Castle Biosciences (CSTL) Risk Analysis

Our industry is characterized by rapid changes, including technological and scientific breakthroughs, developments related to application of generative artificial intelligence ("AI"), frequent new product introductions and enhancements and evolving industry standards, all of which could make our current products and the other products we are developing obsolete. Our future success will depend on our ability to keep pace with the evolving needs of clinicians and patients on a timely and cost-effective basis and to pursue new market opportunities that develop as a result of scientific and technological advances. In recent years, there have been numerous advances in technologies relating to the diagnosis and treatment of cancer. There have also been advances in methods used to analyze very large amounts of molecular information. We must continuously enhance our existing products and develop new products to keep pace with evolving standards of care. If we do not update our products to reflect new scientific knowledge about cancer biology, information about new cancer therapies or relevant clinical studies, our products could become obsolete and sales of our current products and any new products we develop could decline or fail to grow as expected.

The issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity or enforceability. Some of our patents or patent applications (including licensed patents) have been, are being or may be challenged at a future point in time in an opposition, nullification, derivation, reexamination, inter partes review, post-grant review or interference action in court or before patent offices or similar proceedings for a given period after allowance or grant, during which time third parties can raise objections against such grant. In the course of such proceedings, which may continue for a protracted period of time, the patent owner may be compelled to limit the scope of the allowed or granted claims thus attacked, or may lose the allowed or granted claims altogether. Any successful third-party challenge to our patents in this or any other proceeding could result in the unenforceability or invalidity of such patents, which may lead to increased competition to our business, which could harm our business. In addition, if the breadth or strength of protection provided by our patents and patent applications is threatened, regardless of the outcome, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to license, develop or commercialize current or future diagnostic tests. We may not be aware of all third-party intellectual property rights potentially relating to our products. Publications of discoveries in the scientific literature often lag behind the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the U.S. and other jurisdictions are typically not published until approximately 18 months after filing or, in some cases (e.g., U.S. applications for which a request not to publish has been filed), not until such patent applications issue as patents. We might not have been the first to make the inventions covered by each of our pending patent applications and we might not have been the first to file patent applications for these inventions. To determine the priority of these inventions, we have and may have to participate in interference proceedings, derivation proceedings or other post-grant proceedings declared by the USPTO that could result in substantial cost to us. The outcome of such proceedings is uncertain. We can give no assurance that all of the potentially relevant art relating to our patents and patent applications has been found; overlooked prior art could be used by a third-party to challenge the validity, enforceability and scope of our patents or prevent a patent from issuing from a pending patent application. As a result, we may not be able to obtain or maintain protection for certain inventions. No assurance can be given that other patent applications will not have priority over our patent applications. In addition, changes to the patent laws of the U.S. allow for various post-grant opposition proceedings that have not been extensively tested, and their outcome is therefore uncertain. Therefore, the validity, enforceability and scope of our patents in the U.S. and other countries cannot be predicted with certainty and, as a result, any patents that we own or license may not provide sufficient protection against our competitors. Furthermore, if third parties bring these proceedings against our patents, we could experience significant costs and management distraction.

Intellectual property rights that have been in-licensed pursuant to the License Agreement with WUSTL have been generated through the use of U.S. government funding, and are therefore subject to certain federal regulations. As a result, the U.S. federal government may retain certain rights to intellectual property embodied in our current or future product candidates under the Bayh-Dole Act. These federal government rights include a "nonexclusive, nontransferable, irrevocable, paid-up license" to use inventions for any governmental purpose. The Bayh-Dole Act also provides federal agencies with "march-in rights." March-in rights allow the government, in specified circumstances, to require the contractor or successors in title to the patent to grant a "nonexclusive, partially exclusive, or exclusive license" to a "responsible applicant or applicants" if it determines that (1) adequate steps have not been taken to commercialize the invention, (2) government action is necessary to meet public health or safety needs or (3) government action is necessary to meet requirements for public use under federal regulations. If the patent owner refuses to do so, the government may grant the license itself. The U.S. government also has the right to take title to these inventions if the licensor fails to disclose the invention to the government or fails to file an application to register the intellectual property within specified time limits. Intellectual property generated under a government funded program is also subject to certain reporting requirements, compliance with which may require us to expend substantial resources. In addition, the U.S. government requires that any products embodying any of these inventions or produced through the use of any of these inventions be manufactured substantially in the U.S., and the License Agreement requires that we comply with this requirement. This preference for U.S. industry may be waived by the federal agency that provided the funding if the owner or assignee of the intellectual property can show that reasonable but unsuccessful efforts have been made to grant licenses on similar terms to potential licensees that would be likely to manufacture substantially in the U.S. or that under the circumstances domestic manufacture is not commercially feasible. This preference for U.S. industry may limit our ability to contract with non-U.S. product manufacturers for products covered by such intellectual property. To the extent any of our owned or future in-licensed intellectual property is also generated through the use of U.S. government funding, the provisions of the Bayh-Dole Act may similarly apply.

As is the case with other life sciences companies, our success is heavily dependent on intellectual property, particularly patents relating to our research programs and products. Obtaining and enforcing patents in the life sciences industry involves both technological and legal complexity and is therefore costly, time consuming and inherently uncertain. Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of the patent laws in the U.S. or the USPTO rules and regulations could increase these uncertainties and costs. Patent reform legislation in the U.S. and other countries, including the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act ("AIA"), signed into law on September 16, 2011, could increase those uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents. The AIA includes a number of significant changes to U.S. patent law. These include provisions that affect the way patent applications are prosecuted, redefine prior art and provide more efficient and cost-effective avenues for competitors to challenge the validity of patents. These include allowing third-party submission of prior art to the USPTO during patent prosecution and additional procedures to attack the validity of a patent in USPTO-administered post-grant proceedings, including post-grant review, inter partes review, and derivation proceedings. For applications filed after March 15, 2013 that do not claim the benefit of applications filed before that date, the AIA transitioned the U.S. from a first to invent system to a first-inventor-to-file system in which, assuming that the other statutory requirements are met, the first inventor to file a patent application will be entitled to the patent on an invention regardless of whether a third-party was the first to invent the claimed invention. The AIA and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications, our ability to obtain future patents, and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on several patent cases in recent years, either narrowing the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances or weakening the rights of patent owners in certain situations. Depending on future actions by the U.S. Congress, the U.S. courts, the USPTO and the relevant law-making bodies in other countries, 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 rely on patent protection as well as trademark, copyright, trade secret and other intellectual property rights protection as well as nondisclosure, confidentiality and other contractual restrictions to protect our brands and proprietary tests and technologies, all of which provide limited protection and may not adequately protect our rights or permit us to gain or keep any competitive advantage. If we fail to protect our intellectual property, third parties may be able to compete more effectively against us. In addition, we may incur substantial litigation costs in our attempts to recover or restrict use of our intellectual property. As is the case with other life science companies, our success depends in large part on our ability to obtain and maintain protection of the intellectual property we may own solely or jointly with others or in-license from others, particularly patents, in the U.S. and other countries with respect to our products and technologies. We apply for patents covering our products and technologies and uses thereof, as we deem appropriate. However, obtaining and enforcing life sciences patents is costly, time-consuming and complex, and we may fail to apply for patents on important tests, services and technologies in a timely fashion or at all, or we may fail to apply for patents in potentially relevant jurisdictions. We may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications, or maintain, enforce and license any patents that may issue from such patent applications, at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner. It is also possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our R&D output before it is too late to obtain patent protection. We may not have the right to control the preparation, filing and prosecution of patent applications, or to maintain the rights to patents licensed from or to third parties. Therefore, these patents and applications may not be prosecuted and enforced in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business. Our patent portfolio as of December 31, 2025 includes 22 issued U.S. patents and 15 pending U.S. patent applications, and their foreign counterparts. It is possible that none of our pending patent applications will result in issued patents in a timely fashion or at all, and even if patents are granted, they may not provide a basis for intellectual property protection of commercially viable tests or services, may not provide us with any competitive advantages, or may be challenged and invalidated by third parties. It is possible that others will design around our future patented technologies. We may not be successful in defending any such challenges made against our patents or patent applications. Any successful third-party challenge to our patents could result in the unenforceability or invalidity of such patents and increased competition to our business. Even if our patents are held valid and enforceable, they may still be found insufficient to provide protection against competing products and services sufficient to achieve our business objectives. We may have to challenge the patents or patent applications of third parties, such as to counter infringement or unauthorized use. In addition, in an infringement proceeding, a court may decide that one of our patents is invalid or unenforceable, or may refuse to enjoin another party from using the technology at issue on the grounds that none of our patents cover the technology in question. Even if we prevail against an infringer in a U.S. district court or foreign trial-level court, there is always the risk that the infringer will file an appeal and the initial court judgment will be overturned by the appeals court and/or that an adverse decision will be issued by the appeals court relating to the validity or enforceability of our patents. The outcome of patent litigation or other proceeding can be uncertain, and any attempt by us to enforce our patent rights against others or to challenge the patent rights of others may not be successful, or, if successful, may take substantial time and result in substantial cost, and may divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business. The patent positions of life sciences companies can be highly uncertain and involve complex legal and factual questions for which important legal principles remain unresolved. No consistent policy regarding the breadth of claims allowed in such companies' patents has emerged to date in the U.S. or elsewhere. Courts frequently render opinions in the life sciences field that may affect the patentability of certain inventions or discoveries, including opinions that may affect the patentability of methods for analyzing or comparing DNA sequences. In particular, the patent positions of companies engaged in the development and commercialization of genomic diagnostic tests are particularly uncertain. Various courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have rendered decisions that affect the scope of patentability of certain inventions or discoveries relating to certain diagnostic tests and related methods. These decisions state, among other things, that a patent claim that recites an abstract idea, natural phenomenon or law of nature (for example, the relationship between particular genetic variants and cancer) may not be patentable. Precisely what constitutes a law of nature is uncertain, and it is possible that certain aspects of genetic diagnostics tests would be considered natural laws. Accordingly, the evolving case law in the U.S. may adversely affect our ability to obtain patents and may facilitate third-party challenges to any owned or licensed patents. The laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as the laws of the U.S., and we may encounter difficulties in protecting and defending such rights in foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of many other countries do not favor the enforcement of patents and other intellectual property protection, particularly those relating to life science technologies, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents in such countries. Proceedings to enforce our patent rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial cost and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business. To the extent our intellectual property offers inadequate protection, or is found to be invalid or unenforceable, we would be exposed to a greater risk of direct competition, and our competitive position could be adversely affected, as could our business. Both the patent application process and the process of resolving patent disputes can be time-consuming and expensive. Moreover, if a third-party has intellectual property rights that cover the practice of our technology, we may not be able to fully exercise or extract value from our intellectual property rights. The following examples are illustrative: - others may be able to develop and/or practice technology that is similar to our technology or aspects of our technology, but that are not covered by the claims of the patents that we own or control, assuming such patents have issued or do issue;- we or our licensors or any future strategic partners might not have been the first to conceive or reduce to practice the inventions covered by the issued patents or pending patent applications that we own or have exclusively licensed;- we or our licensors or any future strategic partners might not have been the first to file patent applications covering certain of our inventions;- others may independently develop similar or alternative technologies or duplicate any of our technologies without infringing our intellectual property rights;- it is possible that our pending patent applications will not lead to issued patents;- issued patents that we own or have exclusively licensed may not provide us with any competitive advantage, or may be held invalid or unenforceable, as a result of legal challenges by our competitors;- our competitors might conduct R&D activities in countries where we do not have patent rights and then use the information learned from such activities to develop competitive tests for sale in our major commercial markets;- third parties performing manufacturing or testing for us using our products or technologies could use the intellectual property of others without obtaining a proper license;- parties may assert an ownership interest in our intellectual property and, if successful, such disputes may preclude us from exercising exclusive rights over that intellectual property;- we may not develop or in-license additional proprietary technologies that are patentable;- we may not be able to obtain and maintain necessary licenses on commercially reasonable terms, or at all; and - the patents of others may have an adverse effect on our business. Should any of these events occur, they could significantly harm our business and results of operations.

We are party to certain royalty-bearing license agreements that grant us rights to use certain intellectual property, including patents and patent applications, in certain specified fields of use. Although we intend to develop products and technologies through our own internal research, we may need to obtain additional licenses from others to advance our research, development and commercialization activities. Our license agreements impose, and we expect that future license agreements will impose, various development, diligence, commercialization and other obligations on us. In the future, we may identify third-party technology we may need, including to develop or commercialize new diagnostic tests or services. In return for the use of a third-party's technology, we may agree to pay the licensor royalties based on sales of our solutions. Royalties are a component of the cost of our products or services and affect our margins. We may also need to negotiate licenses to patents or patent applications before or after introducing a commercialized test. The in-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 in-license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights for technologies that we may consider attractive or necessary. These established companies may have a competitive advantage over us due to their size, cash resources and greater clinical development and commercialization capabilities. Furthermore, companies that perceive us to be a competitor may be unwilling to assign or license rights to us. In addition, we expect that competition for the in-licensing or acquisition of third-party intellectual property rights for technologies that are attractive to us may increase in the future, which may mean fewer suitable opportunities for us as well as higher acquisition or licensing costs. We may not be able to obtain necessary or strategic licenses to patents or patent applications, and our business may suffer if we are unable to enter into these licenses on acceptable terms or at all, if any necessary licenses are subsequently terminated, if the licensors fail to abide by the terms of the licenses or fail to prevent infringement by third parties, or if the licensed patents or other rights are found to be invalid or unenforceable. In spite of our efforts, our licensors might conclude that we have materially breached our obligations under such license agreements and might therefore terminate the license agreements, thereby removing or limiting our ability to develop and commercialize tests and technology covered by these license agreements. If these in-licenses are terminated, or if the underlying patents fail to provide the intended exclusivity, competitors or other third parties might have the freedom to seek regulatory approval of, and to market, tests identical to ours and we may be required to cease our development and commercialization activities. For example, we license certain intellectual property from WUSTL that is incorporated into DecisionDx-UM. In 2025, we provided over 1,700 test reports for DecisionDx-UM. If the License Agreement were terminated, we would be unable to continue to issue test reports and thus sales of DecisionDx-UM. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial conditions, results of operations and prospects. Moreover, disputes may arise with respect to any one of our licensing agreements, including: - the scope of rights granted under the license agreement and other interpretation-related issues;- the extent to which our products, technology and processes infringe on intellectual property of the licensor that is not subject to the licensing agreement;- the sublicensing of patent and other rights under our collaborative development relationships;- our diligence obligations under the license agreement and what activities satisfy those diligence obligations;- the inventorship and ownership of inventions and know-how resulting from the joint creation or use of intellectual property by our licensors and us and our partners; and - the priority of invention of patented technology. If we do not prevail in such disputes, we may lose any of such license agreements. In addition, the agreements under which we currently license intellectual property or technology from third parties are complex, and certain provisions in such agreements may be susceptible to multiple interpretations. The resolution of any contract interpretation disagreement that may arise could narrow what we believe to be the scope of our rights to the relevant intellectual property or technology, or increase what we believe to be our financial or other obligations under the relevant agreement, either of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Moreover, if disputes over intellectual property that we have licensed prevent or impair our ability to maintain our current licensing arrangements on commercially acceptable terms, we may be unable to successfully develop and commercialize the affected diagnostic tests, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial conditions, results of operations and prospects. Our failure to maintain such licenses could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Any of these licenses could be terminated, such as if either party fails to abide by the terms of the license, or if the licensor fails to prevent infringement by third parties or if the licensed patents or other rights are found to be invalid or unenforceable. Absent the license agreements, we may infringe patents subject to those agreements, and if the license agreements are terminated, we may be subject to litigation by the licensor. Litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management. If we do not prevail, we may be required to pay damages, including treble damages, attorneys' fees, costs and expenses, royalties or, be enjoined from selling our products or services, which could adversely affect our ability to offer our products or services, our ability to continue operations and our financial condition.

Filing, prosecuting and defending patents on our products in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive. The requirements for patentability may differ in certain countries, particularly developing countries, and the breadth of patent claims allowed can be inconsistent. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as the laws of the U.S., and we may encounter difficulties in protecting and defending such rights in foreign jurisdictions. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in all countries outside the U.S., or from selling or importing products made using our inventions in and into the U.S. or other jurisdictions. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to develop their own tests or products and may also export infringing tests or products to territories where we have patent protection, but enforcement is not as strong as in the U.S. These products may compete with our products. 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 many other countries do not favor the enforcement of patents and other intellectual property protection, particularly those relating to life science technologies, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents in such countries. We do not have patent rights in certain foreign countries in which a market may exist. Moreover, in foreign jurisdictions where we do have patent rights, proceedings to enforce our patent rights could result in substantial cost 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. We may not be able to stop a competitor from marketing and selling in foreign countries tests, products and services that are the same as or similar to our products and technologies, in which case our competitive position in the international market would be harmed.

In addition to pursuing patents on our technology, we also rely on trade secrets, including unpatented know-how, technology and other proprietary information, to maintain our competitive position. We take steps to protect our trade secrets, in part, by entering into agreements, including confidentiality agreements, non-disclosure agreements and intellectual property assignment agreements, with our employees, consultants, academic institutions, corporate partners and, when needed, our advisers. However, we cannot be certain that such agreements have been entered into with all relevant parties, and we cannot be certain 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. For example, any of these parties may breach the agreements and disclose our proprietary information, including our trade secrets, and once disclosed, we are likely to lose trade secret protection and may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for such breaches. Such agreements may not be enforceable or may not provide meaningful protection for our trade secrets or other proprietary information in the event of unauthorized use or disclosure or other breaches of the agreements, and we may not be able to prevent such unauthorized disclosure. If we are required to assert our rights against such party, it could result in significant cost and distraction. Monitoring unauthorized disclosure is difficult, and we do not know whether the steps we have taken to prevent such disclosure are, or will be, adequate. If we were to enforce a claim that a third-party had illegally obtained and was using our trade secrets, it would be expensive and time-consuming, and the outcome would be unpredictable. In addition, courts outside the U.S. may be less willing to protect trade secrets. We also seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our confidential proprietary information by maintaining physical security of our premises and physical and electronic security of our information technology systems, but it is possible that these security measures could be breached. If any of our confidential proprietary information were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor, absent patent protection, we would have no right to prevent such competitor from using that technology or information to compete with us, which could harm our competitive position.

We have not yet registered certain of our trademarks in all of our potential markets, although we have registrations for, among others, DecisionDx, DecisionDx-Melanoma, TissueCypher, AdvanceAD-Tx, DecisionDx-SCC, MyPath Melanoma, DecisionDx-UM, Esopredict, DiffDx-Melanoma and IDgenetix in the U.S. Our current or future registered or unregistered trademarks or trade names may be challenged, infringed, circumvented or declared generic or descriptive determined to be infringing on other marks. We may not be able to protect our rights to these trademarks and trade names or may be forced to stop using these names, which we need for name recognition by potential partners or customers in our markets of interest. During trademark registration proceedings, we may receive rejections. Although we would be given an opportunity to respond to those rejections, we may be unable to overcome such rejections. In addition, in the USPTO and in comparable agencies in many foreign jurisdictions, third parties are given an opportunity to oppose pending trademark applications and to seek to cancel registered trademarks. Opposition or cancellation proceedings may be filed against our trademarks, and our trademarks may not survive such proceedings. In addition, third parties have used trademarks similar and identical to our trademarks in foreign jurisdictions and have filed or may in the future file for registration of such trademarks. If they succeed in registering or developing common law rights in such trademarks, and if we are not successful in challenging such third-party rights, we may not be able to use these trademarks to market our products in those countries. If we are unable to establish name recognition based on our trademarks and trade names, we may not be able to compete effectively and our business may be adversely affected. We may license our trademarks and trade names to third parties, such as distributors. Although these license agreements may provide guidelines for how our trademarks and trade names may be used, a breach of these agreements or misuse of our trademarks and tradenames by our licensees may jeopardize our rights in or diminish the goodwill associated with our trademarks and trade names.

We or our licensors may be subject to claims that former employees, collaborators or other third parties have an interest in our owned or in-licensed patents, trade secrets or other intellectual property as an inventor or co-inventor. For example, we or our licensors may have inventorship disputes arise from conflicting obligations of employees, consultants or others who are involved in developing our products. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these and other claims challenging inventorship or our licensors' ownership of our owned or in-licensed patents, trade secrets or other intellectual property. If we or our licensors fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights, such as exclusive ownership of, right to use, or right to exclude others from using, intellectual property that is important to our products. 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. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. In addition, while it is our policy to require our employees and contractors who may be involved in the development of intellectual property to execute agreements assigning such intellectual property to us, we may be unsuccessful in executing such an agreement with each party who in fact develops intellectual property that we regard as our own. Our assignment agreements may not be self-executing or may be breached, and we may be forced to bring claims against third parties, or defend claims they may bring against us, to determine the ownership of what we regard as our intellectual property.

Periodic maintenance fees, renewal fees, annuity fees and various other governmental fees on patents and/or applications must be paid to the USPTO and various governmental patent agencies outside of the U.S. at several stages over the lifetime of the patents and/or applications. We have systems in place to remind us to pay these fees, and we employ an outside firm and rely on our outside counsel to pay these fees due to non-U.S. patent agencies. The USPTO and various non-U.S. governmental patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions during the patent application process. We employ reputable law firms and other professionals to help us comply, and in many cases, an inadvertent lapse can be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules. However, there are situations in which non-compliance can result in abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction, such as failure to respond to official actions within prescribed time limits, non-payment of fees and failure to properly legalize and submit formal documents. If we, or our licensors, fail to maintain the patents and patent applications covering our products and technologies, potential competitors may be able to enter the market without infringing our patents and this circumstance would have a material adverse effect on our business.

U.S. and foreign anti-corruption, anti-money laundering, export control, sanctions and other trade laws and regulations prohibit, among other things, companies and their employees, agents, legal counsel, accountants, consultants, contractors and other partners from authorizing, promising, offering, providing, soliciting, or receiving, directly or indirectly, corrupt or improper payments or anything else of value to or from recipients in the public or private sector. Violations of these trade laws can result in substantial criminal fines and civil penalties, imprisonment, the loss of trade privileges, debarment, tax reassessments, breach of contract and fraud litigation, reputational harm and other consequences. We have direct or indirect interactions with officials and employees of government agencies or government-affiliated hospitals, universities and other organizations. We also expect that we may engage in non-U.S. activities over time. We expect to rely on third-party suppliers and/or third parties to obtain necessary permits, licenses, and patent registrations. We can be held liable for the corrupt or other illegal activities of our personnel, agents, or partners, even if we do not explicitly authorize or have prior knowledge of such activities. Any violations of the laws and regulations described above may result in substantial civil and criminal fines and penalties, imprisonment, the loss of export or import privileges, debarment, tax reassessments, breach of contract and fraud litigation, reputational harm and other consequences.

Physicians, other healthcare providers and third-party payors play a primary role in the recommendation of our products. Our arrangements with healthcare providers, third-party payors and customers may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations that affect the business and financial arrangements and relationships through which we market and sell our products. The laws that affect our ability to operate include, but are not limited to: - the AKS, which prohibits, among other things, any person or entity from knowingly and willfully soliciting, receiving, offering or paying any remuneration, directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, in cash or in kind, to induce or reward either the referral of an individual for, or the purchase, order or recommendation of an item or service reimbursable, in whole or in part, under a federal healthcare program, such as the Medicare and Medicaid programs. The term "remuneration" has been broadly interpreted to include anything of value, such as specimen collection materials or test kits. There are a number of statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting some common activities from prosecution, however these are drawn narrowly. Additionally, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation. Violations are subject to civil and criminal fines and monetary penalties of up to $100,000 for each violation, plus up to three times the remuneration involved, imprisonment of up to ten years and exclusion from government healthcare programs. In addition, the ACA codified case law that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the AKS constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the FCA;- the Stark Law, which prohibits a physician from making a referral for certain designated health services covered by the Medicare or Medicaid program, including laboratory and pathology services, if the physician or an immediate family member of the physician has a financial relationship with the entity providing the designated health services and prohibits that entity from billing, presenting or causing to be presented a claim for the designated health services furnished pursuant to the prohibited referral, unless an exception applies. Sanctions for violating the Stark Law include denial of payment, civil monetary penalties and exclusion from the federal healthcare programs. Failure to refund amounts received as a result of a prohibited referral on a timely basis may constitute a false or fraudulent claim and may result in civil penalties and additional penalties under the FCA;- federal civil and criminal false claims laws, such as the FCA, which can be enforced by private citizens through civil qui tam action, and civil monetary penalty laws prohibit individuals or entities from, among other things, knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented through distribution of template medical necessity language or other coverage and reimbursement information, false, fictitious or fraudulent claims for payment or approval by the federal government, including federal healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and knowingly making, using or causing to be made or used a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim, or knowingly making a false statement to improperly avoid, decrease or conceal an obligation to pay money to the federal government. In addition, a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the AKS constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the FCA. Private individuals can bring FCA "qui tam" actions, on behalf of the government and such individuals, commonly known as "whistleblowers," may share in amounts paid by the entity to the government in fines or settlement. When an entity is determined to have violated the federal civil FCA, the government may impose civil fines and penalties, plus treble damages, and exclude the entity from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other federal healthcare programs;- the EKRA prohibits payments for referrals to recovery homes, clinical treatment facilities and laboratories. EKRA's reach extends beyond federal healthcare programs to include private insurance (i.e., it is an "all payor" statute). For purposes of EKRA, the term "laboratory" is defined broadly and without reference to any connection to substance use disorder treatment. The law includes a limited number of exceptions, some of which closely align with corresponding federal AKS exceptions and safe harbors, and others that materially differ;- HIPAA, which, among other things, imposes criminal liability for executing or attempting to execute a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program, including private third-party payors, knowingly and willfully embezzling or stealing from a healthcare benefit program, willfully obstructing a criminal investigation of a healthcare offense, and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation, in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services. Like the AKS, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation;- HIPAA, as amended by HITECH, and their implementing regulations, which imposes privacy, security and breach reporting obligations with respect to individually identifiable health information upon entities subject to the law, such as health plans, healthcare clearinghouses and certain healthcare providers, known as covered entities, and their respective business associates, individuals or entities that perform services for them that involve individually identifiable health information as well as their covered subcontractors. Failure to comply with the HIPAA's obligations can result in civil monetary penalties, and, in certain circumstances, criminal penalties. HITECH also created new tiers of civil monetary penalties, amended HIPAA to make civil and criminal penalties directly applicable to business associates, and gave state attorneys general new authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in U.S. federal courts to enforce HIPAA and seek attorneys' fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions;- state laws that prohibit other specified practices, such as billing physicians for tests that they order or providing tests at no or discounted cost to induce physician or patient adoption; insurance fraud laws; waiving coinsurance, co-payments, deductibles, and other amounts owed by patients; billing a state Medicaid program at a price that is higher than what is charged to one or more other third-party payors employing, exercising control over or splitting professional fees with licensed professionals in violation of state laws prohibiting fee splitting or the corporate practice of medicine and other professions;- federal and state consumer protection and unfair competition laws, which broadly regulate marketplace activities and activities that potentially harm consumers;- the federal transparency requirements under the Physician Payments Sunshine Act, created under the ACA, which requires, among other things, certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics and medical supplies reimbursed under Medicare, Medicaid, or the Children's Health Insurance Program to annually report to CMS information related to payments and other transfers of value provided to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors), other healthcare professionals (such as physician assistants and nurse practitioners) and teaching hospitals and information regarding physician ownership and investment interests, including such ownership and investment interests held by a physician's immediate family members. Failure to submit required information may result in civil monetary penalties for all payments, transfers of value or ownership or investment interests that are not timely, accurately, and completely reported in an annual submission, and may result in liability under other federal laws or regulations. We believe that we are exempt from these reporting requirements. We cannot assure you, however, that our regulators, principally the federal government, will agree with our determination, and a determination that we have violated these laws and regulations, or a public announcement that we are being investigated for possible violations, could adversely affect our business;- the prohibition on reassignment of Medicare claims, which, subject to certain exceptions, precludes the reassignment of Medicare claims to any other part;- state and foreign law equivalents of each of the above federal laws, such as anti-kickback and false claims laws, which may impose similar or more prohibitive restrictions, and may apply to items or services reimbursed by any non-governmental third-party payors, including private insurers; and - federal, state, local and foreign laws that govern the privacy and security of health information in certain circumstances, including state health information privacy and data breach notification laws which govern the collection, use, disclosure, and protection of health-related and other personal data, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and may not be pre-empted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts. As a clinical laboratory, our business practices may face additional scrutiny from government regulatory agencies such as the Department of Justice, the OIG and CMS. Certain arrangements between clinical laboratories and referring physicians have been identified in fraud alerts issued by the OIG as implicating the AKS. The OIG has stated that it is particularly concerned about these types of arrangements because the choice of laboratory, as well as the decision to order laboratory tests, typically are made or strongly influenced by the physician, with little or no input from patients. Moreover, the provision of payments or other items of value by a clinical laboratory to a referral source could be prohibited under the Stark Law unless the arrangement meets all criteria of an applicable exception. The government has been active in enforcement of these laws as they apply to clinical laboratories. We have entered into consulting and scientific advisory board arrangements, speaking arrangements and clinical research agreements with physicians and other healthcare providers, including some who could influence the use of our products. Because of the complex and far-reaching nature of these laws, regulatory agencies may view these transactions as prohibited arrangements that must be restructured, or discontinued, or for which we could be subject to other significant penalties. We could be adversely affected if regulatory agencies interpret our financial relationships with providers who may influence the ordering of and use of our products to be in violation of applicable laws. The scope and enforcement of each of these laws is uncertain and subject to rapid change in the current environment of healthcare reform. Federal and state enforcement bodies have recently increased their scrutiny of interactions between healthcare companies, healthcare providers and other third parties, including charitable foundations, which has led to a number of investigations, prosecutions, convictions and settlements in the healthcare industry. It is possible that governmental authorities may conclude that our business practices, including our consulting arrangements with physicians, as well as our financial assistance programs, do not comply with current or future statutes, regulations, agency guidance or case law involving applicable healthcare laws. Responding to investigations can be time and resource-consuming and can divert management's attention from the business. Any such investigation or settlement could increase our costs or otherwise have an adverse effect on our business. Ensuring that our business arrangements with third parties comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations is costly. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of these laws or any other current or future governmental laws and regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, imprisonment, exclusion from government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, additional reporting obligations and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or other agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could substantially disrupt our operations. If any of the physicians or other healthcare providers or entities with whom we do business is found to be not in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to significant criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government funded healthcare programs.

The policies of the FDA and other regulatory authorities may change, including as a result of changes in the U.S. presidential administration, and additional government regulations or executive orders may be enacted that could change our continuing compliance obligations or otherwise adversely affect our business. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may lose any marketing approval that we may have obtained, and we may not achieve or sustain profitability. In addition, significant tariffs or other restrictions imposed and related countermeasures taken by impacted foreign countries could adversely affect our operation and financial results. We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation or other measures that may arise from future legislation or administrative or executive action either in the U.S. or abroad.

From time to time, Congress may enact new legislation or the FDA may issue new regulation that could significantly change the regulation of medical devices. For example, on January 31, 2024, the FDA issued a final rule to amend the Quality System Regulation (QSR), which establishes current good manufacturing practice (cGMP) requirements for medical device manufacturers, to align more closely with the ISO standards. Specifically, this final rule, which took effect on February 2, 2026, replaces the QSR with the QMSR, and among other things, incorporates by reference the quality management system requirements of ISO 13485:2016. Although the FDA has stated that the standards contained in ISO 13485:2016 are substantially similar to those set forth in the QSR, it is unclear the extent to which this final rule could impose additional or different regulatory requirements on us that could increase the costs of compliance or otherwise create market pressure that may negatively affect our business. It is unclear the extent to which any other U.S. legislative or regulatory proposal, if adopted or issued, could impose additional or different regulatory requirements on us that could increase the costs of compliance or otherwise create competition that may negatively affect our business. In addition, FDA regulations and guidance are often revised or reinterpreted by the FDA in ways that may significantly affect our business and our products. Any new statutes, regulations or revisions or reinterpretations of existing regulations may make it more difficult and costly to manufacture, market, or distribute our products, or may impose additional costs, lengthen marketing authorization review times, or make it more difficult to obtain marketing authorizations for any future products we develop or for any current products for which we are required to obtain marketing authorization. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may be subject to enforcement action and we may not achieve or sustain profitability.

On May 6, 2024, the FDA published a final rule which amended 21 CFR Part 809 to make explicit that LDTs are IVDs and are regulated as devices under the FD&C Act. However, on March 31, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas vacated the FDA's LDT final rule. The U.S. government did not appeal the ruling, and the FDA rescinded the rule on September 19, 2025. Despite the FDA's rescission of the LDT final rule, if the FDA implements new policy that affects LDTs or their components, and our products become subject to the FDA's requirements for premarket review of medical devices, we may be required to cease commercial sales of our products and conduct clinical trials prior to making submissions to the FDA to obtain premarket authorization or approval. If we are required to conduct such clinical trials, delays in the commencement or completion of clinical trials could significantly increase our product development costs and delay commercialization of any currently marketed testing that we may be required to cease selling or the commercialization of any future tests that we may develop. 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 marketing authorization. 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 FDA may request that we provide additional analyses and information beyond that which we intend to produce based on the designs of our current and planned validation studies or clinical trials, or that we modify or narrow our intended use or product claims. It is possible that the FDA, among other things, could disagree with our interpretation of data we have relied on to support certain intended uses. If we are required to provide additional analyses or additional data or perform additional clinical trials beyond those we currently contemplate to support the intended uses of our tests, our planned commercialization may be delayed and we may be required to cease commercialization of any tests we currently market as LDTs. The FDA requires medical device manufacturers to comply with, among other things, current good manufacturing practices for medical devices, known as the Quality Management System Regulation ("QMSR"), which requires manufacturers to follow elaborate design, testing, control, documentation and other quality assurance procedures during the manufacturing process; the medical device reporting regulation, which requires that manufacturers report to the FDA if their device may have caused or contributed to a death or serious injury or malfunctioned in a way that would likely cause or contribute to a death or serious injury if it were to recur; labeling regulations, including the FDA's general prohibition against promoting products for unapproved or "off-label" uses; and the reports of corrections and removals regulation, which requires manufacturers to report to the FDA if a device correction or removal was initiated to reduce a risk to health posed by the device or to remedy a violation of the FD&C Act caused by the device which may present a risk to health. Even if we were able to obtain FDA marketing authorization for one or more of our products, if required, a diagnostic test may be subject to limitations on the indications for which it may be marketed or to other regulatory conditions. In addition, such marketing authorization may contain requirements for costly post-market testing and surveillance to monitor the safety or efficacy of the test. In addition, the FDA's and other regulatory authorities' policies may change and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approvals. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may lose any marketing authorization that we may have obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability, which would adversely affect our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations. Furthermore, government funding of the FDA and other government agencies on which our operations may rely is subject to the political process, which is inherently fluid and unpredictable. Disruptions at the FDA and other government agencies may impact the ability of such agencies to timely review and process our regulatory and other submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

The diagnostics industry is highly regulated, and the laws and regulations governing the marketing of diagnostic tests are extremely complex. Areas of the regulatory environment that may affect our ability to conduct business include, without limitation: - federal and state laws applicable to test ordering, documentation of tests ordered, billing practices and claims payment and/or regulatory agencies enforcing those laws and regulations;- federal and state fraud and abuse laws;- federal and state laboratory anti-mark-up laws;- coverage and reimbursement levels by Medicare, Medicaid, other governmental payors and private insurers;- restrictions on coverage of and reimbursement for tests;- federal and state laws governing laboratory testing, including CLIA, state licensing laws and accreditation requirements;- federal and state laws and enforcement policies governing the development, use and distribution of diagnostic medical devices, including LDTs;- federal, state and local laws governing the handling and disposal of medical and hazardous waste;- federal and state Occupational Safety and Health Administration rules and regulations; and - HIPAA and similar health data privacy laws. In particular, the FD&C Act defines a medical device to include any instrument, apparatus, implement, machine, contrivance, implant, in vitro reagent, or other similar or related article, including a component, part, or accessory, which is intended for use in the diagnosis of disease or other conditions, or in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease, in man or other animals, and which does not achieve its primary intended purposes via chemical action or metabolism. Some of our in vitro testing products are intended for clinical or diagnostic uses, such as the DecisionDx-Melanoma test, which is considered by the FDA to be subject to regulation as a medical device and has been granted Breakthrough Device designation by the FDA. Among other things, pursuant to the FD&C Act and its implementing regulations, the FDA regulates the research, testing, manufacturing, safety, labeling, storage, recordkeeping, premarket review and marketing authorization, marketing and promotion, and sales and distribution of medical devices in the U.S. to provide reasonable assurance that medical products distributed domestically are safe and effective for their intended uses. In addition, the FDA regulates the import and export of medical devices manufactured between the U.S. and international markets. We are subject to CLIA, a federal law that regulates clinical laboratories that perform testing on specimens derived from humans for the purpose of providing information for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of disease. CLIA regulations establish specific standards with respect to personnel qualifications, facility administration, proficiency testing, quality control, quality assurance and inspections. Any testing subject to CLIA regulation must be performed in a CLIA-compliant lab with either a certificate of compliance or a certificate of accreditation. CLIA certification or accreditation is also required in order for us to be eligible to bill state and federal healthcare programs, as well as commercial third-party payors, for our products. Laboratory accreditation can be acquired through CAP. While not required for the operation of a CLIA-certified laboratory, many private insurers require CAP accreditation as a condition to contracting with clinical laboratories to cover their tests. We have chosen to use CAP accreditation to maintain our CLIA certification. Additionally, some countries outside the U.S. require CAP accreditation as a condition to permitting clinical laboratories to test samples taken from their citizens. CAP accredited laboratories are surveyed for compliance with CAP standards every two years in order to maintain accreditation. Failure to maintain CAP accreditation could have a material adverse effect on the sales of our products and the results of our operations. Therefore, to maintain our CLIA certification, we have elected to be subject to survey and inspection every two years by CAP. Moreover, CLIA inspectors may make random inspections of our laboratory from time to time. All of our laboratories undergo CAP accreditation to maintain CLIA certification. The most recent CAP inspections for the Phoenix and Pittsburgh laboratories occurred in October 2024. In addition, certain states require our laboratories to be licensed in specific states in order to test specimens from those states. Accordingly, our laboratories are licensed by California, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and New York. Other states do not currently require additional licensure but they may adopt similar requirements in the future. Although we have obtained licenses from states where we believe we are required to be licensed, we may become aware of other states that require out-of-state laboratories to obtain licensure in order to accept specimens from the state, and it is possible that other states currently have such requirements or will have such requirements in the future. In order to test specimens from New York, LDTs must be approved by the NYSDOH on a test-by-test basis before they are offered. Our laboratory director and laboratory operations must also be separately qualified and approved through the state of New York. DecisionDx-Melanoma, DecisionDx-CMSeq, TissueCypher, DecisionDx-SCC, MyPath Melanoma, DecisionDx-UM, DecisionDx-PRAME, DecisionDx-UMSeq, IDgenetix and DiffDx-Melanoma have each been approved. New York State Laboratory Permits are held for both the Phoenix and Pittsburgh labs from NYSDOH. Our laboratory director has been qualified by the NYSDOH. We are subject to periodic inspection by the NYS CLEP and are required to demonstrate ongoing compliance with the NYSDOH regulations and standards. Our most recent inspections were in October 2025 for Phoenix and October 2023 for Pittsburgh and were deemed to be compliant with the NYSDOH regulations and standards and both labs remain in good standing as of December 31, 2025. To the extent the NYSDOH had identified any instances of non-compliance, and we were unable to remedy such non-compliance, the State of New York could withdraw approval for our products to test samples from New York state. We will need to seek the NYSDOH approval of any future LDTs we develop and want to offer for clinical testing to New York residents, and there can be no assurance that we will be able to obtain such approval. We may also be subject to regulation in foreign jurisdictions as we seek to expand international utilization of our products or such jurisdictions adopt new licensure requirements, which may require review of our products in order to offer them or may have other limitations such as restrictions on the transport of human tissue samples necessary for us to perform our tests that may limit our ability to make our products available outside of the U.S. Complying with licensure requirements in new jurisdictions may be expensive, time-consuming and subject us to significant and unanticipated delays. Failure to comply with applicable clinical laboratory licensure requirements may result in a range of enforcement actions, including suspension, limitation or revocation of our CLIA certification and/or state licenses, imposition of a directed plan of action, onsite monitoring, civil monetary penalties, criminal sanctions and revocation of the laboratory's approval to receive Medicare and Medicaid payment for its services, as well as significant adverse publicity. Any sanction imposed under CLIA, its implementing regulations, or state or foreign laws or regulations governing clinical laboratory licensure or our failure to renew our CLIA certification, or a state or foreign license, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Even if we were able to bring our laboratory back into compliance, we could incur significant expenses and potentially lose revenue in doing so.

Genetic testing has raised ethical, legal and social issues regarding privacy and the appropriate uses of the resulting information. Governmental authorities have, through the Genetic Information Nondisclosure Act of 2008, and could further, for social or other purposes, limit or regulate the use of genetic information or genetic testing or prohibit testing for genetic predisposition to certain conditions, particularly for those that have no known cure. Ethical and social concerns may also influence governmental authorities to deny or delay the issuance of patents for technology relevant to our business. While we do not currently perform genetic tests for genetic predisposition to certain conditions, these concerns may lead patients to refuse to use, or clinicians to be reluctant to order, our genomic tests or genetic tests for somatic mutations even if permissible. These and other ethical, legal and social concerns may limit market acceptance of our products or reduce the potential markets for our products, either of which could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, or results of operations.

We believe our success is dependent upon our ability to continue to successfully commercialize our products, to continue to expand our current relationships and develop new relationships with healthcare providers, to expand and maintain coverage for our products, and to develop and commercialize new products. Our ability to achieve and maintain commercial market acceptance of our existing and future products will depend on a number of factors, including: - our ability to increase awareness of our products through successful clinical utility and validity studies;- the rate of adoption of our products by physicians and other healthcare providers;- our ability to achieve guideline inclusion for our products;- the timeliness with which we can provide our clinical reports to the ordering clinician;- the timing and scope of any regulatory approval for our products, if such approvals become required, and maintaining ongoing compliance with regulatory requirements;- our ability to obtain and maintain positive coverage decisions for our products from government and commercial payors;- our ability to obtain and maintain adequate reimbursement from third-party payors, such as Medicare, which accounted for 44%, 47% and 49% of our revenue from test reports for the years ended December 31, 2025, 2024 and 2023, respectively, with an additional third-party payor accounting for 16% of our revenue from test reports for the year ended December 31, 2025;- the impact of our investments in R&D and commercial growth;- negative publicity regarding our or our competitors' products resulting from scientific publications, or defects or errors in the products; and - our ability to further validate our products through clinical research and accompanying publications. We cannot assure you that we will be successful in addressing each of these factors or other factors that might affect the market acceptance of our products. If we are unsuccessful in achieving and maintaining market acceptance of our products, our business and results of operations will suffer.

Our revenue in 2025 was primarily derived from the sale of our DecisionDx-Melanoma, TissueCypher, and DecisionDx-SCC tests. While we also derive revenue from our other tests, we expect that the majority of our revenue for the next several years will be derived from sales of our DecisionDx-Melanoma and TissueCypher tests. Revenues from our DecisionDx-SCC test represented a significant portion of our 2025 revenues but are not expected to be so in our 2026 operating results. On January 9, 2025, Novitas finalized an oncology biomarker LCD that became effective on April 24, 2025. On April 24, 2025, the Novitas LCD, Genetic Testing for Oncology: Specific Tests, that includes DecisionDx-SCC as noncovered, became effective. In July 2025, we submitted reconsideration requests for both the Novitas and MolDX LCDs. Novitas subsequently confirmed that our request for DecisionDx-SCC was valid. MolDX also subsequently confirmed that our request for DecisionDx-SCC was valid and that the test has been placed on its waiting list, with an Open Meeting date to be determined. These confirmations represent an important procedural step in the reconsideration process, but it does not indicate coverage or a favorable review outcome. We believe that our long-term commercial success, and ability to generate revenue, will depend on our ability to develop and market additional products, on our ability to increase market penetration for our existing and potential future products and on our ability to obtain favorable coverage and reimbursement policies from government payors, such as Medicare, and from private payors, such as insurance companies. Without positive coverage policies, our products may not be reimbursed, and we may not be able to recognize revenue. If we are unable to increase sales and expand coverage and reimbursement for DecisionDx-Melanoma, TissueCypher, and our other tests, develop and commercialize other products, and successfully obtain coverage and adequate reimbursement for such products, our revenue and our ability to achieve profitability would be impaired, and the market price of our stock could decline substantially.

Our revenue depends on achieving broad coverage and adequate reimbursement for our products from third-party payors, including both government and commercial third-party payors. If third-party payors do not provide coverage of, or do not provide adequate reimbursement for, a substantial portion of the list price of our products, we may need to seek additional payment from the patient beyond any co-payments and deductibles, which may adversely affect demand for our products. Coverage determinations by a third-party payor may depend on a number of factors, including, but not limited to, a third-party payor's determination of whether our products are appropriate, medically necessary or cost-effective. If we are unable to provide third-party payors with sufficient evidence of the clinical utility and validity of our products, they may not provide coverage, or may provide limited coverage, which will adversely affect our revenues and our ability to succeed. To the extent that more competitors enter our markets, the availability of coverage and the reimbursement rate for our products may decrease as we encounter pricing pressure from these competitors. Since each third-party payor makes its own decision as to whether to establish a policy to cover our products, enter into a contract with us and set the amount it will reimburse for a product, these negotiations are a time-consuming and costly process, and they do not guarantee that the third-party payor will provide coverage or adequate reimbursement for our products. In addition, the determinations by a third-party payor whether to cover our products and the amount it will reimburse for them are often made on an indication-by-indication basis. In cases where there is no coverage policy or we do not have a contracted rate for reimbursement as a participating provider, the patient is typically responsible for a greater share of the cost of the product, which may result in further delay of our revenue, increase our collection costs or decrease the likelihood of collection. Our claims for reimbursement from third-party payors may be denied upon submission, and we may need to take additional steps to receive payment, such as appealing the denials. Such appeals and other processes are time-consuming and expensive and may not result in payment. Third-party payors may perform audits of historically paid claims and attempt to recoup funds years after the funds were initially distributed if the third-party payors believe the funds were paid in error or determine that our products were medically unnecessary. If a third-party payor audits our claims and issues a negative audit finding, and we are not able to overturn the audit findings through appeal, the recoupment may result in a material adverse effect on our revenue. Additionally, in some cases commercial third-party payors for whom we are not a participating provider may elect at any time to review claims previously paid and determine the amount they paid was too much. In these situations, the third-party payor will typically notify us of their decision and then offset whatever amount they determine they overpaid against amounts they owe us on current claims. We cannot predict when, or how often, a third-party payor might engage in these reviews and we may not be able to dispute these retroactive adjustments. Under ASC 606, we recognize revenue at the amount we expect to be entitled, subject to a constraint for variable consideration, in the period in which our tests are delivered to the treating clinician. We have determined that our contracts contain variable consideration under ASC 606 because the amounts paid by third-party payors may be paid at less than our standard rates or not paid at all, with such differences considered implicit price concessions. Variable consideration is recognized only to the extent it is probable that a significant reversal of revenue will not occur in future periods when the uncertainties are resolved. Variable consideration is evaluated each reporting period and adjustments are recorded as increases or decreases in revenues. Variable consideration for Medicare claims that are not covered by Medicare, including those claims undergoing appeal, is deemed to be fully constrained due to factors outside our influence (e.g., judgment or actions of third parties) and the uncertainty of the amount to be received is not expected to be resolved for a long period of time. For these fully constrained claims, we generally recognize revenue in the period the uncertainties are resolved, if favorable. Due to potential future changes in Medicare coverage policies and appeal cycles, insurance coverage policies, contractual rates and other trends in the reimbursement of our tests, our revenues may fluctuate significantly from period to period. Although we are an in-network participating provider with some commercial third-party payors, including several Blue Cross Blue Shield plans, and certain large, national commercial third-party payors, including Aetna, other commercial third-party payors have issued non-coverage policies that currently categorize our tests as experimental or investigational. If we are not successful in obtaining coverage from third-party payors, in reversing existing non-coverage policies, or if other third-party payors issue similar non-coverage policies, this could have a material adverse effect on our business and operations. The process to obtain Medicare coverage is lengthy, time-consuming, has changed over time, may change in the future and requires significant dedication of resources, and as we develop or acquire new products, we may be unsuccessful in receiving Medicare coverage for those products or in maintaining our current Medicare coverage. On a periodic basis, CMS requests bids for its MAC services, and MAC jurisdictions have changed in the past. A change in our MAC, or future changes in the MolDX program, the elimination of the program, or a change in the administrator of that program, may affect our ability to maintain Medicare coverage and reimbursement for products for which we have coverage, obtain Medicare coverage for products for which we do not yet have coverage, or obtain Medicare coverage for any products we may launch in the future, or delay payments for our tests. Additionally, MACs that currently provide coverage for our products may periodically reevaluate their coverage decisions and decide to withdraw coverage based on a number of factors that we may not be able to predict or control. Accordingly, current Medicare coverage of our tests or a history of coverage by Medicare is no guarantee of future Medicare coverage. We have received positive coverage decisions and receive Medicare reimbursement for our DecisionDx-Melanoma, MyPath Melanoma, DecisionDx-UM and IDgenetix tests and also receive Medicare reimbursement for our TissueCypher test. Following medical review in early 2022, we also received Medicare reimbursement for our DecisionDx-SCC test. On June 2, 2023, Novitas, the MAC responsible for administering claims for test reports issued by our Pittsburgh laboratory, posted a finalized oncology biomarker LCD pursuant to which the DecisionDx-SCC test would no longer be covered by Medicare effective July 17, 2023. However, on July 6, 2023, Novitas suspended the final version of the LCD and announced its intent to post a new proposed LCD for comment and presentation at an open meeting. On July 4, 2024, Palmetto and Noridian finalized an LCD recommending no coverage for DecisionDx-SCC with an effective date of August 18, 2024. On January 9, 2025, Novitas finalized the oncology biomarker LCD, Genetic Testing for Oncology: Specific Tests, which also lists DecisionDx-SCC as non-covered; that LCD became effective on April 24, 2025. In July 2025, we submitted reconsideration requests for both Novitas and MolDX LCDs. Both Novitas and MolDX subsequently confirmed that our requests were valid. These confirmations represent an important procedural step in the reconsideration process, but it does not indicate coverage or a favorable review outcome. The loss of Medicare coverage for our DecisionDx-SCC test, effective April 24, 2025, had an adverse impact on our 2025 results. Should DecisionDx-SCC remain non-covered by Medicare we expect it could continue to have an adverse impact on our future results. If coverage for one or more of our other products is withdrawn, our business could be more adversely impacted. Under Medicare, payment for products like ours is generally made under the CLFS with payment amounts assigned to specific procedure billing codes. Medicare reimbursement rates for our tests are subject to change and may decrease from those currently in effect. For example, in February 2023, MolDX notified us that IDgenetix should shift billing to a different multi-test generic gene sequencing CPT code and continue using the IDgenetix Z-Code beginning in March 2023. As a result of this change, the Medicare reimbursement rate for the IDgenetix multi-gene panel decreased from approximately $1,500 to $917 per test. We subsequently obtained a test-specific PLA CPT code which became effective October 1, 2023. In November 2023, CMS posted its final CLFS determination which crosswalks our PLA CPT code to an existing PLA code at a rate of $1,336 per test effective January 1, 2024. Our IDgenetix test was discontinued in May 2025. In April 2014, Congress passed the PAMA which included substantial changes to the way in which clinical laboratory services are paid under Medicare. Under PAMA, certain laboratories are required to report to CMS commercial third-party payor payment rates and volumes for each test they perform. CMS uses this data to calculate a weighted median payment rate for each test, which will be used to establish revised Medicare CLFS reimbursement rates for the test. Laboratories that fail to report the required payment information may be subject to substantial civil monetary penalties. On February 3, 2026, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2026 was enacted which, among other things, delayed the impositions of Medicare CLFS cuts until 2027 and updated PAMA reporting timelines and data requirements. We bill Medicare for our products, and therefore we are subject to reporting requirements under PAMA. If we are unable to obtain and maintain adequate reimbursement rates from commercial third-party payors, this may adversely affect our Medicare rate. It is unclear what impact new pricing structures, such as those adopted under PAMA, may have on our business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. The U.S. federal government continues to show significant interest in pursuing healthcare reform and reducing healthcare costs. Similarly, commercial third-party payors may seek to reduce costs by limiting coverage or reducing reimbursement for our products. Any government-adopted reform measures or changes to commercial third-party payor coverage and reimbursement policies could cause significant pressure on the pricing of, and reimbursement for, healthcare products and services, including our products, which could decrease demand for our products, and adversely affect our sales and revenue. In addition, some third-party payors have implemented, or are in the process of implementing, laboratory benefit management programs, often using third-party benefit managers to manage these programs. The stated goals of these programs are to help improve the quality of outpatient laboratory services, support evidence-based guidelines for patient care and lower costs. The impact on laboratories, such as ours, of active laboratory benefit management by third parties is unclear, and we expect that it could have a negative impact on our revenue in the short term. It is possible that third-party payors will resist reimbursement for the products that we offer, in favor of less expensive products, may require pre-approval for our products or may impose additional pricing pressure on and substantial administrative burden for reimbursement for our products. We expect to continue to focus substantial resources on increasing coverage and reimbursement for our current products and any future products we may develop. We believe it may take several years to achieve broad coverage and adequate contracted reimbursement with a majority of third-party payors for our products. However, we cannot predict whether, under what circumstances, or at what payment levels third-party payors will cover and reimburse our products. If we fail to establish and maintain broad adoption of, and coverage and reimbursement for, our products, our ability to generate revenue could be harmed and our future prospects and our business could suffer.

Billing for clinical laboratory testing services is complex, time-consuming and expensive. Depending on the billing arrangement and applicable law, we bill various payors, including Medicare, Medicaid, private insurance companies, private healthcare institutions, and patients, all of which have different billing requirements. We generally bill third-party payors for products and pursue reimbursement on a case-by-case basis where pricing contracts are not in place. To the extent laws or contracts require us to bill patient co-payments or co-insurance, we must also comply with these requirements. We may also face increased risk in our collection efforts, including potential write-offs of accounts receivable and long collection cycles, which could adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition. Several factors make the billing process complex, including: - differences between the billing rates and reimbursement rates for our products;- compliance with complex federal and state regulations related to billing government healthcare programs, including Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans Health Administration and TRICARE;- risk of government audits related to billing;- disputes among payors as to which party is responsible for payment;- differences in coverage and information and billing requirements among payors, including the need for prior authorization and/or advanced notification;- the effect of patient co-payments or co-insurance and our ability to collect such payments from patients;- changes to billing codes used for our products;- changes to requirements related to our current or future clinical studies, including our registry studies, which can affect eligibility for payment;- ongoing monitoring provisions of LCDs for our products, which can affect the circumstances under which a claim would be considered medically necessary;- incorrect or missing billing information; and - the resources required to manage the billing and claims appeals process. We use CPT codes to bill for our products. If these codes were to change, there is a risk of an error being made in the claim adjudication process. Such 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 we receive. As we introduce new products, we may 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, and undertake internal audits to evaluate compliance with applicable laws and regulations as well as internal compliance policies and procedures. When payors deny our claims, we may challenge the reason, low payment amount or payment denials. 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 all or some portion of prior payments we have received. Additionally, the ACA requires providers and suppliers to report and return any overpayments received from government payors under the Medicare and Medicaid programs within 60 days of identification. Failure to identify and return such overpayments exposes the provider or supplier to liability under federal false claims laws. These billing complexities, and the related uncertainty in obtaining payment for our products, could negatively affect our revenue and cash flow, our ability to achieve profitability, and the consistency and comparability of our results of operations. In addition to the complexities noted above, we rely upon a third-party software application in the administration of our billing and collection process. Any significant disruption in our billing operations or the discovery of a deficiency in the design of our billing process could adversely impact our ability to generate and send invoices, calculate revenues, track payments and collect our accounts receivable. Although to date we have not experienced any disruptions or identified any deficiencies with our billing process or billing system, there can be no assurances that any disruptions or deficiencies will not occur in the future. Additionally, any failure in the design or operation of our internal controls related to our billing and collection processes could adversely impact our ability to conclude on the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting and could cause our auditor to issue an adverse opinion on our internal control over financial reporting.

We are exposed to the risk of fraud or other misconduct by our employees, clinical study investigators, consultants, speakers, vendors and any potential commercial partners. Misconduct by these parties could include intentional, reckless and/or negligent conduct or disclosure of unauthorized activities to us that violates: federal laws and regulations or those of comparable foreign regulatory authorities, including those laws that require the reporting of true, complete and accurate information; manufacturing standards; federal and state health and data privacy, security, fraud and abuse, government price reporting, transparency reporting requirements, and other healthcare laws and regulations in the U.S. and abroad; sexual harassment and other workplace misconduct; or laws that require the true, complete and accurate reporting of financial information or data. Such misconduct could also involve the improper use of information obtained in the course of clinical studies, which could result in regulatory sanctions and cause serious harm to our reputation. We have adopted a code of conduct applicable to all of our employees, as well as a disclosure program and other applicable policies and procedures, but it is not always possible to identify and deter employee misconduct, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to comply with these laws or regulations. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business, including the imposition of significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, individual imprisonment, exclusion from government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare, Medicaid and other federal healthcare programs, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, additional integrity reporting and oversight obligations, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations.