other payer-specific reserves taken as appropriate. Collection periods for billings on commercial revenues range from less than 30 days to several months, depending on the contracted or non-contracted nature of the payer, among other variables. The estimates of amounts that will ultimately be realized from commercial diagnostic services for non-contracted payers require significant judgment by management.

We limit the amount of variable consideration included in the transaction price to the unconstrained portion of such consideration. Revenue is recognized up to the amount of variable consideration that is not subject to a significant reversal until additional information is obtained or the uncertainty associated with the additional payments or refunds is subsequently resolved. Differences between original estimates and subsequent revisions, including final settlements, represent changes in the estimate of variable consideration and are included in the period in which such revisions are made. We monitor our estimates of transaction price to depict conditions that exist at each reporting date. If we subsequently determine that we will collect more than we originally estimated for a contract with a customer, we will account for the change as an increase in the estimate of the transaction price in the period identified as an increase to revenue. Similarly, if we subsequently determine that the amount we expect to collect from a customer is less than originally estimated, we will generally account for the change as a decrease in the estimate of the transaction price in the period identified as a decrease to revenue, provided that such downward adjustment does not result in a significant reversal of cumulative revenue recognized. Revenue recognized from changes in transaction prices was not significant during the year ended December 31, 2020, however, transaction prices decreased 18% for the year ended December 31, 2021 due to a decline in COVID-19 reimbursement rates. Further, although the Company believes that its estimate for contractual allowances and other reserves is appropriate, it is possible that the Company will experience an impact on cash collections as a result of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Allocate Transaction Price

For our commercial revenues, the entire transaction price is allocated to the single performance obligation contained in a contract with a customer. For our development services revenues, the contracted transaction price is allocated to each single performance obligation contained in a contract with a customer as performed.

Point-in-time Recognition

Our single performance obligation is satisfied at a point in time, and that point in time is defined as the date a patient’s successful assay result is delivered to the patient’s ordering physician or entity. We consider this date to be the time at which the patient obtains control of the promised diagnostic assay service. 

Contract Balances

The timing of revenue recognition, billings and cash collections results in accounts receivable recorded in our balance sheets. Generally, billing occurs subsequent to delivery of a patient’s test result to the ordering physician or entity, resulting in an account receivable.  

Practical Expedients

We do not adjust the transaction price for the effects of a significant financing component, as at contract inception, we expect the collection cycle to be one year or less.

We expense sales commissions when incurred because the amortization period is one year or less, which are recorded within sales and marketing expenses.  

We incur certain other costs that are incurred regardless of whether a contract is obtained. Such costs are primarily related to legal services and patient communications. These costs are expensed as incurred and recorded within general and administrative expenses. 

80

Stock-Based Compensation

We account for stock-based compensation under the provisions of ASC 718, Compensation—Stock Compensation, which requires the measurement and recognition of compensation expense for all stock-based awards made to employees and directors based on estimated fair values on the grant date. We estimate the fair value of stock option awards on the date of grant using the Black-Scholes option pricing model, or Black-Scholes valuation model. The fair value of RSUs is determined by the price of our common stock on the date of grant. The value of the portion of the award that is ultimately expected to vest is recognized as expense over the requisite service periods using the straight-line method. We estimate forfeitures at the time of grant and revise our estimates in subsequent periods if actual forfeitures differ from those estimates.

Going Concern

We assess and determine our ability to continue as a going concern under the provisions of ASC Topic 205-40, Presentation of Financial Statements—Going Concern, which requires us to evaluate whether there are conditions or events that raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern within one year after the date that our annual and interim financial statements are issued. Certain additional financial statement disclosures are required if such conditions or events are identified. If and when an entity’s liquidation becomes imminent, financial statements should be prepared under the liquidation basis of accounting.

Determining the extent, if any, to which conditions or events raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern, or the extent to which mitigating plans sufficiently alleviate any such substantial doubt, as well as whether or not liquidation is imminent, requires significant judgment by us. We have determined that it is not probable based on projected cash flows that substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern exists for the one-year period following the date that the financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2021 were issued.

COVID-19 Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to evolve, and the extent to which COVID-19 may impact our business will depend on future developments, which are highly uncertain and cannot be predicted with confidence, such as the ultimate geographic spread of the disease, the duration of any outbreaks, travel restrictions and social distancing in the United States and other countries, government-funding for COVID-19 testing, business closures or business disruptions, and the effectiveness of actions taken in the United States and other countries to contain and treat the disease.  We estimate that the COVID-19 pandemic led to an approximate 15% to 25% decline in commercial volume from current customers for the year ended December 31, 2020, and also impacted opportunities for us to gain new customers with the closing of many physician offices and labs.  For the year ended December 31, 2021, the volume of our oncology business was reduced by approximately 3% from the previous year.  We are continuing to vigilantly monitor the situation with our primary focus on the health and safety of our employees and clients.

In April 2020, we announced that we validated a COVID-19 molecular diagnostic test and that we would begin accepting physician-ordered testing requests.  The testing volume was initially limited by the national shortage of specimen collection kits.  In June 2020, we announced the availability of 10,000 specimen collection kits for COVID-19 testing for physician ordering.  Collected specimens are shipped to our high-complexity, CLIA-certified, CAP-accredited and BSL-2 safety level laboratory in San Diego with results returned to ordering physicians in an estimated 24 to 48 hours.  We have received more than 800,000 samples for processing through our RT-PCR technology at our laboratory to date. We are currently seeing reduced demand for our COVID-19 testing services and expect this trend to continue absent a negative and sustained turn in the course of the pandemic.

81

Results of Operations

Years Ended December 31, 2020 and 2021

The following table sets forth certain information concerning our results of operations for the periods shown (in thousands):