UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022

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. ☐

If securities are registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act, indicate by check mark whether the financial statements of the registrant included in the filing reflect the correction of an error to previously issued financial statements. ☐

Indicate by check mark whether any of those error corrections are restatements that required a recovery analysis of incentive-based compensation received by any of the registrant’s executive officers during the relevant recovery period pursuant to §240.10D-1(b). ☐

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, 2022, was $15,907,495.

The number of shares of Registrant’s Common Stock outstanding as of April 13, 2023 was 17,777,185.

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

1

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 SEC 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 CNSideTM in April 2021.

The identification of circulating tumor cells, or CTCs, and circulating cell-free tumor DNA and RNA, or ctDNA and ctRNA, derived from solid tumors such as breast cancer, lung cancer and melanoma 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. We have subsequently broadened the CNSide indications for use to include all carcinomas and melanomas. 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.

The initial disease focus for CNSide is in leptomeningeal metastasis, or LM. LM is a condition in which the primary tumor develops a secondary malignant growth in leptomeningeal tissue; that is, two of the three membranes surrounding human brain and spinal cord. These membranes are also known specifically as the arachnoid and pia mater. Clinically, this tissue is almost always unobtainable for biopsy purposes and CSF sampling is required for these patients. CSF continuously flows between these membranes and is used clinically to diagnose leptomeningeal disease. The incidence of LM among patients with solid tumors has risen over the past several decades. Epidemiologic studies suggest that 3-8% of patients with solid tumors will develop LM. However, at autopsy, the frequency of LM averages twenty percent and is much higher in some tumor types. The most common solid tumors giving rise to LM are breast cancer, lung cancer, melanoma, and gastrointestinal malignancies. Currently the survivability of leptomeningeal disease in solid tumors in patients not receiving treatment is measured in weeks.

The gold standard for making the diagnosis of LM, is CSF cytology, which has a clinical sensitivity of approximately 50%. As a result, MRI imaging is heavily relied upon by oncologists but suffers from a limited specificity of approximately 77%. Additionally, previous attempts to create an MRI-based “scorecard” for leptomeningeal disease to assess treatment response/disease progression have had varied success.

Given the challenges associated with diagnosing LM and the need for biomarker information to guide therapeutic management, the opportunity for advanced technologies to benefit these patients became clear. This is the context under which CNSide has been developed, allowing it to potentially address significant unmet medical needs. We summarize the unmet needs for managing metastatic brain cancer patients as follows: 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 be 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. Conversely, tumor cells in the CSF are the defining feature of leptomeningeal disease. To distinguish tumor cells derived from CSF and from blood we often refer to tumor cells in CSF as CSF tumor cells, 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

5

growth is termed “genetic heterogeneity,” and findings related to this were featured in our San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium 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 three years, having tested CNSide in more than one thousand patients, we have gained considerable experience with detecting CSF tumor cells of patients that have been sampled multiple times over the course of their 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 Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO) Brain Metastases meeting, we presented data obtained from a single institution showing how serial monitoring of CSF tumor cells 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 the SNO annual meeting, 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 throughout each patient's treatment. 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 poster presentations in 2021 and 2022 have informed our clinical study strategy which is the basis for our ongoing efforts to further explore these observations in a prospective clinical trial.

CNSide Description

CNSide encompasses a suite of cellular and molecular technologies intended to aid medical professionals in CSF analysis and CNS disease management in patients with solid tumors. We currently offer and conduct our commercialized diagnostic assays and offer our clinical trial services at our Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA) certified, College of American Pathologists (CAP) accredited and California state-licensed laboratory in San Diego, CA. These assays include cell capture and enumeration, immunocytochemistry, fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH), and next generation sequencing (NGS).

CNSide offers several differentiating elements that make it a unique solution for oncologists, including:

As of this filing date, CNSide has been used at 30 of the Nation’s 64 NCI designated cancer centers for a host of primary indications, including breast cancer, non-small cell lung cancer, small cell lung cancer, melanoma, esophageal cancer, gastric cancer, colorectal cancer, head and neck cancers, ovarian cancer, endometrial cancer, renal cancer, bladder cancer, prostate cancer, liver cancer, pancreatic cancer, neuroendocrine cancer, melanoma and others.

6

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.

Since launch of our COVID-19 testing program, we performed more than 1,000,000 assays for patients and customers. We 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 the years ended December 31, 2022 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 experienced reduced demand for our COVID-19 testing services throughout 2022. We exited the COVID-19 testing business in February 2023.

Additional Oncology Testing Services

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 reagents and products used in our testing processes. We also work closely with external manufacturers to outsource certain products such as specimen collection tubes and to manufacture items that we may, in the future, outsource 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 organizations.

Our revenue generating efforts are focused in the following areas:

We plan to grow our business by directly offering our CNSide testing services 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 current and planned future assays, particularly those related to CSF, should provide important information and clinical value to physicians.

7

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.

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 testing services through the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association’s group purchasing organization, CareSource. The pricing offered by CareSource group purchasing organization is available to those Blue Cross and Blue Shield member health plans that have, or may seek, in-network agreements with us.

In July 2022, we signed a new, updated agreement with the BCBS Association, establishing pricing for CNSide, the company's Cerebrospinal Fluid Cell Based Assay through their group purchasing organization, Care Source. In September 2022, we executed a new agreement with BCBS of Michigan, the first major BCBS plan to cover and reimburse for CNSide. The Blue Care Network is the largest HMO in Michigan. In January 2023, we finalized an agreement with Blue Shield of California, serving 4.5 million health plan members and more than 65,000 physicians across the State of California, as well as 340 hospitals statewide.

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 marked our third Blue Cross Blue Shield contract and enabled patients diagnosed with cancer 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 Caresource Workgroup. The focus is to improve access to molecular testing to members with a diagnosis of lung cancer.

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 testing services to physicians and patients in their network.

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 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 (Target Selector brand has subsequently been replaced by CNSide in the case of CSF-based liquid biopsies) 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.

8

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 testing services. Both IPAs are headquartered in San Diego and combined they serve more than 70,000 covered lives in the Southern California region.

In March 2022, we entered into a contract with the CA Department of Health Care Services to participate in the State's Medi-Cal Program for low-income people.

In October 2022, we executed an amended agreement with MultiPlan, Inc., a healthcare cost management solutions company with over 700 payor organizations within their network throughout the country. The amended agreement now includes CNSide, our Cerebrospinal Fluid Tumor Cell Based Assay at a premium rate of reimbursement. This agreement offers our company access to all 10 of the nation's top 10 healthcare payors (by market share).

We are currently contracted with 12 preferred provider organizations and networks, including two national third party payor groups, seven large commercial health plans, and six regional independent physician associations.

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 American Cancer Society, the incidence of new cancer cases reported in United States was 1.9 million in 2021, with 608,570 people dying from cancer. Additionally, the prevalence of people living with cancer in the U.S. was 16,627,949 in 2019 according to the National Cancer Institute. These cancer patients are served by over 13,000 oncologists who are engaged in patient care as of 2022 according to the American Society for Clinical Oncology.

Brain tumors represent a diverse repertoire of malignancies that remain notoriously difficult to treat as manifested by the unfortunate fact that survival beyond two years remains rare. Cancer in the CNS typically arises from either within the brain tissue itself (primary brain cancer) or from cancer cells that have broken off and spread from other primary sites (i.e., metastatic CNS cancer). Brain metastases are responsible for nearly 90% of all brain malignancies.

Metastatic Brain Cancer Overview

Cancer metastasis accounts for 90% of all solid tumor cancer mortality (Taftaf, R. et al. Nature Communications 12, 4867 2021). Metastasis of cancers to the CNS (brain and spinal cord) constitutes a major complication of malignant disease, is associated with significant clinical symptoms and poor outcomes, and presents significant clinical challenges to physicians responsible for the care of these patients. The increasing frequency of metastatic brain cancer is thought to be rising due to longer survival resulting from better cancer diagnosis, improved cancer screening methods, and more effective treatments (Karimi et al. Nature Vol 614 2023).

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.

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 and spinal cord, are more subtle and difficult to diagnose. Leptomeningeal disease is usually diagnosed with a combination of clinical evaluation (symptoms), radiology (MRI or CT) and CSF 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.

9

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

The challenge of diagnosing LM, selecting an appropriate treatment, and establishing treatment response all can benefit from the identification of tumor cells and other biomarkers. 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 stereotactic biopsy.

Our Business Strategy

Our suite of CNSide testing services enables us to 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’ CNS tumors by analyzing tumor cells and ctDNA found in 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:

Is there tumor? We believe that our technology, which provides information on the presence of 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 carcinomas and melanomas.

Is there target? Our technology can be used to assess molecular biomarkers in CSF 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 and suspected CNS metastasis. Our approach is to develop and commercialize CSF tumor cell and ctDNA assays and services that enable us to offer actionable information from a CSF sample for a range of tumor types so that oncologists can make treatment decisions which improve patient care. To achieve this, we intend to:

10

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 in San Diego, CA. We have commercialized our CNSide assays for detecting and characterizing many different carcinomas (including breast cancer, NSCLC, SCLC, gastric cancer, colorectal cancer, prostate cancer, pancreaticobiliary cancer, and ovarian cancer) and melanoma.

These assays utilize our dual cellular and ctDNA technology platforms and provide biomarker analysis from a patient’s CSF sample.

Our current assays and clinical trial services include:

We analytically validated PD-L1 testing utilizing our cell capture and enumeration 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.

We intend to continue to commercialize CNS focused 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.

13

In 2019, we announced the launch of the NGS lung cancer panel and the NGS breast cancer panel using the Thermo Fisher Oncomine platform. These two NGS panels are important offerings within our CNSide suite of services. We intend to gain payment for these assays 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 we must demonstrate to them that our tests are reasonable and necessary for the care of patients diagnosed with LM subsequent to a diagnosis of primary NSCLC or breast cancer. This is a major step in gaining reimbursement for a proprietary test, and is a necessary step to establish coding and pricing for these services. Once that has been achieved, 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 will adopt the payment and reimbursement recommendation or develop their own, and we can then receive payment from Medicare for our NGS panels. We intend to use the same MolDX pathway to gain reimbursement from CMS for the other portions of the CNSide suite of services that are not currently reimbursed – namely the cell capture and enumeration aspect of CNSide.

In April 2021, we announced the full commercial launch of our branded 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. We ended this relationship in January 2023 due to lack of orders from Quest.

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 circulating tumor cells. This coverage determination from the CMS MolDX Program was effective July 4, 2021 and continues to be an important part of the CNSide suite of services.

Pharmaceutical, Research and Health Economic Collaborations

In October 2020, we announced results from a prospective study at the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC) comparing our CNSide testing service to conventional cytology in patients with NSCLC and LM showing that our CNSide testing may provide a more robust method for detecting lung cancer metastasis in CSF than the current standard of cytology analysis.

14

In November 2020 at the SNO annual meeting, 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 our CNSide assays are a viable and sensitive platform for CSF tumor cell detection and molecular analysis compared to the current standard of care, CSF cytology, which is typically used to establish or confirm LM disease when radiological imaging findings are suspicious or equivocal.

In December 2020, we announced results from a prospective study showing our tumor cell capture and enumeration technology - a key component of our CNSide suite of services - was highly accurate in monitoring HER2 alterations from blood specimens in patients with metastatic breast cancer. The results were featured in a poster presentation at the virtual 2020 SABCS.

In August 2021, in conjunction with the University of Utah, data was presented at the Society for Neuro-oncology (SNO) Brain Metastasis conference related to the use of CNSide on 15 unique non-small cell lung cancer cases.

In November 2021, in conjunction with Northwestern Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, the University of Texas Southwestern, and Barrow Neurological institute, data was presented at the SNO annual meeting in Boston on the experience of using CNSide for longitudinal therapy response monitoring in four unique breast cancer patients.

In December 2021, in a spotlight poster presentation at the SABCS, we presented our experience with genetic heterogeneity of HER2 in CSF tumor cells compared to that in the primary tumor 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.

In April 2022, in conjunction with Saint John’s Health Center and Pacific Neuroscience Institute, data was presented at American Academy of Neurology annual meeting in Seattle on 64 patient specimens from five unique patients comparing tumor cell identification on CSF cytology vs. CNSide throughout the course of treatment.

In June 2022, Columbia University of Irving Medical Center published a prospective study among advanced or metastatic breast cancer patients in Clinical Breast Cancer and concluded that CNSide may be a viable platform to detect tumor cells in the CSF with use as a potential diagnostic for LM disease, reporting a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 83%.

In June 2022 we announced a collaboration with Plus Therapeutics for a multi-year agreement to employ Biocept’s CSF assay CNSide in Plus Therapeutics’ ReSPECT-LM Phase 1/2a dose-escalation clinical trial of Rhenium-186 NanoLiposome (186RNL) for the treatment of patients with leptomeningeal disease (LM).

In November 2022, in conjunction with 10 leading medical institutions, data was presented at the SNO annual meeting in Tampa regarding the genetic heterogeneity of HER2 amplification between the primary site and metastatic cells to the CNS, concluding that 38% of patients that were previously categorized as HER2 negative or equivocal demonstrated a population of HER2 amplified cells in their CSF specimen.

In November 2022, in conjunction with Saint John’s Health Center and Pacific Neuroscience Institute, data was presented at the SNO annual meeting on the cell capture of a primary brain tumor and a pineal tumor using a modified CNSide protocol. We intend to expand our services for CNSide testing to include additional tumor types that may benefit from CSF testing. These include tumors for which biopsy and/or resection is severely limited by anatomic location, such as those tumors seen arising in the midline of the brain, as well as tumors for which diffuse CSF involvement warrants a significant change in medical management, such as medulloblastoma and ependymoma.

15

Laboratory Testing

From our CLIA-certified laboratory in San Diego, California, we provide test results from our current and planned CNSide assays to medical oncologists, neuro-oncologists, surgical oncologists, radiation 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 lab 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 CNSide 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 focused on cancers of the CNS. Our testing services are aimed at developing customizable assays and techniques utilizing CSF cell capture and enumeration and ctDNA technologies to provide sensitive, real-time characterization of an individual patient’s tumors using a CSF 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. To date we have one CNSide biopharmaceutical collaboration, with Plus Therapeutics.

Assay Development Process

Our CNSide suite of services were, and our planned additional tumor cell capture and enumeration 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:

16

We currently offer 14 CNSide panels that are available for clinical use that have completed all four stages of the development protocol. Other assays for both CSF tumor cells and CSF molecular testing are in earlier stages of development.

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.

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. Tumor cells captured by Biocept’s proprietary cell capture and enumeration 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 our 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 during the development of our proprietary technology.

Clinical utility studies, which demonstrate the specific clinical setting in which a particular CNSide 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 payors now ask for peer-reviewed publications describing such studies and results before agreeing to coverage of a specific novel assay. This was a primary impetus for our investments in our FORESEE clinical study to evaluate the clinical utility of CNSide.

17

Sales and Marketing

On December 31, 2022, our sales organization consisted of 4 field sales personnel allocated to strategic geographies around the country that have high concentrations of cancer patients. In early January 2023 we announced a reduction in force that eliminated our field-based selling organization in an effort to conserve our cash resources. Once we have adequate resources to do so, we will need to hire and develop a field-based selling organization. Our sales and marketing efforts will be based on a five-part marketing strategy:

We will 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 CSF tumor cell 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 CNSide assays from standard patient CSF 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:

18

We believe that we compete favorably with respect to these factors 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, radiation 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, radiation oncologists, urologists, pulmonologists, pathologists, and other physicians to get them to adopt the use of our CNSide suite of services, in their practices in conjunction with or instead of molecular diagnostic tests from tissue biopsies or other conventional methodologies including the current standard of care of cytology, radiological examination, and clinical evaluation of patient signs and symptoms.

CNSide services for CNS 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.

19

Competitors developing ctDNA based 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.

There is currently limited competition for our CSF-based tumor cell capture and enumeration and ctDNA assays. There are no known specialty oncology diagnostic companies or large laboratory services companies that offer CSF-based tumor cell capture and enumeration 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 focused on cancers of the CNS. 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 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 payors, 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.

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

20

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 CEE-Sure SCT, antibody cocktail approach, microchannel device, CTC detection methodologies, and ctDNA analysis. In addition to issued patents in the U.S., we have patents for our proprietary microchannel device in China, 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, solidifying our proprietary enrichment methodology for detecting ctDNA with very high sensitivity. 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.

As of March 1, 2023, we owned 61 issued patents and have 4 patent applications pending. Of these, 14 were issued U.S. patents and three were pending patent applications in the U.S., and one was a pending PCT application, while 47 were issued patents in non-U.S. territories.

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-house. 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

21

to antibody-tagged (fluorescently conjugated) CTCs or CSF tumor cells. 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, CSF tumor cell, 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 tumor cells 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 payor 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.

Third-Party Payor 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:

22

We are reimbursed for two categories of testing, anatomic pathology, which includes cell staining such as immunocytochemical staining, or ICC, FISH, 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.

The cell capture and enumeration portion of our CNSide suite of services currently receives little to no reimbursement, depending on the payor and circumstances. We intend to gain payment for this aspect of CNSide 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 we must demonstrate to them that our tests are reasonable and necessary for the care of patients diagnosed with LM subsequent to a diagnosis of primary NSCLC or breast cancer. This is a major step in gaining reimbursement for a proprietary test, and we and is a necessary step to establish coding and pricing for these services. Once that has been achieved, 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 will adopt the payment and reimbursement recommendation or develop their own, and we can then receive payment from Medicare for our proprietary cell capture and enumeration technology.

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. While we await MolDX reimbursement approval for certain aspects of our CNSide suite of services, we may require our hospital clients to sign lab service agreements with us so we may bill the hospital directly for portions of our CNSide service offerings which are not currently reimbursed.

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 tumor cell capture and 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 in blood. 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. We continue to receive orders for our traditional enumeration testing, which

23

counts disease burden, and therefore the enumeration testing receives no payment from Medicare based upon the existing coverage decision. The Tumor Cell enumeration counts disease burden, and although oncologists find the information valuable, it does not currently meet many of the medical necessity requirements of Medicare and the payors. We intend to pursue payment for the capture portion of our CNSide technology.

Reimbursement rates paid by private third-party payors 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 payors, but we are generally considered an “out-of-network” or non-participating provider by most private third-party payors. An in-network provider usually has a contract with the payor 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 payor, 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 Payor 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 payors may require differing codes for a given assay to effect payment. Changes in coding and reimbursement could adversely impact our revenues going forward, or payors could request that we reimburse them for payments we have already received. There can be no guarantees that Medicare and other payors 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 CNSide 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 payors, including major private third-party payors, 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 CSF tumor cell assays, however, CMS, Palmetto or Noridian could adopt specific negative coverage policies for CSF tumor cells or ctDNA analysis in the future.

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.

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

24

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 payor coverage policy in place, we bill the payor 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 payor 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, payors will reimburse for all components of our assays. Payment amounts can also vary across individual policies. Full or partial denial of coverage by payors, 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 payors. 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, 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. 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. In addition, on August 16, 2022, President Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, or IRA, into law, which among other things, extends enhanced subsidies for individuals purchasing health insurance coverage in ACA marketplaces through plan year 2025. The IRA also eliminates the “donut hole” under the Medicare Part D program beginning in 2025 by significantly lowering the beneficiary maximum out-of-pocket cost and creating a new manufacturer discount program. 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.

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 payor (including health insurance issuers, group health plans, Medicare Advantage plans and

25

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, 2024 and March 31, 2024, 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 2025 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 2021-2023 and a 15% reduction cap for 2024 through 2026. 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. Under current legislation, the actual reduction in Medicare payments will vary from 1% in 2022 to up to 4% 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.

On March 22, 2022, CMS ceased the HRSA COVID-19 Uninsured Program (UIP), which provided federal COVID-19 relief funding for uninsured individuals to receive testing and treatment for COVID-19.

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-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 tumor cell 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 Tumor Cell enumeration counts disease burden, and although oncologists find the information valuable, it does not currently meet many of the medical necessity requirements of Medicare and the payors. We intend to pursue payment for the capture portion of our CNSide technology.

26

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.

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.

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

27

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 payors. 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 payor. 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 payor” statute). The full scope of such law is uncertain and is subject to a variety of interpretations.

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 payor.

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

28

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 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

29

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.

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. We have engaged and have been in recurring communication with the New York State Department Of Health and we have now received their permission to provide CNSide in the state of New York, beyond the traditional 50-specimen limit, while we complete the licensing and permit process with them.

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

30

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.

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.

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 Board of Directors.

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 Chief Compliance Officer who is responsible for investigating, reporting to the Compliance Committee, and documenting the disposition of each report. The Chief Compliance Officer 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

31

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

Employees

As of March 31, 2023 we had a total of 50 full-time employees, four of whom are engaged in full-time research and development activities and four of whom hold doctorate degrees, as well as two 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 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

32

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 $32.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2022. We experienced reduced demand for our COVID-19 testing services and stopped offering these services in February 2023. We will continue to incur net losses and negative cash flows from operations for the foreseeable future. At December 31, 2022, our accumulated deficit was approximately $298.4 million.

We expect our losses to continue as a result of costs relating to our laboratory operations as well as sales and marketing costs and 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.

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. We currently expect that our existing resources will only be sufficient to fund our planned operations and expenditures into the third quarter of 2023. Management intends to continue its efforts to contain costs and to raise additional capital until we can generate sufficient cash from commercial sales to support operations, if ever. 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 high inflation, high interest rates, global supply chain issues, the Russia-Ukraine conflict, COVID-19, bank failures, general economic uncertainty 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 when needed 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. To fund our current and planned operations in the short- and long-term, we may seek to raise additional capital through public or private equity offerings, debt financings, borrowings or strategic partnerships coupled with an investment in our company or a combination thereof. If we raise additional funds through the issuance of convertible debt securities, or other debt securities, these securities could be secured and could have rights senior to those of our common stock. In addition, any new debt incurred by us could impose covenants that restrict our operations. The issuance of any new equity securities will also dilute the interest of our current stockholders. Given the risks associated with our business, including our unprofitable operating history and our ability or inability to develop additional assays, and the current volatility in the equity markets, additional capital may not be available when needed on acceptable terms, or at all. There is no assurance that we will be able to raise adequate funds when needed or on favorable terms. If adequate funds are not available when needed, we will need to delay, scale back or discontinue one or more product development programs, curtail our commercialization activities, significantly reduce expenses (through reductions in our workforce or otherwise), sell assets (potentially at a discount to their fair value or carrying value), enter into relationships with third parties to develop or commercialize products or technologies that we otherwise would have sought to develop or commercialize independently, pursue an acquisition of our company at a price that may result in a significant loss on investment to our stockholders, file for bankruptcy, seek other protection from creditors, or liquidate all of our assets.

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.

33

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, 2022 and 2021, our research and development expenses were $6.2 million and $5.0 million, respectively, and our sales and marketing expenses were $7.1 million and $8.3 million, respectively. We expect our expenses to be significantly more than our revenues for the foreseeable future and increase as we conduct studies of our current products, assays and services and our planned future products, assays and services, 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 will need to generate significant revenues in order to achieve sustained profitability.

We may undertake internal restructuring activities in the future that could result in disruptions to our business or otherwise materially harm our results of operations or financial condition.

From time to time we may undertake internal restructuring activities as we continue to evaluate and attempt to optimize our cost and operating structure in light of developments in our financial condition, business strategy and long-term operating plans. For example, we completed a reduction in our workforce in the first quarter of 2023, including our entire field-based salesforce. Subject to obtaining sufficient funding, we plan to hire and develop a field-based sales organization in the future as part of our long-term business strategy.

Any restructuring activities we undertake in the future may result in write-offs or other restructuring charges. There can be no assurance that any restructuring activities that we have undertaken or undertake in the future will achieve the cost savings, operating efficiencies or other benefits that we may initially expect. Restructuring activities may also result in a loss of continuity, accumulated knowledge and inefficiency during transitional periods and thereafter. In addition, internal restructurings can require a significant amount of time and focus from management and other employees, which may divert attention from commercial operations. If any internal restructuring activities we have undertaken or undertake in the future fail to achieve some or all of the expected benefits therefrom, our business, results of operations and financial condition could be materially and adversely affected.

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.

We currently derive substantially all 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 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 first quarter of 2021 as a result of our COVID-19 testing business, which we discontinued in February 2023, 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

34

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:

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 neurological metastatic 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.

35

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.

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. Our 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.

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

A pandemic 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 an infectious disease 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 payors, 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 COVID-19 pandemic previously 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. The effects of state and local stay-at-home orders may 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 a resurgence of COVID-19 or another health epidemic or pandemic could negatively impact our business, operating results and financial condition.

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, radiation oncologists, 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

36

oncologists, neuro-oncologists, surgical oncologists, urologists, pulmonologists, pathologists and other physicians to get them to adopt the use of our CSF-based tumor cell and ctDNA assays, in their practices in conjunction with current standard of care.

Liquid biopsy molecular tests based on tumor cell 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 based 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 several 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 tumor cell and ctDNA assays performed from CSF samples for neuro-oncology applications and there is currently limited competition for our CSF-based tumor cell and ctDNA assays. There are no known specialty oncology diagnostic companies or large laboratory services companies that offer CSF-based tumor cell 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 and internal purposes.

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 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 payors, 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

37

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.

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 hire and develop a field-based sales organization 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 payors. We will 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.

Clinical utility studies are important in demonstrating to both customers and payors 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, including the FORESEE trial for CNSide, 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 payors 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

38

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 obtain sufficient funding and 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 develop, we intend to hire and develop a U.S. based field-based sales organization in the future, subject to obtaining sufficient funding to do so. We will seek to recruit sales representatives with extensive 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 build and develop a 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 may seek 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 future commercialization partners do not perform adequately, or we are unable to locate commercialization partners, we may not realize revenue growth.

39

We depend on third parties for the supply of 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 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 samples or other biological materials are impacted by COVID-19 or another health epidemic or pandemic or 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 COVID-19 or another health epidemic or pandemic or 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 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.

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

40

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.

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 payors, including Medicare, insurance companies and patients, all of which have different

41

billing requirements. We generally bill third-party payors 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 payor. 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 payors will recognize these codes in a timely manner or that the process of transitioning to such a code and updating their billing systems and ours will not result in errors, delays in payments and a related increase in accounts receivable balances.

As we introduce new 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. Payors also conduct external audits to evaluate payments, which add further complexity to the billing process. If the payor 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 payors, 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 payors based on the specific payor 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 payors 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 payors, or possibly denial of claims for lack of timely submission, which would have an adverse effect on our revenue and our business.

42

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 COVID-19, or another health epidemic or 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.

As part of our long-term business strategy, we may pursue 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:

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.

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 resulting from such compromise, 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.

43

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).

Despite the implementation of security measures, we and the third parties upon whom we rely (including the Internet and related systems) face a variety of evolving threats related to sensitive information, including without limitation ransomware attacks, which could cause security incidents. Cyberattacks, malicious internet-based activity, online and offline fraud, and other similar activities threaten the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of our sensitive information technology systems, and those of the third parties upon which we rely. Such threats are prevalent and continue to rise, are increasingly difficult to detect, and come from a variety of sources, including traditional computer “hackers,” threat actors, “hacktivists,” organized criminal 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 not limited to social engineering attacks (including through phishing attacks), software bugs, malicious code (such as viruses and worms), denial-of-service attacks (such as credential stuffing), ransomware attacks, supply chain attacks, malware installation (including as a result of advanced persistent threat intrusions), 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).

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. If our third-party service providers experience a security incident or other interruption, we could experience adverse consequences. While we may be entitled to damages if our third-party service providers fail to satisfy their privacy or security-related obligations to us, any award may be insufficient to cover our damages, or we may be unable to recover such award. 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 efforts to identify and address vulnerabilities, if any, in our information technology systems, our efforts may not be successful. These vulnerabilities pose risk to our business. Further, we may experience delays in developing and deploying remedial measures designed to address any such identified vulnerabilities.

44

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 payors; 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 (including availability of data); financial loss; and other similar harms. Security incidents and attendant consequences may cause customers to stop using our services, deter new customers from using our services, and negatively impact our ability to grow and operate our business.

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 commercially reasonable terms or at all, or that such coverage will pay future claims.

In addition to experiencing a security incident, third parties may gather, collect, or infer sensitive information about us from public sources, data brokers, or other means that reveals competitively sensitive details about our organization and could be used to undermine our competitive advantage or market position.

Regulatory and Reimbursement 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, 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. 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. In addition, on August 16, 2022, President Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, or IRA, into law, which among other things, extends enhanced subsidies for individuals purchasing health insurance coverage in ACA marketplaces through plan year 2025. The IRA also eliminates the “donut hole” under the Medicare Part D program beginning in 2025 by significantly lowering the beneficiary maximum out-of-pocket cost and creating a new manufacturer discount program. 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

45

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 payor (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, 2024 and March 31, 2024, 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 2025 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 2024 through 2026.. 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.

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. Under current legislation, the actual reduction in Medicare payments will vary from 1% in 2022 to up to 4% 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.

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.

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 payors 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.

46

Our commercial success could be compromised if hospitals or other clients do not pay our invoices or if third-party payors, 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 payors, such as managed care organizations and government payors (e.g., Medicare and Medicaid), pay a substantial portion of the assay price. Coverage and reimbursement by a third-party payor may depend on a number of factors, including a payor’s determination that assays using our technologies are:

Uncertainty surrounds third-party payor 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 payors 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 payor generally determines for its own enrollees or insured patients whether to cover or otherwise establish a policy to reimburse our diagnostic assays, seeking payor 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 payors 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 payors 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 payors 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 payors for a significant portion of our revenues and if these or other payors stop providing reimbursement or decrease the amount of reimbursement for our current assays and our planned future assays, our revenues could decline.

Approximately 36% and 56% of total net revenues during the years ended December 31, 2022 and 2021, respectively, were associated with Medicare and CARES Act reimbursement. Approximately 16% and 17% of total net revenues during the years ended December 31, 2022 and 2021, respectively, were associated with Blue Cross Blue Shield reimbursement. Approximately 16% and 6% of total net revenues during the years ended December 31, 2022 and 2021, respectively, were associated with Kaiser Permanente 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 payor reimbursement for the capture/enumeration portion, produce sufficient revenues to enable us to reach profitability and achieve our other commercial objectives.

47

Medicare and other third-party payors 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. Payors 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 payors 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 payors 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 payors) 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 payor 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 provider with additional payors 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 payors 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 the 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. Tumor cell enumeration counts disease burden and is a prognostic assay, and although valuable, it does not yet meet many of the medical necessity requirements of Medicare and the payors. We intend to pursue payment for the capture portion of our CNSide technology that allows us to run our diagnostic testing for some of our 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 payor 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.

Long payment cycles of Medicare, Medicaid and/or other third-party payors, 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

48

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 payors 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 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

49

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 payors 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 payors 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 payor 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 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 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 2 of our 17 CLIA validated assays utilized in CNSide 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

50

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 payors, 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 have engaged a contract research organization 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.

51

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.

52

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 health information. Our actual or perceived failure to comply with such obligations could lead to 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 business consequences.

We collect, receive, store, process, use, generate, transfer, disclose, make accessible, protect, secure, dispose of, transmit and share (collectively, process) 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. For more information regarding risks associated with HIPAA, please refer to the section above titled Confidentiality and Security of Personal Health Information.

As another example, the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, or CCPA, applies to personal information of consumers, business representatives, and employees, and requires covered businesses to provide 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 of up to $7,500 per violation 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 the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020, or CPRA, effective January 1, 2023, expanded the CCPA’s rights, including by, among other things, giving California residents the ability to correct their personal data and limit use of certain sensitive personal data, establishing restrictions on the retention of personal data, expanding the types of data breaches subject to the CCPA’s private right of action, and establishing 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 which became effective on January 1, 2023, and Colorado recently passed the Colorado Privacy Act, both of which differ from the CPRA and become effective in July 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). Although there are currently various mechanisms that may be used to transfer personal data from the EEA and UK to the United States in compliance with law, such as the EEA and UK’s standard contractual clauses, these mechanisms are subject to legal challenges, and there is no assurance that we can satisfy or rely on these measures to lawfully transfer personal data to the United States.

The number and scope of obligations related to data privacy and security, including but not limited to the complex requirements of HIPAA, GDPR and US state data privacy law requirements, 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 may necessitate changes to our services, information technologies, systems and practices, as well as those of any third-party

53

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.

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 or the third parties on which we rely fail, or are perceived to have failed, to address or comply with applicable data privacy and security obligations, 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 (including class-action claims); additional reporting requirements and/or oversight; temporary or permanent bans on all or some processing of personal data (including in relation to clinical trials); 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

54

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 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 and was issued a Reexamination Certificate. 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

55

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.

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.

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

56

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, 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.

57

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 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

58

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:

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, September 2019 and October 2022, 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. We were able to regain

59

compliance with the Nasdaq continued listing requirements discussed in the May 2016, June 2016, November 2016, January 2018 and September 2019 letters. With respect to the October 2022 letter, we initially had 180 calendar days (or until April 17, 2023) to regain compliance with the minimum bid price requirement, and we expect to be afforded an additional 180 days as a result of our meeting the requirements for the 180-day extension, including the notice we provided to Nasdaq of our intention to cure the bid price deficiency through a reverse stock split, if necessary. On April 10, 2023, we filed a preliminary proxy statement for a special meeting of stockholders to be held on May 21, 2023 for the purpose of approving a reverse split of our outstanding common stock. There can be no assurance that we will be able to regain and maintain compliance with the minimum bid price requirement. In addition, we were unable to timely file our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2022, which resulted in us not being in compliance with Nasdaq Listing Rule 5250(c)(1). We subsequently filed such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q within the additional period granted by Nasdaq. However, it is possible that we will be unable to timely file future periodic reports in a timely manner. If we fail to regain and 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:

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.

We had outstanding 17,070,071 shares of common stock as of December 31, 2022 most of which are not subject to resale restrictions under Rule 144 of the Securities Act. In addition, as of December 31, 2022, we had outstanding preferred stock convertible into 46,541 shares of our common stock, 2,263,401 options to purchase shares of our common stock and 844,460 shares of our common stock were issuable upon the exercise of outstanding warrants. Shares issued upon the exercise of stock options 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.

60

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. Subsequently, in connection with the preparation and review of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021, management determined that a deficiency existed related to the methods used to develop certain estimates and the timely review of such estimates. Additionally, in connection with the preparation and review of our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2022, as well as in connection with the preparation and review of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2022, management determined that a material weakness existed related to our controls to review and approve certain revenue-related manual journal entries, including the review of the completeness and the accuracy of the information used. In addition, in connection with the preparation and review of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2022, management determined that a material weakness existed related to our review control over the completeness and accuracy of information used when calculating stock-based compensation expense, which resulted in a material error in the financial statements included in our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2022. 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.

Except for the material weakness discovered in connection with the preparation and review of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2022, we have implemented certain aspects of a plan to remediate the material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting, including steps to design and implement new controls and expand the review of any potential unrecorded liabilities. We will also need to design and implement additional controls related to the material weaknesses identified above. However, we cannot assure you that these efforts will remediate our material weaknesses 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 weaknesses. If we are unable to successfully remediate our material weaknesses, 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.

Warrants to purchase common stock issued in our December 2019 public offering include a right to receive the Black-Scholes value of the unexercised portion of the warrants in the event of a fundamental transaction, which payment could be significant.

The warrants to purchase shares of common stock issued by us in connection with our December 2019 public offering provide that, in the event of a “fundamental transaction” that is approved by our board of directors, including, among other things, a merger or consolidation of our company or sale of all or substantially all of our assets, the holders of such warrants have the option to require us to pay to such holders an amount of cash equal to the Black-Scholes value of the warrants. Such amount could be significantly more than the warrant holders would otherwise receive if they were to exercise their warrants and receive the same consideration as the other holders of common stock, which in turn could reduce the consideration that holders of common stock would be concurrently entitled to receive in such fundamental transaction. Any future equity financing we conduct may require us to issue warrants that have a similar feature.

61

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.

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, legislation known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act and the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 enacted many significant changes to the U.S. tax laws. 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

62

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 is limited to 80% of current year 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, 2022, we had estimated federal and state net operating loss carryforwards of approximately $91.3 million and $66.8 million, respectively, and estimated federal and California research and development tax credits of approximately $1.0 million and $4.0 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

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 ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict, high interest rights, inflation and recent bank failures have created extreme volatility in the global capital markets and may have further global economic consequences. 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, 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.

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 disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting. In order to maintain and, if required, improve

63

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, 2022, the average rent for the remaining lease period is approximately $150,000 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.

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures.

Not applicable.

64

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 31, 2023, 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.

Item 6. [Reserved]

65

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 CNSideTM 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 SNO meeting in November 2021, the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, or SABCS, in December 2021, the American Academy of Neurology in April 2022, and the annual SNO meeting in November 2022. 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, 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 and next generation sequencing, or NGS, services 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 have 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 CSF tumor cells 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

66

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 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.

Our first CNSide multi-center prospective clinical trial, named FORESEE (NCT05414123) is now enrolling patients. at one site in Los Angeles, CA. The trial’s primary outcome measure will assess the impact of CNSide on treatment decisions. Assuming the results of the trial are favorable, we intend to pursue the inclusion of CNSide in the standard National Comprehensive Cancer Network, NCCN, guideline for diagnosis and monitoring of LM disease. With the help of a leading Clinical Research Organization, we have established the infrastructure for the trial, have opened two sites (one in Los Angeles and one in Dallas) and are now in the process of opening at least three additional clinical sites where patients with breast or non-small cell lung cancer, NSCLC, who have suspicious or confirmed LM will be enrolled.

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.

Since launch of our COVID-19 testing program, we performed more than 1,000,000 assays for customers. We primarily marketed our COVID- 19 testing services to skilled nursing facilities in the western United States and to certain community colleges within California.

Our COVID-19 testing services were responsible for most of our revenues during the year ended December 31, 2022 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 experienced reduced demand for our COVID-19 testing services during 2022. We ceased COVID-19 service offerings in February 2023.

Additional Oncology Testing Services

In addition to CNSide, we previously offered blood-based testing through our Target Selector technologies which enable detection of specific gene mutations, such as EGFR, KRAS or BRAF, in ctDNA from blood and CSF samples. In May 2022, after a thorough business review, we decided to discontinue certain unprofitable blood-based molecular testing services including our Target Selector offerings. We also offer, and received MolDX reimbursement approval for, certain specific protein and gene alterations, such as HER2 amplification, in tumor cells isolated from blood or present in CSF. We continue to offer these HER2 based tests as they are an important aspect of our CNSide offering. We will also continue to provide certain other blood-based testing services for biopharma partners and to support investigator-initiated studies involving CNSide. We believe our multi-modality combination of a proprietary cell capture and analysis method in combination with an extensive menu of molecular testing modalities that includes ICC, FISH, PCR testing and NGS testing provides us with the necessary tools to service a broad range of diagnostic applications in patients with neurological metastatic cancers. We continue to seek other diagnostic modalities that may benefit neuro-oncology patients and their caregivers.

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,

67

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 organizations.

Our revenue generating efforts are focused in the following areas:

We plan to grow our business by directly offering our CNSide 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.

68

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 now commercialized our CNSide assays for breast cancer, non-small cell lung cancer, small cell lung cancer, melanoma, esophageal cancer, gastric cancer, colorectal cancer, head and neck cancers, ovarian cancer, endometrial cancer, renal cancer, bladder cancer, prostate cancer, liver cancer, pancreatic cancer, neuroendocrine cancer, melanoma 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 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, including the FORESEE study for CNSide. 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 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 CNSide 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

Our commercial revenues are generated from diagnostic services provided to patient’s physicians and billed to third-party insurance payors 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 Codification (Topic 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 payors on a fee-for-service basis at our list price and third-party commercial revenue is recorded net of contractual discounts, payor- 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.

69

Our gross commercial revenues billed are subject to estimated deductions for such contractual discounts, payor-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 payor 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 net 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, including the FORESEE study for CNSide, 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.

Sales and Marketing Expenses. During the periods presented, our sales and marketing expenses consisted 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. In January 2023 as part of a reduction in force that was completed in the first quarter of 2023, we eliminated our field-based sales force in an effort to conserve our cash resources. Once we have adequate resources to do so, as part of our business strategy, we plan to hire and develop a field-based sales force to educate physicians directly on the benefits of our assays and the clinical data supporting them, as well as provide support to and serve as technical specialists for our partners, which will increase our sales and marketing expenses.

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 remain relatively flat for the foreseeable future.

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:

70

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 payors. We consider negotiated discounts and anticipated adjustments, including historical collection experience for the payor portfolio, when revenues are recorded.

The following are descriptions of our payors:

Clients

Client payors 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 payor 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.

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 payors 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 payors 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: