UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

Commission file number: 001‑38319

QUANTERIX CORPORATION

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (617) 301‑9400

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ☐

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

As of the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter (June 28, 2019), the aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates of the registrant, based on the last reported sales price for the registrant’s common stock, par value $0.001 per share, on The Nasdaq Global Market on such date, was approximately $547 million.

As of March 1, 2020, the registrant had 28,225,653 shares of common stock outstanding.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Portions of the registrant’s definitive proxy statement for its 2020 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, which the registrant intends to file with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Regulation 14A within 120 days after the end of the registrant’s fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, are incorporated by reference into Part III of this Annual Report on Form 10‑K.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Special Note Regarding Forward‑Looking Statements

This Annual Report on Form 10‑K contains forward‑looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. All statements other than statements of historical facts contained in this Annual Report on Form 10‑K are forward‑looking statements. In some cases, you can identify forward‑looking statements by words such as “anticipate,” “believe,” “contemplate,” “continue,” “could,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “may,” “plan,” “potential,” “predict,” “project,” “seek,” “should,” “target,” “will,” “would,” or the negative of these words or other comparable terminology. These forward‑looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements about:

These forward‑looking statements are subject to a number of risks, uncertainties and assumptions, including those described in “Part I, Item 1A, Risk Factors” and elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10‑K. Moreover, we operate in a very competitive and rapidly changing environment, and new risks emerge from time to time. It is not possible for our management to predict all risks, nor can we assess the impact of all factors on our business or the extent to which any factor, or combination of factors, may cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in any forward‑looking statements we may make. In light of these risks, uncertainties and assumptions, the forward‑looking events and circumstances discussed in this Annual Report on Form 10‑K may not occur and actual results could differ materially and adversely from those anticipated or implied in the forward‑looking statements.

You should not rely upon forward‑looking statements as predictions of future events. Although we believe that the expectations reflected in the forward‑looking statements are reasonable, we cannot guarantee that the future results, levels of activity, performance or events and circumstances reflected in the forward‑looking statements will be achieved or occur. We undertake no obligation to update publicly any forward‑looking statements for any reason after the date of this Annual Report on Form 10‑K to conform these statements to new information, actual results or to changes in our expectations, except as required by law.

You should read this Annual Report on Form 10‑K and the documents that we reference herein and have filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC, as exhibits to this Annual Report on Form 10‑K with the

understanding that our actual future results, levels of activity, performance, and events and circumstances may be materially different from what we expect.

This Annual Report on Form 10‑K includes statistical and other industry and market data that we obtained from industry publications and research, surveys and studies conducted by third parties. Industry publications and third‑party research, surveys and studies generally indicate that their information has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, although they do not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of such information. This Annual Report on Form 10‑K also contains estimates and other statistical data from a custom market research report by an independent third‑party research firm, which was commissioned by us and was issued in June 2017, referred to herein as the Third‑Party Research Report. Such data involves a number of assumptions and limitations and contains projections and estimates of the future performance of the markets in which we operate and intend to operate that are subject to a high degree of uncertainty. We caution you not to give undue weight to such projections, assumptions and estimates.

Unless the context otherwise requires, the terms “Quanterix,” the “Company,” “we,” “us” and “our” in this Annual Report on Form 10‑K refer to Quanterix Corporation. “Quanterix,” “Simoa,” “Simoa HD-X,” “Simoa HD‑1,” “SR‑X,” “SP‑X”, “HD-X Analyzer”, “HD‑1 Analyzer” and our logo are our trademarks. All other service marks, trademarks and trade names appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10‑K are the property of their respective owners. We do not intend our use or display of other companies’ trade names, trademarks or service marks to imply a relationship with, or endorsement or sponsorship of us by, these other companies.

Item 1. BUSINESS

Overview

We are a life sciences company that has developed next generation, ultra‑sensitive digital immunoassay platforms that advance precision health for life sciences research and diagnostics. Our platforms are based on our proprietary digital “Simoa” detection technology. Our Simoa bead‑based and planar array platforms enable customers to reliably detect protein biomarkers in extremely low concentrations in blood, serum and other fluids that, in many cases, are undetectable using conventional, analog immunoassay technologies, and also allow researchers to define and validate the function of novel protein biomarkers that are only present in very low concentrations and have been discovered using technologies such as mass spectrometry. These capabilities provide our customers with insight into the role of protein biomarkers in human health that has not been possible with other existing technologies and enable researchers to unlock unique insights into the continuum between health and disease. We believe this greater insight will enable the development of novel therapies and diagnostics and facilitate a paradigm shift in healthcare from an emphasis on treatment to a focus on earlier detection, monitoring, prognosis and, ultimately, prevention. We are currently focusing on protein detection, which we believe is an area of significant unmet need and where we have significant competitive advantages. However, in addition to enabling new applications and insights in protein analysis, our Simoa platforms have also demonstrated applicability across other testing applications, including detection of nucleic acids and small molecules.

We believe that our Simoa platforms are the most sensitive commercially available protein detection platforms and significantly advance ELISA technology, which has been the industry standard for protein detection for over 40 years. Proteins are complex molecules that are required for the structure, function and regulation of the body’s tissues and organs, and are the functional units that carry out specific tasks in every cell. The human body contains approximately 20,000 genes, each of which can produce multiple proteins. It is estimated that these 20,000 genes can produce over 100,000 different proteins, approximately 10,500 of which are known to be secreted in blood. Accordingly, while research on nucleic acids provides valuable information about the role of genes in health and disease, proteins are more prevalent and, we believe, more relevant to a precise understanding of the nuanced continuum between health and disease. Protein measurement goes beyond genetic predisposition, reflecting the impact of a range of influences on health, including environmental factors and lifestyle, providing deeper and more relevant insight into what is happening in a person’s body in real time.

Researchers and clinicians rely extensively on protein biomarkers for use as research and clinical tools. However, normal physiological levels of many proteins are not detectable using conventional, analog immunoassay technologies, and many of these technologies can only detect proteins once they have reached levels that reflect more advanced disease or injury. For many other low abundance proteins, these technologies cannot detect proteins even at disease‑ or injury‑elevated levels. We believe that Simoa’s sensitivity offers a new way to monitor healthy individuals and detect proteins associated with nascent disease or injury early in the disease cascade, which holds the key to intervention before disease or injury has advanced to the point where more significant clinical signs and symptoms have appeared.

Our Simoa platforms have achieved significant scientific validation and commercial adoption. Simoa technology has been cited in more than 675 scientific publications in areas of high unmet medical need and research interest such as neurology, oncology, cardiology, infectious disease and inflammation. Our growing customer base is comprised of over 650 customers across our end markets, and includes 19 of the 20 largest biopharmaceutical companies.

Our Market Opportunities

Our Simoa platforms have applications across the life science research, diagnostics and precision health screening markets. Our initial target market has been the life science research market, in particular neurology and oncology. According to estimates in the Third‑Party Research Report, we believe that the current addressable neurology and oncology life science research market is approximately $1.1 billion per year, and the total life science research market is approximately $3 billion per year and has the potential to reach as much as $8 billion per year. However, as

our customers continue to gain experience with our proprietary Simoa technology, we believe the opportunity to access markets beyond research, such as diagnostics and precision health screening, will be significant. The Third‑Party Research Report also estimates that the diagnostic and precision health screening markets have the potential to reach an aggregate of more than $30 billion per year.

Life Science Research

Our initial target market has been the large and growing life science research market. We believe our Simoa platforms are well‑positioned to capture a significant share of this market because of superior sensitivity, automated workflow capabilities, multiplexing and the ability to work with a broader range of sample types. By substantially lowering the limit of detection of protein biomarkers, we believe that Simoa is penetrating the existing market for protein analysis and holds potential to significantly grow the life science research market as researchers expand their research into the diseases associated with the thousands of proteins that were previously undetectable. Simoa also enables earlier detection of the proteins that are currently detectable by other technologies only after they have reached levels that reflect more advanced disease or injury. As an indication of the market’s acceptance of our technology, biopharmaceutical researchers are also integrating our platforms into drug development protocols to more efficiently and effectively develop drugs.  In addition to enabling new applications and insights in protein analysis, our Simoa bead‑based technology can be used to detect other analytes, such as nucleic acids and small molecules, which expands our market opportunity. We believe that this technology has the potential to ultimately provide the same sensitivity as polymerase chain reaction, or PCR, which is the most commonly used technology for nucleic acid detection, without the distortion and bias issues associated with amplification used in PCR.

Diagnostics

We believe the diagnostic market represents a significant commercial opportunity for our Simoa technology as well. We believe existing diagnostics can be improved by Simoa’s sensitivity to enable earlier detection of diseases and injuries, and that new diagnostics may be developed using protein biomarkers that are not detectable using conventional, analog immunoassay technologies but are detectable using Simoa. We also believe that the ultra‑sensitive protein detection provided by Simoa can enable the development of a new category of non‑invasive diagnostic tests and tools based on blood, serum, saliva and other fluids that have the potential to replace current more invasive, expensive and inconvenient diagnostic methods, including spinal tap, diagnostic imaging and biopsy.

Simoa technology also has significant potential in the emerging field of companion diagnostics. Drug developers can use Simoa to stratify patients into categories, enabling selection of those patients for whom a drug is expected to be most effective and safe. Not only does Simoa have the potential to be used to develop companion diagnostics to stratify patients in clinical trials and for treatment, but Simoa’s sensitivity may also enable the development of companion diagnostics based on protein biomarkers that can regularly monitor whether an approved drug is having the desired biological effect, enabling doctors to quickly and efficiently adjust the course of treatment as appropriate.

Precision Health Screening

The ability of our Simoa platforms to detect and quantify normal physiological levels of proteins in low abundance that are undetectable using conventional, analog immunoassay technologies may enable our technology to be used to monitor protein biomarker levels of seemingly healthy, asymptomatic people, and potentially to signal and provide earlier detection of the onset of disease. We believe there is the potential for a number of neurological, cardiovascular, oncologic and other protein biomarkers associated with disease to be measured with a simple blood draw on a regular, ongoing basis as part of a patient’s routine health screening, and for those results to be compared periodically with baseline measurements to predict or detect the early onset of disease, prior to the appearance of symptoms.

Simoa products sold or used in the diagnostics and precision health screening markets will be subject to regulation by the FDA or comparable international agencies, including requirements for regulatory clearance or approval of such products before they can be marketed. To date, we have not received or applied for regulatory approvals for

Simoa products. See “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Governmental Regulation and Diagnostic Product Reimbursement” and “—Government Regulation” for a more detailed discussion regarding the regulatory approvals that may be required.

Our Products and Services

Our proprietary Simoa technology is based on traditional enzyme‑linked immunosorbent assay, or ELISA, technology, which has been the most widely used method of detection of proteins for over 40 years. Given our target customers’ familiarity with the core ELISA technology, we believe this offers us a significant competitive advantage. Our Simoa bead‑based platform differs, however, from conventional ELISA in its ability to trap single molecules in tiny microwells, 40 trillionths of a milliliter, that are 2.5 billion times smaller than traditional ELISA wells, allowing for an analysis and digital readout of each individual molecule, which is not possible with conventional ELISA technology. This ability is the key to our bead‑based technology’s unprecedented sensitivity. In January 2018, we acquired Aushon BioSystems, Inc., or Aushon, and its proprietary sensitive planar array detection technology. Leveraging our proprietary sophisticated Simoa image analysis and data analysis algorithms, we further refined this planar array technology to provide the same Simoa sensitivity found in our Simoa bead‑based platform. We currently offer the following three Simoa instruments, which we believe are the most sensitive protein detection platforms commercially available today:

The current menu of approximately 80 analyte‑specific single‑plex and multi‑plex bead‑based assay kits includes assays for biomarkers in the areas of neurology, infectious disease, immunology and oncology for both human and mouse samples. The current menu of Simoa planar array reagent kits includes approximately 100 biomarkers ranging from 1‑10 analytes per assay in the areas of immunology and oncology research. We intend to continue to increase the number of Simoa biomarker assays across our platforms. In addition, both the bead‑based platform and the planar array platform allow ease and flexibility in assay design, enabling our customers to develop their own in‑house assays, called “homebrew” assays.

We also provide contract research services for customers through our CLIA‑certified Accelerator Laboratory. The Accelerator Laboratory provides customers with access to Simoa technology, and supports multiple projects and services, including sample testing, homebrew assay development and custom assay development. To date, we have completed over 800 projects for approximately 200 customers from all over the world using our Simoa platforms. In addition to being an important source of revenue, we have also found the Accelerator Laboratory to be a significant catalyst for placing additional instruments, as a number of customers for whom we have provided contract research services have subsequently purchased an instrument from us.

In addition, in August 2019, we completed the acquisition of UmanDiagnostics AB, or Uman, a company located in Umeå, Sweden, that supplies neurofilament light (Nf-L) antibodies and Nf-L ELISA kits.  Uman’s Nf-L antibodies are widely recognized by researchers and biopharmaceutical and diagnostics companies world-wide as the premier solution for the detection of Nf-L to advance the development of therapeutics and diagnostics for neurodegenerative conditions.  Nf-L has seen a dramatic growth as a neurologicval biomarker in the last three

years since we developed the first assay that could reliably measure Nf-L in blood using Uman’s antibodies and our Simoa technology. This innovation allowed research, previously limited primarily to cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), to expand significantly and has led many of the world’s foremost neurology researchers and clinicians to conclude that Nf-L may be one of the most clinically relevant brain biomarkers available today.  Despite significant efforts by us and others to identify or develop an alternative source of antibodies, the Uman Nf-L antibodies remain the best-in-class for highly sensitive and specific Nf-L detection in serum or plasma.  The following graphic depicts the sensitivity of the Uman antibodies to detect Nf-L in blood and CSF compared to over a dozen other antibody pairs tested by Quanterix:

The superiority of the Uman antibodies is further evidenced by the fact that, to date, in nearly 500 publications relating to the detection of Nf-L in CSF or blood, over 75% used the Uman antibodies, and in over 180 publications relating to the detection of Nf-L in blood, 100% used the Uman antibodies.

The Uman acquisition secures the Nf-L antibody supply critical to our industry leading ultrasensitive Simoa Nf-L assays and services, provides us with additional revenue opportunities via the sale of the Nf-L antibodies and Nf-L ELISA kits, and positions us to capitalize on significant growth opportunities with Nf-L applications in Alzheimer’s disease, multiple sclerosis, and other neurodegenerative conditions.

We sell our instruments, consumables and services to the life science, pharmaceutical and diagnostics industries through a direct sales force and support organizations in North America and Europe, and through distributors or sales agents in other select markets. In addition, Uman sells Nf-L antibodies and Nf-L ELISA kits directly, and in conjunction with a distributor worldwide (excluding certain Nordic countries). We have an extensive base of customers in world class academic and governmental research institutions, as well as pharmaceutical, biotechnology and contract research companies, using our technology to gather information to better understand human health.

Our Competitive Strengths

We believe that our competitive strengths include the following:

Our Strategy

Our goal is to enable new research into biomarkers to allow greater insight into their role in human health in ways that have not been possible with any other current research and diagnostic technology. We believe this greater insight will facilitate a paradigm shift in healthcare from an emphasis on treatment to a focus on earlier detection, monitoring, prognosis and, ultimately, prevention.

Our strategy to achieve this includes:

Industry Background

We intend to pursue the application of our Simoa technology to the life science research, diagnostics and precision health screening markets. Our initial commercial strategy targets the large and growing life science research market, and we believe that the diagnostic market and the precision health screening market represent significant future commercial opportunities for Simoa. According to estimates in the Third‑Party Research Report, we believe the aggregate commercial opportunity across these markets has the potential to expand to up to $40 billion.

Proteins are versatile macromolecules and serve critical functions in nearly all biological processes. They are complex molecules that organisms require for the structure, function and regulation of the body’s tissues and organs. For example, proteins provide immune protection, generate movement, transmit nerve impulses and control cell growth and differentiation. Understanding an organism’s proteome, the complete set of proteins and their expression levels, can provide a powerful and unique window into its health, a window that other types of research, such as genomics, cannot provide.

The human body contains approximately 20,000 genes. One of the core functions of genes, which are comprised of DNA, is to regulate protein production—which ones are produced, the volume of each, and for how long—influenced by both biological and environmental factors. These 20,000 genes help govern the expression of over 100,000 proteins, approximately 10,500 of which are known to be secreted in blood, and fewer than 1,300 of which can be consistently detected in healthy individuals using conventional immunoassay technologies. Accordingly, the study of much of the proteome has not been practical given the limited level of sensitivity of existing technologies. To date, across our platforms, we have developed assays that address approximately 145 protein biomarkers secreted or released in blood and CSF.

While genomic research provides valuable information about the role of genes in health and disease, proteins are both more prevalent than nucleic acids and, we believe, more relevant to understand precisely the nuanced continuum between health and disease. Genes may indicate the risk of developing a certain disease later in life, but they are not able to account for the impact of environmental factors and lifestyle, such as diet and exercise, or provide insight into what is happening in a patient’s body in real time. For example, identical twins have the same genotype, but may develop different diseases over the course of their lifetime, largely due to environmental factors.

Much like the sequencing of the human genome with the Human Genome Project and the development of both PCR and next generation sequencing technologies to detect nucleic acids, both of which accelerated biomedical genomic research, we believe the ability to study more of the proteome enabled by our more sensitive protein detection technology will have a profound impact on proteomic research. With our ultra‑sensitive Simoa detection technology, researchers can assess the symptoms of disease or injury and compare them to the presence and levels of relevant proteins that are not detectable using conventional technologies, leading to a better understanding of how proteins individually and/or collectively impact and influence important biological processes and the health and well‑being of individuals. We believe this research into understanding the individual characteristics and functioning of proteins will be central to earlier detection, monitoring, prognosis and, ultimately, prevention, by providing researchers with the ability to assess the impact of particular proteins on the progress of disease and injury from the time of early onset of symptoms.

Existing Technologies and Their Limitations

Protein Analysis

The enzyme‑linked immunosorbent assay, or ELISA, has been the most widely used method of sensitive detection of proteins for over 40 years. In simple terms, in ELISA, an unknown amount of antigen (e.g., protein, peptide, antibody, hormone) is affixed to a solid surface, usually a polystyrene multiwell plate, either directly, or indirectly through use of a conjugated secondary or “capture” antibody (sandwich ELISA). A specific “detection” antibody is applied over the surface to bind to the antigen. This detection antibody is linked to an enzyme, and in the final step, a

substance called an enzyme substrate is added, and the enzyme converts to colored or fluorescent product molecules, which are detected by a plate reader. Sandwich ELISA is depicted in the graphic below:

Aside from ELISA, there are other technologies available for protein analysis today, such as Western blotting, mass spectrometry, chromatography, surface plasmon resonance, Raman‑enhanced signal detection, immuno‑PCR, and biobarcode assay. However, the proteins detectable by these conventional, analog immunoassay technologies represent a mere fraction of what is estimated to be approximately 10,500 secreted proteins in circulation in human blood. While a number of techniques have been used to attempt to increase sensitivity of detection, we believe all of these approaches have limitations, including:

Genomic Analysis

Over the past few decades, scientists have developed a variety of genomic analysis methods to measure an increasing number of genomic biomarkers aimed at more effectively detecting diseases. The most widely used method for genetic testing is PCR, which involves amplifying, or generating billions of copies of, the DNA sequence in question and then detecting the DNA with the use of fluorescent dyes. PCR is used to amplify the nucleic acid through the use of enzymes and repeated heating and cooling cycles, with fluorescent dyes incorporated during each amplification cycle. The expression of the nucleic acid is then inferred based on the number of amplification cycles required for the target to become detectable. PCR is sometimes referred to as an analog technology because the number of cycles of amplification, rather than a direct measure, is used to infer the level of gene expression. The wide availability of PCR chemistry makes it a popular approach for measuring the expression of nucleic acids, but the use of enzymes in numerous cycles of amplification can introduce distortion and bias into the data, potentially compromising the reliability of results, particularly at low concentrations.

Our Simoa Technology

Our Simoa technology significantly advances conventional sandwich ELISA technology and is capable of unprecedented protein detection sensitivity.

Simoa Bead‑Based Technology

Simoa bead‑based digital immunoassays utilize the basic principles of conventional bead‑based sandwich ELISA and require two antibodies: one for capture, which is applied to the beads, and one for detection. Unlike ELISA, which runs the enzyme‑substrate reaction on all molecules in one well, Simoa bead‑based reactions are run on individual molecules in tiny microwells, 40 trillionths of a milliliter that are 2.5 billion times smaller than traditional ELISA wells. Traditional ELISA analog measurements increase in intensity only as the concentration of a sample increases. Simoa bead‑based digital technology measurements, however, are independent of sample concentration intensity and rely on a binary signal/no signal readout, enabling detection sensitivity that was not previously possible.

Our Simoa bead‑based platform is highly flexible, designed to enable practical high‑sensitivity protein analysis for academic researchers looking at novel proteins all the way through to high throughput analysis performed by large biopharmaceutical organizations. The following chart describes the steps through which our Simoa bead‑based technology detects proteins:

Simoa Bead‑Based Analytic Process

Our Simoa bead‑based technology offers unprecedented protein detection sensitivity and enables detection of low abundance and previously undetectable biomarkers. This sensitivity allows researchers to measure critical protein biomarkers at earlier stages in the progression of a disease or injury, which we believe will enable the development of novel therapies and diagnostics and facilitate a paradigm shift in healthcare from an emphasis on treatment to a focus on

earlier detection, monitoring, prognosis and, ultimately, prevention. We have also implemented a research and development effort with a goal to increase the sensitivity of our Simoa technology 100‑fold by the end of 2021.

The ability to multiplex, or simultaneously measure multiple proteins (or other biomarkers) in a single assay, can be important to researchers to maximize the biological information from a sample, and to develop more specific diagnostic tests. However, one of the main issues with multiplexing can be the loss of sensitivity. Our Simoa platforms maintain single plex precision, while competitive platforms lose sensitivity when multiplexing is used. Multiplexing is achieved with our Simoa bead‑based technology by using beads labeled with different fluorescent dyes specific to the biomarker being analyzed. After the assay is run, the array of microwells is imaged across the wavelengths of the different labeled beads. The results are measured for each protein captured by each of the different beads. While we have demonstrated the ability to identify and differentiate up to 35 different bead subpopulations on the HD‑X, which is a prerequisite to our ability to develop assays with the capacity to detect an equivalent number of proteins in a single sample, we believe that the ability to multiplex above a 6‑plex and maintain single‑plex sensitivity and precision may be limited using bead‑based technology due to constraints in the number of bead‑containing wells for each plex that are imaged on the Simoa disk. In 2017, we commercially launched a Simoa neurology 4‑plex assay (Nf‑L, tau, GFAP and UCH‑L1) for the study of neurodegenerative conditions and traumatic brain injury. Whereas other assay technologies require CSF to detect all four of these markers, or are limited to only single-plex measurement in serum and plasma, due to Simoa’s sensitivity, this is the only assay that can detect all of these biomarkers directly from serum and plasma samples in a multiplex assay format. This is a significant advantage in terms of ease of use, patient comfort, speed and cost‑effectiveness. In the first quarter of 2020, we launched a new Simoa 6‑plex human cytokine Simoa bead‑based assay for the HD-X and SR-X instrument platforms. This assay is the only commercially available product supporting quantitative measurement of six key immunomodulatory cytokines (IFNg, IL-6, IL-10, IL-12p70, IL-17A and TNFa) at baseline levels in both normal healthy individuals and patient cohorts in therapeutic areas spanning cancer, autoimmune disease, neurodegeneration and infectious disease.

Simoa Planar Array Technology

Simoa planar array immunoassays utilize the basic principles of conventional microplate‑based sandwich ELISA and require two antibodies: one for capture, which is applied to the beads, and one for detection. Unlike ELISA, which runs the enzyme‑substrate reaction on all molecules coating the entire bottom surface in one well, Simoa planar array reactions are run on spatially segregated micro‑spots within the bottom of microtiter plate wells that concentrate the signal to a surface area 1,000 times smaller than a traditional ELISA. The small spot size and spatial segregation of each spot enables multiplexing up to 12 different assays within a single sample well.

Our Simoa planar array platform is highly flexible, designed to enable practical high‑sensitivity multiplex protein analysis for drug discovery and development applications as well as translational biomarker research. The following chart describes the steps through which our Simoa planar array technology detects proteins:

Simoa Planar Array Analytic Process

Below is an image of a 96‑well Simoa planar array plate containing 12 microspots. Each microspot represents a different analyte measured in each sample well.

We believe the Simoa planar array technology is well‑suited for researchers who value the ability to measure critical immunomodulatory biomarkers in patient serum and plasma with ultra‑sensitive detection in a multiplex assay format. The figure below demonstrates 10‑plex detection of key cytokines in human serum from normal healthy donors with corresponding assay Limit of Detection (LoD) listed in femtogram per ml.

Nucleic Acid Testing

Our initial focus has been on the use of Simoa technology to detect protein biomarkers. However, our Simoa bead‑based technology has also been used to detect nucleic acids in biological samples. While methods for measuring nucleic acid molecules have advanced substantially, currently available techniques still have drawbacks. For example, PCR is a sensitive method that is widely used for measuring gene expression. However, PCR carries the potential for data distortion and bias from the repeated addition of enzymes, and heating and cooling cycles needed to amplify a copy of the nucleic acid being measured. In nucleic acid analysis, we believe that Simoa has the potential to provide the same sensitivity as traditional PCR‑based assays with the following benefits:

For detection of nucleic acids with our Simoa bead‑based technology, instead of coating the beads with capture antibodies as is done for detecting proteins, the beads are coated with nucleic acid capture probes. Samples with the target nucleic acid molecules are then added and are captured by the beads. Nucleic acid detection probes (instead of detection antibodies) are then added and attach to the target nucleic acid molecules which are then labeled using an enzyme substrate that is detected and counted using the Simoa disk and instrument. This assay is pictured below:

Simoa has been used to detect short sequences of RNA, known as microRNA, that are important in a number of biological systems, and are widely used in innovative therapeutic and gene editing technologies. For example, the assay was used to detect microRNA‑122, or miR‑122, a marker of liver toxicity, from the serum of patients who had overdosed with acetaminophen. As shown in the graph below, these patients had elevated miR‑122 levels compared to healthy controls.

This approach suggests potential for applications for measuring drug‑induced liver injury for both safety testing of drugs in development and for monitoring of approved drugs.

Our Market Opportunities

Our commercial strategy is to pursue the application of our Simoa technology to the life science research, diagnostics and precision health screening markets.

Life Science Research

Our initial target market is the large and growing life science research market. We believe our Simoa platforms are well‑positioned to capture a significant share of this market because of superior sensitivity, automated workflow capabilities, multiplexing and the ability to work with a broader range of sample types.

Proteomics, the study of the proteins produced by the body, is important to understanding disease, and researchers study proteins to understand the biological basis for disease and how to improve diagnosis and treatment. The proteins detectable by conventional, analog immunoassay technologies represent a mere fraction of the proteins that can be detected by Simoa technology, and we believe that Simoa can inspire a new level of research into these previously undetectable proteins and their role in disease. By substantially lowering the limit of detection of protein biomarkers, our Simoa platforms hold significant potential to expand research into the diseases associated with the thousands of proteins that were previously undetectable, as well as into earlier detection of the proteins currently detectable by other technologies only after they have reached levels that reflect more advanced disease or injury. Simoa technology provides researchers the ability to see the nuanced continuum of health to disease more efficiently and effectively than any other technology commercially available today, offering the potential for the first time to better understand the onset of disease cascades and catalyzing a new era of medical and life science research, drug discovery and disease prevention.

As an indication of the market’s acceptance of our Simoa technology, researchers at pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies are integrating our platforms into drug development protocols to more efficiently and effectively develop drugs. Using Simoa’s unprecedented sensitivity to measure previously undetectable levels of target biomarkers prior to and following administration of a drug, drug developers can non‑invasively and objectively determine whether a drug candidate is having a desired impact on the target biomarker. In addition, researchers can also use Simoa to monitor a drug candidate’s unwanted effect on “off‑target” biomarkers and predict side effects, addressing the significant issue of drug toxicity, which is a leading cause of death in the United States. We estimate that our Simoa technology has been utilized in projects for over 800 clinical trials to date. 

According to estimates in the Third‑Party Research Report, we believe that the current addressable neurology and oncology life science research market is approximately $1.1 billion per year, and the total the life science research market is approximately $3 billion per year and has the potential to reach as much as $8 billion per year. 

Diagnostics

The diagnostic market represents a significant future commercial opportunity for our Simoa technology as well. We believe existing biomarker diagnostics can be improved by Simoa’s sensitivity to enable earlier detection of diseases and injuries, and that new diagnostics may be developed using protein biomarkers that are not detectable using conventional, analog immunoassay technologies but are detectable using Simoa technology. We also believe that the ultra‑sensitive protein detection provided by our Simoa platforms can enable the development of a new category of non‑invasive diagnostic tests and tools based on blood, serum and other fluids that have the potential to replace current more invasive, expensive and inconvenient diagnostic methods, including spinal tap, diagnostic imaging and biopsy.

For example, researchers have conducted studies using Simoa that indicate that neurological biomarkers, including tau and Nf‑L, may someday be able to replace diagnostic imaging to diagnose traumatic brain injury, or TBI. Our Simoa assays for tau and Nf‑L are 3,500‑fold and 840‑fold more sensitive, respectively, than conventional ELISA technologies. Almost 90% of patients who visit U.S. hospital emergency rooms and receive a computerized tomography, or CT, scan show no structural brain injury. In addition, CT scans have approximately 100 times more radiation than a chest x‑ray, and are suspected of causing cancer in up to 29,000 people per year, underscoring the need for development of a safe and accurate blood‑based diagnostic test for TBI, which we believe may be enabled by our Simoa technology.

Simoa technology also has significant potential in the emerging field of companion diagnostics. A companion diagnostic test is a biomarker test that is specifically linked to a therapeutic drug that can help predict how a patient will respond to the drug. Drug developers can use companion diagnostics to stratify patients and select only those patients to study for whom a drug is expected to be most effective and safe. Companion diagnostics have demonstrated the ability

to both improve the probability of approval and accelerate approval of new drugs. Not only could Simoa be used to develop companion diagnostics to stratify patients in clinical trials and for treatment, but Simoa’s sensitivity can also enable the development of companion diagnostics based on protein biomarkers that can actively and regularly monitor whether an approved drug is having the desired biological effect. This would quickly and efficiently enable doctors to adjust the course of treatment as appropriate by increasing or decreasing dosages or even switching therapies.

There has been significant interest from third parties to use our technology to develop applications for the diagnostic market.

Precision Health Screening

The ability of our Simoa platforms to detect and quantify normal physiological levels of low abundance proteins that are undetectable using conventional, analog immunoassay technologies could enable our technology to be used to monitor protein biomarker levels of seemingly healthy, asymptomatic people, and potentially to signal and provide earlier detection of the onset of disease. This has the potential to facilitate a paradigm shift in healthcare, from an emphasis on treatment to a focus on earlier detection, monitoring, prognosis and, ultimately, prevention, enabling a “precision health” revolution.

We believe there is the potential for a number of neurological, cardiovascular, oncologic and other protein biomarkers associated with disease to be measured with a simple blood draw on a regular, ongoing basis as part of a patient’s routine health screening, and for those results to be compared periodically with baseline measurements to predict or detect the early onset of disease, prior to the appearance of symptoms.

According to estimates in the Third‑Party Research Report, we believe that the total diagnostic and precision health screening markets addressable using Simoa technology have the potential to reach an aggregate of more than $30 billion per year upon receipt of the necessary regulatory approvals, which we have not yet begun the process to obtain.

Our Key Focus Areas

We have focused the application of our Simoa technology on areas of high growth and high unmet need and where existing platforms have significant shortcomings that our technology addresses. In particular, we have focused on neurology and oncology, as well as cardiology, infectious disease and inflammation.

Neurology

We believe that the ability of our Simoa technology to detect neurological biomarkers in blood at ultra‑low levels, which have traditionally only been detectable in cerebrospinal fluid, or CSF, has the potential to rapidly advance neurology research and drug development, and transform the way brain injuries and diseases are diagnosed and treated. To our knowledge, the brain is the only organ in the body for which there is not currently a blood‑based diagnostic test. The challenge with developing blood‑based tests for the brain is that the blood‑brain barrier, which is formed by endothelial cells lining the cerebral microvasculature, is very tight and severely restricts the movement of proteins and other substances between these endothelial cells and into blood circulation. Accordingly, diagnosis of brain disease and injury has traditionally required either an MRI scan of the brain or a spinal tap to collect CSF, both of which are costly and highly invasive for the patient. The sensitivity of the Simoa technology has enabled researchers to discover that extremely small amounts of critical neural biomarkers diffuse through the blood‑brain barrier, and are released into the blood during injury and in connection with many neurodegenerative brain diseases. However, the concentrations of these neural biomarkers in the blood are so low that they are undetectable by conventional, analog immunoassay technologies. In 2017, we commercially launched a Simoa neurology 4‑plex assay (Nf‑L, tau, GFAP and UCH‑L1) for the study of neurodegenerative conditions and traumatic brain injury. Whereas other assay technologies require CSF to detect all four of these markers, or are limited to only single-plex measurement in serum and plasma, due to Simoa’s sensitivity, this is the only assay that can detect all of these biomarkers directly from serum and plasma samples in a multiplex assay format. This is a significant advantage in terms of ease of use, patient comfort, speed and cost‑effectiveness.

To date, there have been over 360 neurology-related scientific publications using our Simoa technologies, and we believe that ultra‑sensitive digital detection of neural related biomarkers in the blood is becoming an essential research and development tool for an increasing range of neurological disorders, including multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer’s disease, dementia, Parkinson’s disease, and TBI. The goal of this research is to eventually develop accurate diagnostic tools, predictive health screens and, ultimately, more effective treatments.

Evidence of the potential clinical utility of Nf-L as a biomarker in neurological disease is progressing rapidly, in particular with respect to multiple sclerosis.  At the 35th Congress of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS) in September 2019, there were nearly 50 presentations in which our Simoa Nf-L assay was used.  In one presentation, Novartis presented positive data from its Phase III ASCLEPIOS I and II studies of its multiple sclerosis drug candidate, ofatumumab.  One of the secondary endpoints included serum levels of Nf-L as measured using our Simoa Nf-L assay.  Novartis presented data that showed that, starting at three months after initiation of ofatumumab treatment, and then at 12 and 24 months timepoints, patients given ofatumumab had significantly lower blood levels of Nf-L, compared to those in the comparator arm of teriflunomide treated patients.

In another ECTRIMS presentation, Roche presented retrospective data from its Phase III OPERA I, OPERA, II AND ORATORIO trials of its approved multiple sclerosis drug OCREVUS (ocrelizumab).  OCREVUS was only approved in 2017, but it has already become the multiple sclerosis market leader in its class, recording sales of $1.72 billion in the first half of 2019. By 2025, annual sales of the drug are estimated to reach $6.8 billion.  In the data presented at ECTRIMS, it was shown that treatment with OCREVUS lowered blood Nf-L levels and increased proportion of patients reaching healthy donor range for Nf-L in both relapsing multiple sclerosis and primary progressive multiple sclerosis.  Roche believes that this data helps advance the understanding of Nf-L as a potential biomarker of disease activity and for treatment monitoring, and may provide insight into the neuroprotective effects of the drug.

In an article published by Bjornevik et al in JAMA Neurology in September 2019, researchers presented data that showed that levels of serum Nf-L, as measured by the Simoa Nf-L assay, were increased six years before the clinical onset of multiple sclerosis. The researchers concluded that these data indicate that MS may have a prodromal phase lasting several years and that neuroaxonal damage occurs during this phase, emphasizing the importance of early diagnosis and treatment.

In 2017, researchers using Simoa technology published a paper in JAMA Neurology demonstrating that a simple blood test for the neurological biomarker Nf‑L exhibited the same level of diagnostic accuracy for diagnosing Alzheimer’s disease as currently established CSF biomarkers. The study was a major study of almost 600 patients from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. The graph below depicts the diagnostic accuracy of plasma Simoa Nf‑L measurements compared with traditional CSF biomarkers. The diagnostic accuracy of the plasma Simoa Nf‑L results approached 90%, in line with the CSF biomarkers on the same patients.

Diagnostic Accuracy

In addition, Simoa plasma Nf‑L values were associated with cognitive deficits and neuroimaging hallmarks of Alzheimer’s disease at baseline and during follow‑up. High plasma Nf‑L correlated with poor cognition and Alzheimer’s disease -related brain atrophy and with brain hypometabolism (lower neural energy). These data suggest a simple Simoa blood test for Nf‑L may have clinical utility as a noninvasive biomarker in Alzheimer’s disease.

Traumatic brain injuries, or TBIs, lead to approximately five million individuals visiting emergency rooms per year in the United States alone, often with broad and inconclusive diagnosis. Current methods of TBI diagnosis involve CT scans that fail to diagnose approximately 90% of mild TBI. Simoa technology has demonstrated the sensitivity to identify relevant neurological biomarkers, such as Nf‑L, tau, GFAP and UCH-L1, to more adequately address diagnosis of TBIs and overall brain health.

Leading researchers in neurology have used Simoa technology to study biomarkers in the blood of athletes after concussion in many high‑impact sports. Simoa can measure critical neural biomarkers in blood that correlate repeated head trauma from both concussions and subconcussive events with poor patient outcomes, including the potential development of Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy, or CTE, which currently can only be diagnosed after death via a brain autopsy. A recent publication by a National Institute of Health researcher indicates that measuring tau in the blood with Simoa may help identify concussed individuals requiring additional rest before they can safely return to play. Eventually, we believe it may be possible to develop a mobile screen enabling clinicians to quickly and accurately determine whether it is safe for concussed athletes to return to play.

In 2016, Fast Company named Quanterix one of the “World’s Most Innovative Companies” for our work in concussion detection. We also were awarded two competitive grants from the NFL‑GE Head Health Challenge to advance this work in the detection and quantification of mild TBI.

We estimate that the total addressable market for Simoa technology in neurology has the potential to reach $5.3 billion across research, diagnostic and precision health screening indications.

Oncology

Our ultra‑sensitive Simoa technology has the potential to detect increased levels of oncology biomarkers during the very early stages in disease development. Biomarkers can be useful tools for diagnostics, prognostics and predictive cancer detection. However, many traditional assay technologies can only detect these biomarkers after the disease has progressed and the patient has become symptomatic. Simoa’s highly sensitive detection capability may result in earlier detection, better monitoring and treatment and improved prognoses for patients. Additionally, Simoa technology has shown early promise as a liquid biopsy alternative to more invasive diagnostic procedures.

Simoa technology was used in an unpublished scientific study that indicates it may be possible to eventually replace routine mammograms with a very sensitive, more accurate, low cost, non‑invasive blood test. In this retrospective study, researchers found that Simoa assays resulted in significantly fewer false positives and false negatives than mammography. Inaccurate mammography can result in unnecessary stress, additional health care costs from follow up diagnostic mammograms, unnecessary biopsies and increased lifetime exposure to radiation. Researchers are also developing ultrasensitive assays for lung and pancreatic cancer biomarkers using Simoa technology, potentially replacing the need for imaging and biopsy. We believe our Simoa technology has the potential to lead to rapid, cost effective, accurate blood‑based health screens, further enabling the liquid biopsy market.

Cancer immunotherapy is a promising new area that is significantly affecting cancer remission rates. One challenge of immunotherapy approaches is that the elicited immune responses are not always predictable and can vary from person to person and protocol to protocol. There exists a significant need to develop biomarker tools to monitor these drugs and their effects. Circulating (serum and plasma) protein biomarkers have the potential to be used in the field of immuno‑oncology to stratify patients, predict response, predict recurrence, reveal mechanism of action and monitor for adverse effects. One technical challenge facing the immuno‑oncology drug development process has been the availability of immunoassays with sufficient sensitivity to measure immunomodulatory biomarkers directly in serum and plasma. We have developed a set of 50 tumor biomarker and immune modulation assays (cytokines and chemokines) that can be used to monitor tumor proliferation and host immune response. In particular key immune regulatory cells

(T‑regs, dendritic cells, macrophages) secrete very low amounts of the protein Interferon gamma (IFN‑gamma) and these levels cannot be reliably measured in serum and plasma using conventional, immunoassay technology, however they can be tracked with our Simoa IFN‑gamma assay. Additionally, we have developed an ultra‑sensitive assay for IL‑6, which is one of the cytokines commonly measured for monitoring cytokine release syndrome as an adverse effect in immunotherapies. Several studies have shown that our ultrasensitive assays can be valuable tools for monitoring immuno‑oncology drugs and protocols.

We also believe residual cancer cell detection post‑surgery or post-treatment may significantly improve outcomes for a variety of cancer types, by helping identify and segment patients at a greater risk of reoccurrence post‑surgery due to residual cancer. For example, we have developed an ultra‑sensitive biomarker assay for Prostate Specific Antigen, or PSA, that is over 1,000‑fold more sensitive than conventional ELISA assays. This assay is the only currently available technology that can detect levels of PSA in blood samples of prostate cancer patients shortly following radical prostatectomy, and we and researchers from Johns Hopkins and NYU conducted a pilot study on the utility of this assay to predict recurrence of prostate cancer after this procedure. In this study, the blood of prostate cancer patients taken three to six months following a radical prostatectomy at least five years earlier was analyzed with Simoa. The majority of samples had PSA levels below the detectable limits of traditional PSA assays. Our Simoa technology, however, was able to detect and quantify PSA levels in all samples. As shown in the following graph, the study demonstrated that the PSA assay using our Simoa technology has the potential to be highly predictive of prostate cancer recurrence over a five‑year period. This has the potential to be a powerful prognostic tool, and allowing adjuvant radiation treatment to be targeted only to the men who actually would benefit.

We estimate that the total addressable market for Simoa in oncology has the potential to reach up to $22.7 billion across research, diagnostic and precision health screening indications. To date, there have been over 150 oncology-related scientific publications using our Simoa technologies.

Inflammation

Inflammation underlies the response of the body to injury in a variety of diseases. Simoa assays can measure inflammatory and anti‑inflammatory molecules in serum and plasma with unprecedented sensitivity. This has the potential to enable new discoveries into the role of inflammation in the biology of health and disease. Our Simoa technology measures low levels of inflammatory proteins, including cytokines and chemokines, that characterize a range of inflammatory diseases, including Crohn’s disease, asthma, rheumatoid arthritis and neuro‑inflammation. We believe the sensitivity of Simoa technology can provide a clearer picture of the underlying state of the immune response and disease progression.

Our Simoa technology also has the potential to be used by companies developing anti‑inflammatory drugs to quantify the effect a drug has on a particular inflammatory cytokine and to monitor therapeutic efficacy. For example, we conducted a study in conjunction with the Mayo Clinic using our Simoa technology on patients with clinically active Crohn’s disease undergoing anti‑TNF‑α therapy with Remicade, Humira or Enbrel. As shown in the graph below, researchers were able to detect and quantify the TNF‑α levels of the patients before and after treatment. These levels were all below the LoD of traditional immunoassays.

We believe that a better understanding of the inflammatory response will be critical to future opportunities for wellness screening and disease response monitoring. Anti‑inflammatory drugs are expensive and can have serious side effects, such as increased risk of infection. By monitoring biomarkers indicative of response, clinicians may be able to adjust dose to reduce side effects or increase efficacy.

Cardiology

Heart disease and related cardiovascular ailments remain the leading cause of death in the United States, contributing to nearly 1 in 4 deaths in the United States, according to the CDC. A significant need remains for early prediction of heart attacks and other cardiac events. Simoa’s highly sensitive digital measurement capabilities have the potential to be used to predict early cardiac disease.

Infectious Disease

The ability to detect infectious disease biomarkers before the onset of an immune response, where a virus is most contagious and multiplying rapidly, is critical for controlling the spread of disease. We believe that our Simoa technology has the potential to have a significant impact in reducing the spread of infectious diseases by making early stage detection more specific and widely available.

Today, early detection of infectious disease is conducted using nucleic acid testing to detect the nucleic acid of the viral or bacterial organism because the levels of infectious disease specific antigens are too low in the early stage of disease to be detected by traditional immunoassay technology. However, the sensitivity of our single molecule detection capabilities enables the detection of extremely low levels of infectious disease specific antigens with sensitivity that can rival the use of nucleic acid testing in this application, without the potential biases inherent in amplification technologies, such as PCR.

For example, we have developed a simple Simoa assay with more than 4,000‑fold greater sensitivity than conventional ELISA assays capable of detecting the HIV‑specific antigen, p24. This Simoa p24 sensitivity matches the sensitivity of more expensive and complex nucleic acid testing methods. The following graph shows a comparison that we conducted in 2011 of the Simoa p24 assay with a commercially available nucleic acid testing method, as well as two

commercially available p24 immunoassay methods for early detection of HIV infection. The Simoa p24 assay detects infection as early as the nucleic acid testing method (11 days from initial blood draw), and a full week before the earliest signs of infection by the conventional p24 immunoassay methods. This early detection of acute HIV infection can be critical for controlling the spread of HIV, as HIV is ten times more infectious in the acute phase.

In addition, we believe the detection of a specific protein is more relevant to the determination of the pathogenic effect than detection of the organism itself because someone may carry a pathogenic organism with no pathogenic effect. Researchers have demonstrated that Simoa technology can detect Clostridium difficile  (C. diff) toxins A and B with sensitivities similar to the PCR detection of the C. diff organism itself. Because the C. diff organism does not always produce toxins, PCR methods that detect the C. diff organism suffer from very high false positive rates, which may result in incorrect diagnoses and the overuse of antibiotics. We believe that using Simoa to detect the toxins rather than the organism has the potential to provide a higher level of sensitivity and specificity, greatly reducing false positives.

We will continue to develop Simoa assays for pathogenic antigens that are competitive in sensitivity to PCR but more specific to the pathogenicity of the offending organism. We believe that these Simoa assays could also be invaluable tools for the development of anti‑infective drugs and treatment monitoring of anti‑viral and anti‑bacterial drugs.

Our Products and Services

Our Quanterix commercial portfolio includes research use only instruments, assay kits and other consumables, and contract research services offered through our Accelerator Laboratory, as follows:

Instruments and Consumables

HD‑X

We commercially launched our HD‑X instrument in the second half of 2019. The HD-X is an upgraded version of the Simoa HD-1, our very first instrument, which was launched in January 2014. The HD-X was designed to deliver significant productivity and operational efficiency improvements, as well as greater user flexibility. The HD‑X uses our Simoa bead‑based technology and is the most sensitive automated multiplex protein detection platform commercially available. Assays for the HD‑X are fully automated (i.e. sample in to result out), and results for up to 66 samples are available in approximately one hour. We believe that this automation provides us an additional significant competitive advantage with pharmaceutical and biotechnology customers. Samples can be input into the instrument via 96‑well microtiter plates or sample tubes where the system can multiplex and process tests in a variety of assay protocol configurations.

Specialized software controls the Simoa instrumentation, analyzes the digital images produced, and provides customers with detailed analysis of their samples, such as the concentration of multiple biological molecules. The HD‑X software automates the processes for running the instrument and analyzing data from the user‑defined protocols. Proprietary image analysis software is embedded in the system, which converts the raw images into signals for each biological molecule being analyzed within a sample. Data reduction software automatically converts those signals to concentrations for the different biological molecules.

Following commercial launch of the HD-X, we initiated a trade-in program for installed HD-1 instruments that has been exceeding expectations. In the second half of 2019, we sold a total of 56 HD-X instruments, consisting of 26 new instruments and 30 based on HD-1 trade-ins. By the end of 2020, we expect that nearly 50% of the HD installed base will be HD-X instruments.

SR‑X

We commercially launched the SR‑X instrument in the fourth quarter of 2017. The SR‑X utilizes the same Simoa bead‑based technology and assay kits as the HD‑X in a compact benchtop form with a lower price point designed to address the needs of researchers who value the ultra‑sensitive detection capabilities enabled by Simoa.

In contrast to the fully automated workflow of the HD‑X, the assay incubation and washing steps for the SR‑X are performed outside of the instruments using conventional liquid handling methods. The offline sample prep provides additional flexibility to enable researchers to apply Simoa detection in an expanded range of applications including direct detection of nucleic acids. The SR‑X system automates the steps loading Simoa beads onto Simoa disks with subsequent imaging, detection and data reduction. Processing time for imaging a 96 well plate is approximately 2.5 hours.

SP‑X

We commercially launched the SP‑X instrument in April 2019. The SP‑X uses the Simoa planar array technology developed initially by Aushon for multiplex chemiluminescent immunoassay measurement, which we refined by leveraging our proprietary sophisticated Simoa image analysis and data analysis algorithms to provide the same Simoa sensitivity found in our Simoa bead‑based platform. The Simoa planar array technology utilizes a 96‑well microtiter plate with up to 10 different assay measurements performed in each well of the plate from as little as 12.5 microliters of sample.

Similar to the SR‑X, the assay prep workflow utilized for the SP‑X involves assay incubation and washing steps performed outside of the instrument using the same conventional liquid handling methods as the SR‑X. The SP‑X instrument automates the imaging, detection and data reduction process. Processing time for imaging a 96 well plate is less than five minutes.

Simoa Assays and Consumables

Recurring revenue is derived through the sale of consumables used to run assays on our instruments, and from our growing menu of Simoa digital biomarker assays. The current menu of approximately 80 analyte‑specific single‑plex and multi‑plex assay kits for our bead‑based instruments includes assays for biomarkers in the areas of neurology, infectious disease, immunology and oncology for both human and mouse samples. The current menu of assay kits for the planar array instrument includes approximately 100 biomarkers ranging from 1‑10 analytes per assay in the areas of immunology and oncology research.

In addition to these assays we have developed, both of the Simoa platforms allow ease and flexibility in assay design, enabling our customers to develop their own proprietary in‑house assays, called homebrew assays, using our homebrew assay kits. These kits include all components required for customers to run tests using their own antibodies. Our consumables portfolio for our bead‑based platform also includes our proprietary Simoa disks that are unique to our bead‑based platform, as well as cuvettes, and disposable tips. Our goal is to continue to add to our assay kits to extend our application base.

We have staffed our assay development and manufacturing teams to do the upfront work of antibody sourcing, assay development and optimization, sample testing and validation, transfer to manufacturing and final documentation. We outsource some of our assay development activities to other antibody and/or assay development providers and expect to continue to do so to achieve our aggressive menu expansion goals.

Nf-L Antibodies and Nf-L ELISA Kits

In August 2019, we completed our acquisition of Uman. Uman supplies neurofilament light (Nf-L) antibodies and ELISA kits for Nf-L detection in CSF. Uman’s Nf-L antibodies are widely recognized by researchers and biopharmaceutical and diagnostics companies world-wide as the premier solution for the detection of Nf-L to advance

the development of therapeutics and diagnostics for neurodegenerative conditions. Through Uman we sell proprietary Nf-L capture and detection antibodies, as well as two Nf-L ELISA kits for CSF, one of which is CE-certified in Europe. 

Services

Through our Accelerator Laboratory, which includes a CLIA‑certified laboratory, we provide customers a contract research option. Researchers, academics and principal investigators can work with our scientists to test specimens with existing Simoa assays, or prototype, develop and optimize new assays. The Accelerator Laboratory supports multiple projects and services, including:

To date, we have completed over 800 projects for approximately 200 customers from all over the world using our Simoa platforms, including over 100 projects for clinical trials. In addition to being an important source of revenue, we have also found the Accelerator Laboratory to be a significant catalyst for placing additional instruments, as a number of customers for whom we have provided contract research services have subsequently purchased an instrument from us.

We also generate revenues through extended‑warranty and service contracts for our installed base of instruments.

Research and Development

We continually seek to improve our platform and technology to enable more sensitive detection and measurement of biological molecules. This evaluation includes examining new assay formats and instrumentation improvements and upgrades to increase the performance of our Simoa assays and instruments. We have implemented a research and development program that aims to increase the sensitivity of our Simoa technology 100‑fold by the end of 2021. We are also focused on expanding our assay menu to extend the scope of applications for our platform and grow our customer base. Our assay menu expansion is driven by a number of factors, including input from key opinion leaders, customer feedback, homebrew projects, Accelerator Laboratory projects, new publications on biomarkers of industry interest, and feedback from our sales and marketing team. We also intend to continue to develop and market new instruments with different and/or improved capabilities in order to further broaden our market reach.

Sales and Marketing

We distribute our Simoa instruments and consumables via direct field sales and support organizations located in North America and Europe and through a combination of our own sales force and third‑party distributors in additional major markets, including Australia, Brazil, China, Czech Republic, India, Israel, Japan, Lebanon, Mexico, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan. In addition, Uman sells Nf-L antibodies and Nf-L ELISA kits directly, and in conjunction with a distributor worldwide (excluding certain Nordic countries). Our domestic and international sales force informs our current and potential customers of current product offerings, new product and new assay introductions,

and technological advances in Simoa systems, workflows, and notable research being performed by our customers or ourselves. As our primary point of contact in the marketplace, our sales force focuses on delivering a consistent marketing message and high level of customer service, while also attempting to help us better understand evolving market and customer needs.

As of March 1, 2020, we had approximately 92 people employed in sales, sales support and marketing, including technical field application scientists and field service personnel. This staff is primarily located in North America and Europe. We intend to significantly expand our sales, support, and marketing efforts in the future by expanding our direct footprint in Europe as well as developing a comprehensive distribution and support network in China where significant new market opportunities exist. Additionally, we believe that there is significant opportunity in other Asia‑Pacific region countries such as South Korea and Australia as well as in South America. We plan to expand into these regions via initial penetration with distributors and then subsequent support with Quanterix‑employed sales and support personnel.

Our sales and marketing efforts are targeted at key opinion leaders, laboratory directors and principal investigators at leading biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies and governmental research institutions.

In addition to our selling activities, we align with key opinion leaders at leading institutions and clinical research laboratories to help increase scientific and commercial awareness of our technologies, demonstrate the benefits relative to existing technologies and accelerate adoption. We also seek to increase awareness of our products through participation at trade shows, academic conferences, online webinars and dedicated scientific events attended by prominent users and prospective customers.

To develop a thought leadership position in the precision health arena, we have been a Platinum Sponsor of the annual Powering Precision Health Summit, or PPHS, since 2016. PPHS is an annual summit founded in 2016 by our President and Chief Executive Officer, Kevin Hrusovsky, that aims to gather many of the world’s top innovators, scientists, physicians, medical professionals, patient advocates, government officials, regulators and investors to debate and collaborate around crucial issues from neurology, oncology and cardiology to inflammation and infectious disease. At PPHS in 2016, there were 22 cutting edge scientific talks covering neurology, cardiology, oncology and inflammation. There were over 200 registered attendees, including senior scientists, patient advocates, investors, and potential partners. At PPHS in 2017, there were 37 scientific talks and over 425 registered attendees. At PPHS Europe in 2018, there were 18 scientific talks and over 150 registered attendees, and at PPHS Europe in 2019, there were over 40 scientific talks and over 250 registered attendees. We believe that sponsoring this event provides Quanterix significant marketing benefits.

Our systems are relatively new to the life science marketplace and require a capital investment by our customers. The sales process typically involves numerous interactions and demonstrations with multiple people within an organization. Some potential customers conduct in‑depth evaluations of the system including running experiments in the Accelerator Laboratory and comparing results from competing systems. In addition, in most countries, sales to academic or governmental institutions require participation in a tender process involving preparation of extensive documentation and a lengthy review process. As a result of these factors and the budget cycles of our customers, our sales cycle, the time from initial contact with a customer to our receipt of a purchase order, can often be six to 12 months, or longer.

Manufacturing and Supply

Our manufacturing strategy has two components: to outsource the Simoa bead‑based instrument development and manufacturing with industry leaders, and to internally develop and manufacture our planar array instrument and all assay kits in our own facilities.

Instruments

The HD‑X instrument is manufactured by STRATEC Biomedical AG, based in Birkenfeld, Germany, and is manufactured and shipped from their Birkenfeld and Beringen, Switzerland facilities. See “—Key Agreements—

Development Agreement and Supply Agreement with STRATEC” for a description of our agreement with STRATEC. The SR‑X is manufactured by Paramit Corporation, based in Morgan Hill, California, and is shipped to our global customers by Paramit. See “—Key Agreements—Paramit Manufacturing Services Agreement” for a description of our agreement with Paramit. Installation of, and training on, our instruments is provided by our employees in the markets where we conduct direct sales, and by distributors in those markets where we operate with distributors.

We believe this manufacturing strategy is efficient and conserves capital. However, in the event it becomes necessary to utilize a different contract manufacturer for the HD‑X or the SR‑X, we would experience additional costs, delays and difficulties in doing so, and our business would be harmed.

The SP‑X instruments are manufactured, tested, shipped and supported by us from our Billerica, Massachusetts facility. All internal components are sourced domestically except one significant component is sourced in Germany. These components are sourced from a limited number of suppliers, including certain single‑source suppliers. Although we believe that alternatives would be available, it would take time to identify and validate replacement components, which could negatively affect our ability to supply instruments on a timely basis. To mitigate this risk, we typically carry significant inventory of critical components.

Consumables

We assemble our assay kits for our bead‑based platform in our Billerica, Massachusetts facility. Reagents for our bead‑based assays include all components required to run an enzyme based immunoassay, such as beads, capture and detector reagents, enzyme reagents and enzyme substrate. These reagents are sourced from a limited number of suppliers, including certain single‑source suppliers. Although we believe that alternatives would be available, it would take time to identify and validate replacement reagents for our assay kits, which could negatively affect our ability to supply assay kits on a timely basis. In an effort to mitigate this risk through inventory control, we have increased the shelf life of the vast majority of our bead‑based assays from six months to 12 months or more.

Simoa disks for our bead‑based platform are supplied through a single source supplier pursuant to a long‑term supply agreement with STRATEC Consumables, a subsidiary of STRATEC Biomedical. This agreement provides for a sufficient notification period to allow for supply continuity and the identification and tech transfer to a new supplier in the event either party wishes to terminate the relationship. Our cuvettes for our bead‑based platform are single sourced through STRATEC Biomedical, and the disposable tips used in our bead‑based platform are commercially available.

We assemble our 96 well sample plate kits for our planar array platform in our Billerica, Massachusetts facility. Reagents for our planar array assays include all components required to run an enzyme‑based chemiluminescent immunoassay, such as capture antibody printed plates and detector reagents, enzyme reagents and enzyme substrate. These reagents are sourced from a limited number of suppliers, including certain single‑source suppliers. Although we believe that alternatives would be available, it would take time to identify and validate replacement reagents for our assay kits, which could negatively affect our ability to supply assay kits on a timely basis. Because our planar array assays have a shelf life of 12 months, we believe we are able to mitigate this risk through inventory control.

Nf-L antibodies and Nf-L ELISA Kits

The storage of Uman’s proprietary Nf-L antibody producing hybridomas as well as the cultivation and purification of the antibodies is outsourced to a contract manufacturer, and bulk material of purified antibodies is delivered to Uman’s site in Umeå, Sweden. Functional testing and verification of concentration are performed at Uman before the material is approved for use in production activities. The antibodies can be aliquoted and sold as single reagents or used for the production of Uman’s Nf-L ELISA kits. The antibody reagents are labeled and released to market after testing. The contract manufacturer of antibodies is audited regularly, and we have entered into a written supply agreement with the contract manufacturer.  The current shelf-life of the antibodies is 18 months.

All components in Uman’s Nf-L ELISA kits are manufactured in-house at Uman from starting materials sourced from suppliers that have been evaluated and approved.  Uman has entered into supply agreements with critical suppliers. All incoming goods are subject to receipt control and any deviations related to quality deficiencies are

registered. The kit components include buffers (sample diluent and wash solution), an ELISA 96-well plate coated with a capture antibody, detector antibody, streptavidine conjugate, substrate (TMB) and stop reagent. The kit components are labeled (either “RUO” or “CE”) and assembled. The final ELISA kit product is subject to quality control which include testing of human CSF quality control samples to assure a high batch consistency. After testing and batch record review, the material is released to market. The current shelf-life of the kits is 18 months.

Key Agreements

Development Agreement and Supply Agreement with STRATEC

In August 2011, we entered into a Strategic Development Services and Equity Participation Agreement, or the Development Agreement, with STRATEC Biomedical Systems AG, pursuant to which STRATEC undertook the development of the Simoa HD instrument. Under the Development Agreement, we were required to pay a fee and issue to STRATEC warrants to purchase our equity securities, all of which have been exercised as of December 31, 2017. These fees and warrants were subject to a milestone based payment schedule. The Development Agreement was amended in November 2016. The Amendment reduced our obligation to satisfy a minimum purchase commitment under the Supply and Manufacturing Agreement described below. Additionally, the parties agreed on additional development services for an additional fee, which is payable when the additional development is completed. This fee includes the final milestone payment that was associated with the final milestone due under the terms of the Development Agreement. The services were completed in and the final milestone payment was paid in the fourth quarter of 2019.

The Development Agreement may be terminated on the insolvency of a party, for an uncured material breach, or, by us, on a change of control of our company (subject to certain obligations to compensate STRATEC on such termination) or if we and STRATEC are unable to agree on pricing of the instrument, within certain parameters.

In September 2011, we also entered into a Supply and Manufacturing Agreement with STRATEC, or the Supply Agreement, pursuant to which STRATEC agreed to supply HD instruments to us, and we agreed to procure those instruments exclusively from STRATEC, subject to STRATEC’s ability to supply the instruments. We are responsible for obtaining any regulatory approval necessary to sell the instruments. We agreed to purchase a certain number of instruments in the seven years following the acceptance of the first validation instrument. The Supply Agreement was amended in November 2016 to reduce the number of HD instruments we are committed to procure from STRATEC. The instrument price stipulated in the Supply Agreement was established based on certain specified assumptions and is subject to certain adjustments.

The Supply Agreement is terminable by either party on 12 months’ notice to the other party, provided that neither party may terminate the Supply Agreement prior to the later of the seven year anniversary of the acceptance of the first prototype instrument and the purchase of the minimum number of instruments which we committed to procure. The Supply Agreement may also be terminated on the insolvency of a party or the uncured material breach of a party, or, by us, on a change of control of our company (subject to certain obligations to compensate STRATEC on such termination). On termination by us for STRATEC’s insolvency or uncured material breach or termination by STRATEC for convenience, we are granted a nonexclusive royalty free license of STRATEC intellectual property to manufacture the instruments. In certain of these circumstances, we could be obligated to issue warrants to purchase common stock.

Paramit Manufacturing Services Agreement

In November 2016, we entered into a Manufacturing Services Agreement, or the Paramit Agreement, with Paramit Corporation, or Paramit. Under the terms of the Paramit Agreement, we engaged Paramit to produce and test our SR‑X instrument on an as‑ordered basis. We also engaged Paramit to supply spare parts. Paramit has no obligation to manufacture our instrument without a purchase order and no obligation to maintain inventory in excess of any open purchase orders or materials in excess of the amount Paramit reasonably determines will be consumed within 90 days or within the lead time of manufacturing our instrument, whichever is greater. We have an obligation to purchase any material or instruments deemed in excess pursuant to the Paramit Agreement. The price is determined according to a mutually agreed‑upon pricing formula. The parties agreed to review the pricing methodology yearly or upon a material change in cost.

The Paramit Agreement has an initial three‑year term with automatic one year extensions. It is terminable by either party for convenience with written notice to the other party given at least nine months prior to the end of the then‑current term. The agreement may also be terminated by us with three months’ notice to Paramit upon the occurrence of (i) a failure of Paramit to obtain any necessary governmental licenses, registrations or approvals required to manufacture our instrument or (ii) an assignment by Paramit of its rights or obligations under the agreement without our consent. The Paramit Agreement is terminable by Paramit with 30 days’ notice to us in the event of a material breach after written notice and a 60‑day opportunity to cure the breach.

Competition

We compete with both established and development‑stage life science companies that design, manufacture and market instruments for protein detection, nucleic acid detection and additional applications. For example, companies such as Bio‑Techne, Luminex, MesoScale Diagnostics, Gyros, Nanostring, and others, have products for protein detection that compete in certain segments of the market in which we sell our products. Our Accelerator Laboratory competes with other research laboratories such as Covance, Q2 Solutions, Myriad RBM, Monogram Biosciences, PPD Laboratories, and others, some of whom are customers of ours. In addition, as we or our partners expand the applications for our products to include diagnostics and precision health screening, we expect to compete with companies such as Siemens, Abbott, Roche, Ortho Clinical Diagnostics and Thermo Fisher Scientific. Furthermore, our technology and products are showing promise for non‑invasive early disease detection, and in the future, we could experience competition from companies that develop and market imaging and other molecular detection technologies. In addition, a number of other companies and academic groups are in the process of developing novel technologies for the life science research, diagnostic and precision health screening markets. Many of the companies with which we compete or will compete have substantially greater resources than we have.

The life science instrumentation and lab services industries are highly competitive and expected to grow more competitive with the increasing knowledge gained from ongoing research and development. We believe the principal competitive factors in our target markets include:

We believe that we are well positioned with respect to these competitive factors and expect to enhance our position through ongoing global expansion, innovative new product introductions and ongoing collaborations and partnerships with key opinion leaders.

Intellectual Property 

Our core Simoa bead‑based technology, directed to general methods and devices for single molecule detection, originated at Tufts University, in the laboratory of Professor David Walt, who is the founder of Quanterix and a current member of our Board of Directors. Prof. Walt and his students pioneered the single molecule array technology, including technologies that enabled the detection of single enzyme labels in arrays of microwells, thereby facilitating the ultra‑sensitive detection of proteins, nucleic acids, and cells. We have exclusively licensed from Tufts the relevant patent

filings related to these technologies. (See “—License Agreement with Tufts University” below). In addition to licensed patents, we have developed our own portfolio of issued patents and patent applications directed to commercial products and technologies for potential development. We believe our proprietary platforms are a core strength of our business and our strategy includes the continued development of our patent portfolio.

Our patent strategy is multilayered, providing coverage of aspects of the core technology as well as specific uses and applications, some of which are reflected in our current products and some of which are not. The first layer is based on protecting the fundamental methods for detecting single molecules independent of the specific analyte to be detected. The second layer covers embodiments of the core technology directed to the detection of specific analytes. The third layer protects novel instrumentation, consumables, and manufacturing processes used in applying the invention to certain commercial products or future product opportunities. The fourth layer is concerned with specific uses of the core technology (e.g., biomarkers and diagnostics). Our patent strategy is both offensive and defensive in nature; seeking to protect not only technology we currently practice but also alternative, related embodiments.

Simoa and Related Technology

As of March 1, 2020, we had exclusively licensed 18 patents and one patent application from Tufts. These patents and patent applications include nine issued U.S. patents and one pending U.S patent application, three granted European patents, three granted Japanese patents, two granted Canadian patents and one granted Australian patent.

A first patent family licensed from Tufts is directed to methods for detecting single molecules. This patent family includes six granted U.S. patents, one pending U.S. patent application, three granted European patents (each nationalized and active in seven or eight countries), three granted Japanese patents, two granted Canadian patents and one granted Australian patent. The standard patent expiration date for U.S. patents in this family is February 16, 2027, and for the non‑U.S. patents is February 20, 2027 or August 30, 2027.

A second patent family licensed from Tufts is directed to methods for detecting the presence of target analytes in multiple samples. This patent family includes one granted U.S. patent. The standard patent expiration date for the U.S. patent in this family is August 22, 2025.

A third patent family licensed from Tufts is directed to methods for analyzing analytes using a sensor system with cross‑reactive elements. This patent family includes one granted U.S. patent. The standard patent expiration date for the U.S. patent in this family is March 14, 2021.

A fourth patent family licensed from Tufts is directed to electro‑optical systems including an array and a plurality of electrodes. This patent family includes one granted U.S. patent. The standard patent expiration date for the U.S. patent in this family is February 14, 2023.

As of March 1, 2020, we owned 21 issued U.S. patents and 14 pending U.S. patent applications, four pending Patent Cooperation Treaty applications, nine granted European patents and six pending European patent applications, nine granted Japanese patents, four granted Chinese patents and two pending Chinese patent applications, five granted Canadian patents and two pending Canadian patent applications, and four registered Hong Kong patent applications.

A first patent family owned by us is directed to methods for determining a measure of the concentration of analyte molecules or particles in a fluid sample, and in particular to methods for analyte capture on beads, including multiplexing. This patent family includes three granted U.S. patents and two pending U.S. patent applications, two granted European patent (nationalized and active in eight countries) and one pending European application, two granted Japanese patents, two granted Chinese patents, and one granted Canadian patent. The standard patent expiration date for the U.S. patents in this family is March 24, 2030, and for the non‑U.S. patents is March 1, 2031.

A second patent family owned by us is directed to methods and systems for determining a measure of the concentration of analyte molecules or particles in a fluid sample, and in particular to methods or systems for determining concentration based on either counting or measured intensity (extending the dynamic range). This patent family includes four granted U.S. patents and one pending U.S. patent application, one granted European patent (nationalized and active

in seven countries), two granted Japanese patents, one granted Chinese patent, and one granted Canadian patent. The standard patent expiration date for the U.S. patents in this family is March 24, 2030, and for the non‑U.S. patents is March 1, 2031.

A third patent family owned by us is directed to methods for determining a measure of the concentration of analyte molecules or particles in a fluid sample, and in particular to methods for analyte capture on beads with or without dissociation. This patent family includes two granted U.S. patents. The standard patent expiration date for the U.S. patents in this family is September 28, 2028.

A fourth patent family owned by us is directed to methods for determining a measure of the concentration of analyte molecules or particles in a fluid sample, and in particular to methods for determining concentration using multiple binding ligands for the same analyte molecule. This patent family includes one granted U.S. patent. The standard patent expiration date for the U.S. patent in this family is March 24, 2030.

A fifth patent family owned by us is directed to instruments and consumables. This patent family includes one granted U.S. patent and one pending U.S. patent application, two granted Japanese patents, one granted Chinese patent and two pending Chinese patent applications, three registered Hong Kong patent applications and one pending patent application in each of Europe, and Canada. The standard patent expiration date for any U.S. patents that may issue from this family is February 25, 2031, and for any non‑U.S. patents is January 27, 2032.

A sixth patent family owned by us is directed to methods and materials for covalently associating a molecular species with a surface. This patent family includes one pending U.S. patent application. The standard patent expiration date for any U.S. patents that may issue from this family is May 9, 2034.

A seventh patent family owned by us is directed to methods for improving the accuracy of capture based assays. This patent family includes one pending U.S. patent application. The standard patent expiration date for any U.S. patents that may issue from this family is January 13, 2036.

An eighth patent family owned by us is directed to methods and systems for reducing and/or preventing signal decay. This patent family includes one pending Patent Cooperation Treaty patent application. If we pursue protection by filing any national stage applications, the standard patent expiration date for any patents that may issue from this family will be in 2038.

We own or co‑own seven patent families directed to the measurement of particular types of analytes, including prostate specific antigen (PSA), β‑amyloid peptide, tau protein, toxin B of C. difficile, and DNA or RNA molecules. These families include one granted U.S. patent directed to methods for determining treatment protocols and/or a prognosis of a patient’s recovery from a brain injury based on measurements of tau protein in blood.  Any patents that may issue from these patent applications would have standard expiration dates between 2032 and 2039.

With the acquisition of Aushon in January 2017, we acquired their patent portfolio for our planar array technology. As of March 1, 2020, the acquired patent portfolio includes at least nine issued U.S. patents and two pending U.S. patent applications, one granted Australian patent, three granted Canadian patents and one pending Canadian patent application, six granted European patents (each nationalized and active in between eight and 14 countries) and three pending European patent applications, three granted Japanese patents, and one registered Hong Kong patent application.

We have licensed additional patents and patent applications from third parties.

In addition to pursuing patents on our technology, we have taken steps to protect our intellectual property and proprietary technology by entering into confidentiality agreements and intellectual property assignment agreements with our employees, consultants, corporate partners and, when needed, our advisors.

License Agreement with Tufts University

In June 2007, as amended in April 2013 and August 2017, we entered into a license agreement with Tufts University, or Tufts, pursuant to which we obtained an exclusive, worldwide license to research, develop, commercialize, use, make, or have made, import or have imported, distribute or have distributed, offer or have offered, and sell or have sold products and services covered by patent rights to the Simoa bead‑based technology owned by Tufts, as well as a non‑exclusive license to related know‑how. The rights licensed to us are for all fields of use and are sublicensable for a fee.

Under the terms of the agreement, as amended, we paid a one‑time, non‑refundable upfront fee and issued Tufts shares of our common stock. In addition, in connection with the April 2013 amendment, we issued Tufts shares of our Series C‑1 Preferred Stock, which converted into shares of our common stock in connection with our initial public offering. We are required to pay Tufts low single‑digit royalties on all net sales of products and services that use the licensed technology, as well as a portion of any sublicensing revenues. We are also obligated to pay annual maintenance fees, which are fully creditable against any royalty payments made by us, and a milestone payment upon any sublicense by us. We were also required to reimburse Tufts for all patent prosecution cost incurred prior to the agreement and for all future patent prosecution costs.

The term of the license agreement will continue on a country‑by‑country basis so long as there is a valid claim of a licensed patent in such country. Tufts may terminate the agreement or convert to a non‑exclusive license in the event (1) we fail to pay any undisputed amount when required and fail to cure such non‑payment within 60 days after receipt of notice from Tufts, (2) we are in breach of any material provision of the agreement and fail to remedy such breach within 60 days after receipt of notice from Tufts, (3) we do not demonstrate diligent efforts to develop a product incorporating the licensed technology, (4) we are found on five separate audits to have underpaid pursuant to the terms of the agreement, (5) we cease to carry on the business related to the licensed technology either directly or indirectly, or (6) we are adjudged insolvent, make an assignment for the benefit of creditors or have a petition in bankruptcy filed for or against us that is not removed within 60 days. We may terminate the agreement at any time upon at least 60 days’ written notice. Upon termination of the agreement, all rights revert to Tufts.

Government Regulation

Our products are currently intended for research use only, or RUO, applications, although our customers may use our products to develop their own products that are subject to regulation by the FDA. Although most products intended for RUO are not currently subject to clearance or approval by the FDA, RUO products fall under the FDA’s jurisdiction if they are used for clinical rather than research purposes. Consequently, our products are labeled “For Research Use Only.”

On November 25, 2013, the FDA issued Final Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff on “Distribution of In Vitro Diagnostic Products Labeled for Research Use Only or Investigational Use Only,” or the RUO/IUO Guidance. The purpose of an FDA guidance document is to provide the FDA’s current thinking on when IVD products are properly labeled for RUO or for IUO, but as with all FDA guidance documents, this guidance does not establish legally enforceable responsibilities and should be viewed as recommendations unless specific regulatory or statutory requirements are cited. The RUO/IUO Guidance explains that the FDA will review the totality of the circumstances when evaluating whether equipment and testing components are properly labeled as RUO. Merely including a labeling statement that a product is intended for research use only will not necessarily exempt the device from the FDA’s 510(k) clearance, premarket approval, or other requirements, if the circumstances surrounding the distribution of the product indicate that the manufacturer intends its product to be used for clinical diagnostic use. These circumstances may include written or verbal marketing claims or links to articles regarding a product’s performance in clinical applications, a manufacturer’s provision of technical support for clinical validation or clinical applications, or solicitation of business from clinical laboratories, all of which could be considered evidence of intended uses that conflict with RUO labeling. Although the RUO/IUO Guidance is a statement of the FDA’s thinking with respect to certain RUOs and IUOs in 2013 and was not intended as a compliance requirement, we believe that our labeling and promotion of our products, including the custom assay RUO products developed by the Accelerator Laboratory, is consistent with the RUO/IUO Guidance because we have not promoted our products for clinical use in humans. We also

are not promoting or using our products in the development or promotion of laboratory developed test, or LDT, services. When we develop products for clinical use, we will do so in accordance with FDA requirements applicable to those products at that time. Separately, when we become aware that accredited or licensed clinical laboratories may be using our RUO products either for research or clinical uses, such as part of LDT services, in accordance with the regulations that apply to clinical laboratories, we will continue to review the labeling and promotion of our products for consistency with the RUO/IUO Guidance.

When our products are marketed for clinical diagnostic use, our products will be regulated by the FDA as medical devices. The FDA defines a medical device in part as an instrument, apparatus, implement, machine, contrivance, implant, in vitro reagent, or other similar or related article which is intended for the diagnosis of disease or other conditions or in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man. This means that the FDA will regulate the development, testing, manufacturing, marketing, post‑market surveillance, distribution, advertising and labeling of our clinical products and we will be required to register as a medical device manufacturer and list our marketed products.

The FDA classifies medical devices into one of three classes on the basis of the intended use of the device, the risk associated with the use of the device for that indication, as determined by the FDA, and on the controls deemed by the FDA to be necessary to reasonably ensure their safety and effectiveness. Class I devices, which have the lowest level of risk associated with them, are subject to general controls. Class II devices are subject to general controls and special controls, including performance standards. Class III devices, which have the highest level of risk associated with them, are subject to general controls and premarket approval. Most Class I devices and some Class II devices are exempt from a requirement that the manufacturer submit a premarket notification, or 510(k), and receive clearance from the FDA which is otherwise a premarketing requirement for a Class II device. Class III devices may not be commercialized until a premarket approval application, or PMA, is submitted to and approved by the FDA.

510(k) Clearance Pathway

To obtain 510(k) clearance, a sponsor must submit to the FDA a premarket notification demonstrating that the device is substantially equivalent, or SE, to a device legally marketed in the U.S. for which a PMA was not required. The FDA is supposed to make a SE determination within 90 days of FDA’s receipt of the 510(k), but it often takes longer if the FDA requests additional information. Most 510(k)s do not require supporting data from clinical trials, but the FDA may request such data. After a device receives 510(k) clearance, any modification that could significantly affect its safety or effectiveness, or that would constitute a major change in its intended use, will require a new clearance or possibly a pre‑market approval.

De Novo Classification

Medical device types that the FDA has not previously classified as Class I, II or III are automatically classified into Class III regardless of the level of risk they pose. The Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 established a new route to market for low to moderate risk medical devices that are automatically placed into Class III due to the absence of a predicate device, called the “Request for Evaluation of Automatic Class III Designation,” or the de novo classification procedure.

This procedure allows a manufacturer whose novel device is automatically classified into Class III to request down‑classification of its medical device into Class I or Class II on the basis that the device presents low or moderate risk, rather than requiring the submission and approval of a PMA application. Prior to the enactment of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act of 2012, or FDASIA, a medical device could only be eligible for de novo classification if the manufacturer first submitted a 510(k) premarket notification and received a determination from the FDA that the device was not substantially equivalent. FDASIA streamlined the de novo classification pathway by permitting manufacturers to request de novo classification directly without first submitting a 510(k) premarket notification to the FDA and receiving a not substantially equivalent determination. Under FDASIA, the FDA is required to classify the device within 120 days following receipt of the de novo application. If the manufacturer seeks reclassification into Class II, the manufacturer must include a draft proposal for special controls that are necessary to provide a reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the medical device. In addition, the FDA may reject the

reclassification petition if it identifies a legally marketed predicate device that would be appropriate for a 510(k) or determines that the device is not low to moderate risk or that general controls would be inadequate to control the risks and special controls cannot be developed.

Premarket Approval Pathway

A PMA must be submitted if a new device cannot be cleared through the 510(k) process. The PMA process is generally more complex, costly and time consuming than the 510(k) process. A PMA must be supported by extensive data including, but not limited to, technical, preclinical, clinical trials, manufacturing and labeling to demonstrate to the FDA’s satisfaction the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use. After a PMA is sufficiently complete, the FDA will accept the application for filing and begin an in‑depth review of the submitted information. By statute, the FDA has 180 days to review the accepted application, although review of the application generally can take between one and three years. During this review period, the FDA may request additional information or clarification of information already provided. Also, during the review period, an advisory panel of experts from outside the FDA may be convened to review and evaluate the application and provide recommendations to the FDA as to the approvability of the device. Although the FDA is not bound by the advisory panel decision, the panel’s recommendations are important to the FDA’s overall decision making process. In addition, the FDA will conduct a preapproval inspection of the manufacturing facility to ensure compliance with its quality system regulations, or QSRs. New premarket approval applications or premarket approval application supplements are also required for product modifications that affect the safety and efficacy of the device.

Clinical Trials

Clinical trials are usually required to support a PMA and are sometimes required for a 510(k). In the U.S., if the device is determined to present a “significant risk,” the manufacturer may not begin a clinical trial until it submits an investigational device exemption application, or IDE, and obtains approval of the IDE from the FDA. These clinical trials are also subject to the review, approval and oversight of an institutional review board, or IRB, at each clinical trial site. The clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with the FDA’s IDE regulations and good clinical practices. A clinical trial may be suspended by FDA, the sponsor or an IRB at its institution at any time for various reasons, including a belief that the risks to the study participants outweigh the benefits of participation in the trial. Even if a clinical trial is completed, the results may not demonstrate the safety and efficacy of a device to the satisfaction of the FDA, or may be equivocal or otherwise not be sufficient to obtain approval of a device.

FDA Enforcement

After a medical device is placed on the market, numerous regulatory requirements apply. These include among other things:

To ensure compliance with regulatory requirements, medical device manufacturers are subject to market surveillance and periodic, pre‑scheduled and unannounced inspections by the FDA. Failure to comply with applicable regulatory requirements can result in enforcement action by the FDA, which may include sanctions, including but not limited to, warning letters; fines, injunctions, consent decrees and civil penalties; recall or seizure of the device; operating restrictions, partial suspension or total shutdown of production; refusal to grant 510(k) clearance or PMA approvals of new devices; withdrawal of 510(k) clearance or PMA approvals; and civil or criminal prosecution.

Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988, Regulation of LDTs and State Regulation

Since our acquisition of Aushon in January 2018, we own and operate a CLIA certified laboratory. The Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA) are federal regulatory standards that apply to all clinical laboratory testing performed on humans in the United States (with the exception of clinical trials and basic research). A clinical laboratory is defined by CLIA as any facility that performs laboratory testing on specimens obtained from humans for the purpose of providing information for health assessment and for the diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of disease. CLIA requires such laboratories to be certified by the federal government and mandates compliance with various operational, personnel, facilities administration, quality and proficiency testing requirements intended to ensure that testing services are accurate, reliable and timely. CLIA certification also is a prerequisite to be eligible to bill state and federal health care programs, as well as many private insurers, for laboratory testing services.

In addition, CLIA requires certified laboratories to enroll in an approved proficiency testing program if performing testing in any category for which proficiency testing is required. If a laboratory fails to achieve a passing score on a proficiency test, then it loses its right to perform testing.

As a condition of CLIA certification, laboratories are subject to survey and inspection every other year, in addition to being subject to additional random inspections. The biennial survey is conducted by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”), a CMS agent (typically a state agency), or, a CMS‑approved accreditation organization.

High complexity, CLIA‑certified laboratories, such as ours, frequently develop testing procedures to provide diagnostic results to customers. These tests have been traditionally offered by nearly all complex laboratories for the last few decades as Laboratory Developed Tests, or LDTs, which are subject to CMS oversight through its enforcement of CLIA. The FDA also has claimed that it has regulatory authority over LDTs, but has not exercised enforcement with respect to most LDTs offered by high complexity laboratories, and not sought to require these laboratories to comply with FDA regulations regarding medical devices. During 2010, the FDA publicly announced that it had decided to exercise regulatory authority over these LDTs, and that it planned to issue guidance to the industry regarding its regulatory approach. At that time, the FDA indicated that it would use a risk‑based approach to regulation and would direct more resources to tests with wider distribution and with the highest risk of injury, but that it would be sensitive to the need to not adversely impact patient care or innovation. In September 2014, the FDA announced its framework and timetable for implementing this guidance. On November 18, 2016, the FDA announced it would not release final guidance at that time and instead would continue to work with stakeholders, the new administration and Congress to determine the right approach. On January 3, 2017, the FDA released a discussion paper outlining a possible risk‑based approach for FDA and CMS oversight of LDTs. Later in 2017, the FDA indicated that Congress should enact legislation to address improved oversight of diagnostics, including LTDs, rather than the FDA addressing the issue through administrative proposals. We cannot predict the ultimate timing or form of any such guidance or regulation or their potential impact. If adopted, such a regulatory approach by the FDA may lead to an increased regulatory burden, including additional costs and delays in introducing new tests. While the ultimate impact of the FDA’s approach is unknown, it may be extensive and may result in significant change.

In addition, some states require that any laboratory be licensed by the appropriate state agency in the state in which it operates. Laboratories must also hold state licenses or permits, as applicable, from various states including, but not limited to, California, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Maryland, to the extent that they accept specimens from one or more of these states, each of which requires out‑of‑state laboratories to obtain licensure.

If a laboratory is out of compliance with state laws or regulations governing licensed laboratories or with CLIA, it may be subject to enforcement actions that may include suspension, limitation or revocation of the license or CLIA certificate, assessment of financial penalties or fines, or imprisonment. Loss of a laboratory’s CLIA certificate or state license may also result in the inability to receive payments from state and federal health care programs as well as private third party payors.

If, in the future, we perform clinical diagnostic testing, we would also become subject to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, as well as additional federal and state laws that impose a variety of fraud and abuse prohibitions on healthcare providers, including clinical laboratories.

Europe/Rest of World Government Regulation

Whether or not we obtain FDA approval for a product, we must obtain the requisite approvals from regulatory authorities in non‑U.S. countries prior to the commencement of clinical trials or marketing of our product for clinical diagnostic use in those countries. The regulations in other jurisdictions vary from those in the U.S. and may be easier or more difficult to satisfy and are subject to change. For example, the European Union, or EU, recently published new regulations that will result in greater regulation of medical devices and IVDs. This new IVD regulation (the “new IVD Regulation”) is significantly different from the European directive for In vitro diagnostic products (the “IVD Directive”) that it replaces in that it will ensure that the new requirements apply uniformly and on the same schedule across the member states, include a risk‑based classification system and increase the requirements for conformity assessment.

The CE registration for Uman’s Nf-L ELISA assay kit was approved in March 2014 under the IVD Directive.  Under the IVD Directive the assay is classified as a general IVD product, class I and required self-certification with no involvement of a notified body/authority.  Under the new IVD Regulation, which must be fully implemented by May 2022, the requirements increase and involve assessment by a notified body. Uman’s Nf-L ELISA assay kit is classified as class B product. The new requirements include an ISO 13485 certification of the quality system (which Uman received July 2018) and increased technical evidence and follow-up of performance of the specific product (e.g. clinical evidence and post-market activities). The work to meet the new technical requirements is on-going. An internal GAP-analysis is to be performed and work to eliminate the GAPs performed. When completed, the available technical documentation will be assessed by an external consultant. When all requirements are met, a notified body will be contracted and the certification initiated

Other Governmental Regulation

We are subject to laws and regulations related to the protection of the environment, the health and safety of employees and the handling, transportation and disposal of medical specimens, infectious and hazardous waste and radioactive materials. For example, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, or OSHA, has established extensive requirements relating specifically to workplace safety for healthcare employers in the U.S. This includes requirements to develop and implement multi‑faceted programs to protect workers from exposure to blood‑borne pathogens, including preventing or minimizing any exposure through needle stick injuries. For purposes of transportation, some biological materials and laboratory supplies are classified as hazardous materials and are subject to regulation by one or more of the following agencies: the U.S. Department of Transportation, the U.S. Public Health Service, the United States Postal Service and the International Air Transport Association. We generally use third‑party vendors to dispose of regulated medical waste, hazardous waste and radioactive materials that we may use during our research.

Employees

As of December 31, 2019, we had 248 employees, of which 92 work in sales, sales support, field service, and marketing, 45 work in engineering and research and development, 78 work in manufacturing and operations and 33 work in general and administrative. As of December 31, 2019, of our 248 employees, 219 were located in the United States and 29 were employed outside the United States. None of our employees are represented by a labor union or are subject to a collective bargaining agreement.

Corporate Information

We were incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware in April 2007 under the name “Digital Genomics, Inc.” In August 2007, we changed our name to “Quanterix Corporation.” Our principal executive offices are located at 900 Middlesex Turnpike, Billerica, Massachusetts 01821, and our telephone number is (617) 301‑9400.

Information Available on the Internet

Our Internet website address is www.quanterix.com. The information contained on, or that can be accessed through, our website is not a part of or incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on Form 10‑K. We have included our website address in this Annual Report on Form 10‑K solely as an inactive textual reference. We make available free of charge through our website our Annual Report on Form 10‑K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10‑Q, Current Reports on Form 8‑K and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Sections 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act. We make these reports available through the “Investors—Financial Information—SEC Filings” section of our website as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such reports with, or furnish such reports to, the SEC. We also make available, free of charge on our website, the reports filed with the SEC by our executive officers, directors and 10% stockholders pursuant to Section 16 under the Exchange Act as soon as reasonably practicable after copies of those filings are provided to us by those persons. You can also review our electronically filed reports and other information that we file with the SEC on the SEC’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

Item 1A. RISK FACTORS

The following risk factors and other information included in this Annual Report on Form 10‑K should be carefully considered. The risks and uncertainties described below are not the only ones we face. Additional risks and uncertainties not presently known to us or that we presently deem less significant may also impair our business operations. Please see page ii of this Annual Report on Form 10‑K for a discussion of some of the forward‑looking statements that are qualified by these risk factors. If any of the following risks occur, our business, financial condition, results of operations and future growth prospects could be materially and adversely affected.

Risks Related to Our Financial Condition and Need for Additional Capital

We have incurred losses since we were formed and expect to incur losses in the future. We cannot be certain that we will achieve or sustain profitability.

We incurred net losses of $40.8 million, $31.5 million and $27.0 million for the years ended December 31, 2019, 2018 and 2017, respectively. As of December 31, 2019, we had an accumulated deficit of $216.2 million. We cannot predict if we will achieve sustained profitability in the near future or at all. We expect that our losses will continue at least through the next 24 months as we plan to invest significant additional funds toward expansion of our commercial organization and the development of our technology. In addition, as a public company, we incur significant legal, accounting, and other expenses that we did not incur as a private company. These increased expenses make it harder for us to achieve and sustain future profitability. We may incur significant losses in the future for a number of reasons, many of which are beyond our control, including the other risks described in this Annual Report on Form 10‑K, the market acceptance of our products, future product development and our market penetration and margins.

Our quarterly and annual operating results and cash flows have fluctuated in the past and might continue to fluctuate, causing the value of our common stock to decline substantially.

Numerous factors, many of which are outside our control, may cause or contribute to significant fluctuations in our quarterly and annual operating results. These fluctuations may make financial planning and forecasting difficult. In addition, these fluctuations may result in unanticipated decreases in our available cash, which could negatively affect our business and prospects. In addition, one or more of such factors may cause our revenue or operating expenses in one period to be disproportionately higher or lower relative to the others. As a result, comparing our operating results on a period‑to‑period basis might not be meaningful. You should not rely on our past results as indicative of our future performance. Moreover, our stock price might be based on expectations of future performance that are unrealistic or that we might not meet and, if our revenue or operating results fall below the expectations of investors or securities analysts, the price of our common stock could decline substantially.

Our operating results have varied in the past. In addition to other risk factors listed in this section, some of the important factors that may cause fluctuations in our quarterly and annual operating results include:

In addition, a significant portion of our operating expenses is relatively fixed in nature, and planned expenditures are based in part on expectations regarding future revenue. Accordingly, unexpected revenue shortfalls might decrease our gross margins and could cause significant changes in our operating results from quarter to quarter. If this occurs, the trading price of our common stock could fall substantially.

We are an early, commercial‑stage company and have a limited commercial history, which may make it difficult to evaluate our current business and predict our future performance.

We are an early, commercial‑stage company and have a limited commercial history. Our revenues are derived from sales of our instruments, consumables and services, which are all based on our Simoa technology platforms. We commercially launched our first Simoa instrument and consumables in 2014. Our limited commercial history may make it difficult to evaluate our current business and make predictions about our future success or viability subject to significant uncertainty. We will continue to encounter risks and difficulties frequently experienced by early, commercial‑stage companies, including scaling up our infrastructure and headcount. If we do not address these risks successfully, our business will suffer.

If we are unable to maintain adequate revenue growth or do not successfully manage such growth, our business and growth prospects will be harmed.

We have experienced significant revenue growth in a short period of time. We may not achieve similar growth rates in future periods. Investors should not rely on our operating results for any prior periods as an indication of our future operating performance. To effectively manage our anticipated future growth, we must continue to maintain and enhance our financial, accounting, manufacturing, customer support and sales administration systems, processes and controls. Failure to effectively manage our anticipated growth could lead us to over‑invest or under‑invest in development, operational, and administrative infrastructure; result in weaknesses in our infrastructure, systems, or

controls; give rise to operational mistakes, losses, loss of customers, productivity or business opportunities; and result in loss of employees and reduced productivity of remaining employees.

Our continued growth could require significant capital expenditures and might divert financial resources from other projects such as the development of new products and services. As additional products are commercialized, we may need to incorporate new equipment, implement new technology systems, or hire new personnel with different qualifications. Failure to manage this growth or transition could result in turnaround time delays, higher product costs, declining product quality, deteriorating customer service, and slower responses to competitive challenges. A failure in any one of these areas could make it difficult for us to meet market expectations for our products, and could damage our reputation and the prospects for our business.

If our management is unable to effectively manage our anticipated growth, our expenses may increase more than expected, our revenue could decline or grow more slowly than expected and we may be unable to implement our business strategy. In addition, the quality of our products and services may suffer, which could negatively affect our reputation and harm our ability to retain and attract customers.

Our future capital needs are uncertain and we may need to raise additional funds in the future.

We believe that our existing cash and cash equivalents as of December 31, 2019, together with our cash generated from commercial sales, will enable us to fund our operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements for at least the next 24 months. However, we may need to raise substantial additional capital to:

Our future funding requirements will depend on many factors, including:

We cannot assure you that we will be able to obtain additional funds on acceptable terms, or at all. If we raise additional funds by issuing equity or equity‑linked securities, our stockholders may experience dilution. Future debt financing, if available, may involve covenants restricting our operations or our ability to incur additional debt. Any debt or equity financing may contain terms that are not favorable to us or our stockholders. If we raise additional funds through collaboration and licensing arrangements with third parties, it may be necessary to relinquish some rights to our technologies or our products, or grant licenses on terms that are not favorable to us. If we do not have, or are not able to obtain, sufficient funds, we may have to delay development or commercialization of our products. We also may have to reduce marketing, customer support or other resources devoted to our products or cease operations. Any of these factors could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, operating results and business.

Our ability to use net operating losses to offset future income may be subject to certain limitations.

As of December 31, 2019, we had federal net operating loss carry forwards, or NOLs, to offset future taxable income of approximately $174.7 million, which begin to expire in 2020, if not utilized. A lack of future taxable income would adversely affect our ability to utilize these NOLs. In addition, under Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or the Code, a corporation that undergoes an “ownership change” is subject to limitations on its ability to utilize its NOLs to offset future taxable income. We have already experienced ownership changes as defined under Section 382 of the Code. Depending on the timing of any future utilization of our NOLs, we may be limited as to the amount that can be utilized each year as a result of such previous ownership changes. In addition, future changes in our stock ownership, including changes that may be outside of our control, could result in additional ownership changes under Section 382 of the Code. Our NOLs may also be impaired under similar provisions of state law. We have recorded a full valuation allowance related to our NOLs and other deferred tax assets due to the uncertainty of the ultimate realization of the future benefits of those assets.

U.S. taxation of international business activities or the adoption of tax reform policies could materially impact our future financial position and results of operations.

Limitations on the ability of taxpayers to claim and utilize foreign tax credits and the deferral of certain tax deductions until earnings outside of the United States are repatriated to the United States, as well as changes to U.S. tax laws that may be enacted in the future, could impact the tax treatment of future foreign earnings. Should the scale of our international business activities expand, any changes in the U.S. taxation of such activities could increase our worldwide effective tax rate and harm our future financial position and results of operations.

Provisions of our secured term loan facility with Hercules Capital, Inc. may restrict our ability to pursue our business strategies. In addition, repayment of our outstanding debt and other obligations under our secured term loan facility with Hercules is subject to acceleration upon the occurrence of an event of default, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our secured term loan facility with Hercules Capital, Inc., or Hercules, requires us, and any debt instruments we may enter into in the future may require us, to comply with various covenants that limit our ability to take on new indebtedness, to permit new liens, to pay dividends, to dispose of our property (including to license in certain situations), to engage in mergers or acquisitions and make certain other changes in our business. Debt instruments we may enter into in the future may also include financial covenants such as a requirement to maintain a specified minimum liquidity level or achieve a minimum annual revenue level. These restrictions could inhibit our ability to pursue our business strategies,

including our ability to raise additional capital and make certain dispositions or investments without the consent of our lenders.

The obligations under our secured term loan facility with Hercules are subject to acceleration upon the occurrence of specified events of default, including our failure to make payments when due, our breach or default in the performance of our covenants and obligations under the facility following a cure period, bankruptcy and similar events, and the occurrence of a circumstance that would reasonably be expected to have a material adverse effect on (i) our business, operations, properties, assets or financial condition, (ii) our ability to perform our obligations in accordance with the facility documents, (iii) the lender’s ability to enforce any of its rights or remedies with respect to our obligations, or (iv) the collateral, the liens on the collateral or the first priority of the lender’s liens. While we do not believe it is probable that the lender would accelerate the obligations under the facility, the definition of a material adverse effect is inherently subjective in nature, and we cannot assure that a material adverse effect will not occur or be deemed to have occurred by the lender.

Risks Related to Our Business

If our products fail to achieve and sustain sufficient market acceptance, our revenue will be adversely affected.

Our success depends on our ability to develop and market products that are recognized and accepted as reliable, enabling and cost‑effective. Most of the potential customers for our products already use expensive research systems in their laboratories that they have used for many years and may be reluctant to replace those systems with ours. Market acceptance of our Simoa technology platforms will depend on many factors, including our ability to convince potential customers that our technology is an attractive alternative to other available technologies. Prior to adopting our technologies, some potential customers may need to devote time and effort to testing and validating our systems. Any failure of our systems to meet these customer benchmarks could result in potential customers choosing to retain their existing systems or to purchase systems other than ours. In addition, it is important that our Simoa technology be perceived as accurate and reliable by the scientific and medical research community as a whole. Historically, a significant part of our sales and marketing efforts has been directed at demonstrating the advantages of our technology to industry leaders and encouraging such leaders to publish or present the results of their evaluation of our system. If we are unable to continue to motivate leading researchers to use Simoa technology, or if such researchers are unable to achieve or unwilling to publish or present significant experimental results using our systems, acceptance and adoption of our systems may be slowed and our ability to increase our revenue would be adversely affected.

Our future success is dependent upon our ability to further penetrate our existing customer base and attract new customers.

Our current customer base is primarily composed of academic and governmental research institutions, as well as biopharmaceutical and contract research companies. Our success will depend upon our ability to respond to the evolving needs of, and increase our market share among, existing customers and adding new customers.  Identifying, engaging and marketing to customers requires substantial time, expertise and expense and involves a number of risks, including:

We have utilized third parties to assist with sales, distribution and customer support in certain regions of the world. There is no guarantee, when we enter into such arrangements, that we will be successful in attracting desirable sales and distribution partners. There is also no guarantee that we will be able to enter into such arrangements on favorable terms. Any failure of our sales and marketing efforts, or those of any third‑party sales and distribution partners, would adversely affect our business.

Sales of our assay for the neurological biomarker Nf‑L have become increasingly important to our business, and any significant decrease in sales of that assay could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Neurology has been one of our primary focus areas for commercialization of our Simoa technology and the services that we provide to our customers. Sales from neurological‑related biomarkers, Nf‑L in particular, have become an increasingly important part of our business. We estimate that revenue from services and sales of consumables relating to Nf‑L represented approximately 33% of our total revenue for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. There can be no assurance that we will continue to derive meaningful revenues from the sale of our Nf‑L assay, from services related to that assay or from sales of instruments driven by customers desiring access to the Nf‑L assay. The adoption by our customers of competitive technologies for detecting biomarkers of neurodegenerative conditions, could negatively impact our revenues and have a material adverse effect on our business.

Epidemic diseases, such as the coronavirus, could negatively affect various aspects of our business, make it more difficult to meet our obligations to our customers, and result in reduced demand from our customers, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

Our business could be adversely affected by the effects of a widespread outbreak of contagious disease, including the recent outbreak of respiratory illness caused by a novel coronavirus (COVID-19) first identified in Wuhan, China in late 2019. The virus has now spread to several other countries, including the United States, and on March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization updated the status of the COVID-19 outbreak from epidemic to pandemic.  Potential impacts to our business include disruptions or restrictions on our employees’ and customers’ ability to travel, temporary closures of the facilities of our suppliers or customers, and delays in shipments to and from affected countries. In an effort to halt the outbreak of COVID-19, a number of countries, including the United States, have placed significant restrictions on travel and many businesses have announced extended closures. These travel restrictions and business closures could adversely impact our operations locally and worldwide, including our ability to manufacture, sell or distribute our products, as well as cause temporary closures of our foreign distributors, or the facilities of suppliers or customers. Any material disruption of our employees, distributors, suppliers or customers in impacted countries could impact our global sales and operating results. We are continuing to monitor and assess the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on our commercial operations, including any potential impact on our revenue in 2020.  However, we cannot at this time accurately predict what effects these conditions will ultimately have on our operations due to uncertainties relating to the ultimate geographic spread of the virus, the severity of the disease, the duration of the outbreak, and the length of the travel restrictions and business closures imposed by the governments of impacted countries. In addition, a significant outbreak of contagious diseases in the human population could result in a widespread health crisis that could adversely affect the economies and financial markets of many countries, resulting in an economic downturn that could affect demand for our products and likely impact our operating results.

Some of the reagents used in our products are labeled for “research use only” and will have to undergo additional testing before we could use them in a product intended for clinical use.

Some of the materials that are used in our consumable products, including certain reagents, are purchased from suppliers with a restriction that they be used for research use only, or RUO. While we have focused initially on the life sciences research market, part of our future business strategy is to expand our product line, either alone or in collaboration with third parties, to encompass systems and products that can be used for clinical purposes. Whether or not we continue to use the same RUO materials that we currently use, or obtain similar materials that are not labeled with the RUO restriction, we or a collaborator will be required to demonstrate that the use of our system and products as a clinical test complies with all applicable requirements. In addition, if the supplier of any material or component used in a clinical test were changed, it would require confirmation through additional testing that the change does not adversely affect the reliability of the test. Any such additional testing may be expensive and time‑consuming and delay the introduction of new products based on our technology.

In the near term, our business will depend on levels of research and development spending by academic and governmental research institutions and biopharmaceutical companies, a reduction in which could limit demand for our products and adversely affect our business and operating results.

In the near term, we expect that our revenue will continue to be derived primarily from sales of our instruments and consumables to academic and governmental research institutions, as well as biopharmaceutical and contract research companies worldwide for research applications. The demand for our products will depend in part upon the research and development budgets of these customers, which are impacted by factors beyond our control, such as:

Any uncertainty regarding the availability of research funding for potential customers may adversely affect our operating results. Our operating results may fluctuate substantially due to reductions and delays in research and development expenditures by these customers. Any decrease in customers’ budgets or expenditures, or in the size, scope or frequency of capital or operating expenditures, could materially and adversely affect our business, operating results and financial condition.

The sales cycle for our Simoa instruments can be lengthy and variable, which makes it difficult for us to forecast revenue and other operating results.

The sales process for our Simoa instruments generally involves numerous interactions with multiple individuals within an organization, and often includes in‑depth analysis by potential customers of our technology and products and a lengthy review process. Our customers’ evaluation processes often involve a number of factors, many of which are beyond our control. As a result of these factors, the capital investment required to purchase our systems, and the budget cycles of our customers, the time from initial contact with a customer to our receipt of a purchase order can vary significantly. Given the length and uncertainty of our sales cycle, we have in the past experienced, and expect to in the future experience, fluctuations in our sales on a period‑to‑period basis. In addition, any failure to meet customer expectations could result in customers choosing to retain their existing systems, use existing assays not requiring capital equipment or purchase systems other than ours.

Our long‑term results depend upon our ability to improve existing products and introduce and market new products successfully.

Our business is dependent on the continued improvement of our existing Simoa products and our development of new products utilizing our Simoa or other potential future technology. As we introduce new products or refine, improve or upgrade versions of existing products, we cannot predict the level of market acceptance or the amount of market share these products will achieve, if any. We cannot assure you that we will not experience material delays in the introduction of new products in the future. In addition, introducing new products could result in a decrease in revenues from our existing products.  Consistent with our strategy of offering new products and product refinements, we expect to continue to use a substantial amount of capital for product development and refinement. We may need more capital for product development and refinement than is available on terms favorable to us, if at all, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of operations.

We generally sell our products in industries that are characterized by rapid technological changes, frequent new product introductions and changing industry standards. If we do not develop new products and product enhancements

based on technological innovation on a timely basis, our products may become obsolete over time and our revenues, cash flow, profitability and competitive position will suffer. Our success will depend on several factors, including our ability to:

In addition, if we fail to accurately predict future customer needs and preferences or fail to produce viable technologies, we may invest heavily in research and development of products that do not lead to significant revenue. Even if we successfully innovate and develop new products and product enhancements, we may incur substantial costs in doing so, and our profitability may suffer.

Our ability to develop new products based on innovation can affect our competitive position and often requires the investment of significant resources. Difficulties or delays in research, development or production of new products and services or failure to gain market acceptance of new products and technologies may reduce future revenues and adversely affect our competitive position.

If we do not successfully develop and introduce new assays for our technology, we may not generate new sources of revenue and may not be able to successfully implement our growth strategy.

Our business strategy includes the development of new assays for our Simoa instruments. New assays require significant research and development and a commitment of significant resources prior to their commercialization. Our technology is complex, and we cannot be sure that any assays we may intend to develop will be developed successfully, be proven to be effective, offer improvements over currently available tests, meet applicable standards, be produced in commercial quantities at acceptable costs or be successfully marketed. Moreover, development of particular assays may require licenses or access to third‑party intellectual property which may not be available on commercially reasonable terms, or at all. In addition, we believe that our future success will depend, in part, on our ability to develop and commercialize multiplex assays that can simultaneously measure multiple biomarkers, particularly for oncology indications. While we have developed,  validated and commercialize a  10‑plex assay for the SP‑X using our Simoa planar array technology, the most robust multiplex assay that we have commercially launched to date using our Simoa bead‑based technology is a 6‑plex assay. If we do not successfully develop new assays for our Simoa instruments, including multiplex assays with the ability to detect an increased number of biomarkers in a single sample, we could lose revenue opportunities with existing or future customers.

If we do not successfully manage the development and launch of new products, our financial results could be adversely affected.

We commercially launched two new instruments in 2019: the SP-X, our first planar-based instrument, and the HD‑X, our next generation bead‑based instrument. We face risks associated with launching new products such as the SP‑X and HD‑X. If we encounter development or manufacturing challenges or discover errors during our product development cycle, the product launch dates of new products may be delayed. The expenses or losses associated with

unsuccessful product development or launch activities or lack of market acceptance of our new products could adversely affect our business or financial condition.

Undetected errors or defects in our products could harm our reputation, decrease market acceptance of our products or expose us to product liability claims.

Our Simoa products may contain undetected errors or defects when first introduced or as new versions or new products are released. Disruptions affecting the introduction or release of, or other performance problems with, our products may damage our customers’ businesses and could harm their and our reputation. If that occurs, we may incur significant costs, the attention of our key personnel could be diverted, or other significant customer relations problems may arise. We may also be subject to warranty and liability claims for damages related to errors or defects in our products. In addition, if we do not meet industry or quality standards, if applicable, our products may be subject to recall. A material liability claim, recall or other occurrence that harms our reputation or decreases market acceptance of our products could harm our business and operating results.

Although we do not, and cannot currently, promote the use of our products, or services based on our products, for diagnostic purposes, if our customers develop or use them for diagnostic purposes, someone could file a product liability claim alleging that one of our products contained a design or manufacturing defect that resulted in the failure to adequately perform, leading to death or injury. A product liability claim could result in substantial damages and be costly and time‑consuming to defend, either of which could materially harm our business or financial condition. We cannot assure you that our product liability insurance would adequately protect our assets from the financial impact of defending a product liability claim. Any product liability claim brought against us, with or without merit, could increase our product liability insurance rates or prevent us from securing insurance coverage in the future.

We may seek to enter into strategic collaborations and licensing arrangements with third parties, but we may not be successful in establishing or maintaining such arrangements.

We may seek to enter into strategic collaborations and licensing agreements with third parties to develop products based on our Simoa technology, such as for certain in vitro diagnostic, or IVD, purposes. However, there is no assurance that we will be successful in doing so. Establishing collaborations and licensing arrangements is difficult and time‑consuming, and discussions may not lead to collaborations or licenses on favorable terms, if at all. Even if we establish such relationships, if our partners do not prioritize and commit sufficient resources to develop and sell products based on our Simoa technology, they may never result in the successful development or commercialization of products based on our Simoa technology.

Our reliance on distributors for sales of our products outside of the United States could limit or prevent us from selling our products and could impact our revenue.

We have established exclusive distribution agreements for our Simoa instruments and related consumable products within certain foreign countries, including Australia, Brazil, China, Czech Republic, India, Israel, Japan, Lebanon, Mexico, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan. We intend to continue to grow our business internationally, and to do so we must attract additional distributors and retain existing distributors to maximize the commercial opportunity for our products. There is no guarantee that we will be successful in attracting or retaining desirable sales and distribution partners or that we will be able to enter into such arrangements on favorable terms. Distributors may not commit the necessary resources to market and sell our products to the level of our expectations or may choose to favor marketing the products of our competitors. If current or future distributors do not perform adequately, or we are unable to enter into effective arrangements with distributors in particular geographic areas, we may not realize long‑term international revenue growth. In addition, if our distributors fail to comply with applicable laws and ethical standards, including anti‑bribery laws, this could damage our reputation and could have a significant adverse effect on our business and our revenues.

We expect to generate a substantial portion of our revenue internationally in the future and can become further subject to various risks relating to our international activities, which could adversely affect our business, operating results and financial condition.

For the years ended December 31, 2019, 2018 and 2017, approximately 50%, 43% and 45%, respectively, of our product revenue was generated from customers located outside of North America. We believe that a substantial percentage of our future revenue will come from international sources as we expand our overseas operations and develop opportunities in additional areas. We have limited experience operating internationally and engaging in international business involves a number of difficulties and risks, including: 

Historically, most of our revenue has been denominated in U.S. dollars. In the future, we may sell our products and services in local currency outside of the United States. As our operations in countries outside of the United States grow, our results of operations and cash flows may be subject to fluctuations due to changes in foreign currency exchange rates, which could harm our business in the future. For example, if the value of the U.S. dollar increases relative to foreign currencies, in the absence of a corresponding change in local currency prices, our revenue could be adversely affected as we convert revenue from local currencies to U.S. dollars. If we dedicate significant resources to our international operations and are unable to manage these risks effectively, our business, operating results and financial condition will suffer.

We could be adversely affected by violations of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and other worldwide anti‑bribery laws by us or our agents.

We are subject to the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, or FCPA, which prohibits companies and their intermediaries from making payments in violation of law to non‑U.S. government officials for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business or securing any other improper advantage. Our reliance on independent distributors to sell our products internationally demands a high degree of vigilance in maintaining our policy against participation in corrupt activity, because these distributors could be deemed to be our agents, and we could be held responsible for their actions. Other U.S. companies in the medical device and pharmaceutical fields have faced criminal penalties under the FCPA for allowing their agents to deviate from appropriate practices in doing business with these individuals. We are also subject to similar antibribery laws in the jurisdictions in which we operate, including the United Kingdom’s Bribery Act of 2010, which also prohibits commercial bribery and makes it a crime for companies to fail to prevent bribery. We have limited experience in complying with these laws and in developing procedures to monitor compliance with these laws by our agents. These laws are complex and far‑reaching in nature, and, as a result, we cannot assure you that we would not be required in the future to alter one or more of our practices to be in compliance with these laws or any changes in these laws or the interpretation thereof. Any violations of these laws, or allegations of such violations, could disrupt our operations, involve significant management distraction, involve significant costs and expenses, including legal fees, and could result in a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition, or results of operations. We could also incur severe penalties, including criminal and civil penalties, disgorgement, and other remedial measures.

If we are unable to attract, recruit, train, retain, motivate and integrate key personnel, we may not achieve our goals.

Our future success depends on our ability to attract, recruit, train, retain, motivate and integrate key personnel, including our recently expanded senior management team, as well as our research and development, manufacturing and sales and marketing personnel. Competition for qualified personnel is intense. Our growth depends, in particular, on attracting and retaining highly‑trained sales personnel with the necessary scientific background and ability to understand our systems at a technical level to effectively identify and sell to potential new customers. Because of the complex and technical nature of our products and the dynamic market in which we compete, any failure to attract, recruit, train, retain, motivate and integrate qualified personnel could materially harm our operating results and growth prospects.

We have limited experience in marketing and selling our products, and if we are unable to successfully commercialize our products, our business and operating results will be adversely affected.

We have limited experience marketing and selling our products. We currently sell all our products for research use only, through our direct field sales and support organizations located in North America and Europe and through a combination of our own sales force and third‑party distributors in additional major foreign markets. The future sales of our products will depend in large part on our ability to effectively market and sell our products, successfully manage and expand our sales force, and increase the scope of our marketing efforts. We may also enter into additional distribution arrangements in the future. Because we have limited experience in marketing and selling our products, our ability to forecast demand, the infrastructure required to support such demand and the sales cycle to customers is unproven. If we do not build an efficient and effective sales force, our business and operating results will be adversely affected.

We rely on a single contract manufacturer to manufacture and supply our Simoa HD-X instrument and rely on a different single contract manufacturer to manufacture and supply our Simoa SR‑X instrument. If either of these manufacturers should fail or not perform satisfactorily, our ability to supply these instruments would be negatively and adversely affected.

We currently rely on a single contract manufacturer, STRATEC Biomedical AG, or STRATEC, an analytical and diagnostic systems manufacturer located in Germany, to manufacture and supply all of our Simoa HD-X instruments. In addition, we currently rely on a single contract manufacturer, Paramit Corporation, or Paramit, a contract manufacturer located in California, to manufacture and supply all of our SR‑X instruments. Since our contract with STRATEC does not commit them to supply quantities beyond the amounts included in our forecasts and our contract with Paramit does not commit them to carry inventory or make available any particular quantities, these contract manufacturers may give other customers’ needs higher priority than ours, and we may not be able to obtain adequate supplies in a timely manner or on commercially reasonable terms. If either of these manufacturers were not able to supply instruments, our business would be harmed.

Pursuant to our Supply Agreement with STRATEC, as amended, we are required to purchase a minimum number of commercial units of HD instruments over a seven‑year period ending in May 2021. If we fail to purchase the required minimum number of commercial units, we would be obligated to pay a fee based on the shortfall of commercial units purchased compared to the required number. If we fail to purchase the required minimum number of commercial instruments and terminate the arrangement in certain circumstances, we would also be obligated to issue a warrant to purchase shares of our common stock. Any amount we may have to pay STRATEC for failing to purchase the minimum number of commercial units of HD instruments will cause our operating results to suffer.

In the event it becomes necessary to utilize a different contract manufacturer for the HD-X instrument or the SR‑X, we would experience additional costs, delays and difficulties in doing so as a result of identifying and entering into an agreement with a new supplier as well as preparing such new supplier to meet the logistical requirements associated with manufacturing our units, and our business would suffer. We may also experience additional costs and delays in the event we need access to or rights under any intellectual property of STRATEC.

In addition, certain of the components used in our instruments are sourced from limited or sole suppliers. If we were to lose such suppliers, there can be no assurance that we will be able to identify or enter into agreements with alternative suppliers on a timely basis on acceptable terms, if at all. An interruption in our ability to sell and deliver instruments to customers could occur if we encounter delays or difficulties in securing these components, or if the quality of the components supplied do not meet specifications, or if we cannot then obtain an acceptable substitute. If any of these events occur, our business and operating results could be harmed.

We may experience manufacturing problems or delays that could limit the growth of our revenue or increase our losses.

We may encounter unforeseen situations that would result in delays or shortfalls in our production as well as delays or shortfalls caused by our outsourced manufacturing suppliers and by other third‑party suppliers who manufacture components for our products. If we are unable to keep up with demand for our products, our revenue could be impaired, market acceptance for our products could be adversely affected and our customers might instead purchase our competitors’ products. Our inability to successfully manufacture our products would have a material adverse effect on our operating results.

We rely on a limited number of suppliers or, in some cases, one supplier, for some of our materials and components used in our consumable products and our SP‑X instrument, and may not be able to find replacements or immediately transition to alternative suppliers, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and reputation.

We rely on limited or sole suppliers for certain reagents and other materials and components that are used in our consumable products and in our SP‑X instrument. While we periodically forecast our needs for such materials and enter into standard purchase orders with them, we do not have long‑term contracts with many of these suppliers. If we were to

lose such suppliers, there can be no assurance that we will be able to identify or enter into agreements with alternative suppliers on a timely basis on acceptable terms, if at all. An interruption in our operations could occur if we encounter delays or difficulties in securing these materials, or if the quality of the materials supplied do not meet our requirements, or if we cannot then obtain an acceptable substitute. The time and effort required to qualify a new supplier and ensure that the new materials provide the same or better quality results could result in significant additional costs. Any such interruption could significantly affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and reputation.

If we cannot provide quality technical and applications support, we could lose customers and our business and prospects will suffer.

The placement of our products at new customer sites, the introduction of our technology into our customers’ existing laboratory workflows and ongoing customer support can be complex. Accordingly, we need highly trained technical support personnel. Hiring technical support personnel is very competitive in our industry due to the limited number of people available with the necessary scientific and technical backgrounds and ability to understand our Simoa technology at a technical level. To effectively support potential new customers and the expanding needs of current customers, we will need to substantially expand our technical support staff. If we are unable to attract, train or retain the number of highly qualified technical services personnel that our business needs, our business and prospects will suffer.

The life sciences research and diagnostic markets are highly competitive. If we fail to effectively compete, our business, financial condition and operating results will suffer.

We face significant competition in the life sciences research and diagnostic markets. We currently compete with both established and early stage companies that design, manufacture and market systems and consumable supplies. We believe our principal competitors in the life sciences research and diagnostic markets include Bio‑Techne, Luminex Corporation, MesoScale Diagnostics, Singulex, Gyros Corporation and Nanostring Technologies, Inc. As we expand the applications for our products to include health screening, we expect to compete with companies such as Siemens, Abbott, Roche, Ortho Clinical Diagnostics and Thermo Fisher Scientific. In addition, there are a number of new market entrants in the process of developing novel technologies for the life sciences research, diagnostic and screening markets.

Many of our current competitors have competitive advantages over us, including:

We believe that the principal competitive factors in all of our target markets include:

We cannot assure you that our products will compete favorably or that we will be successful in the face of increasing competition from new products and technologies introduced by our existing competitors or new companies entering our markets. In addition, we cannot assure you that our competitors do not have or will not develop products or technologies that currently or in the future will enable them to produce competitive products with greater capabilities or at lower costs than ours. Any failure to compete effectively could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition and operating results.

Integrating any business, product or technology we acquire can be expensive and time‑consuming and can disrupt and adversely affect our ongoing business, including product sales, and distract our management.

We may acquire other businesses, products or technologies as well as pursue strategic alliances, joint ventures, technology licenses or investments in complementary businesses, such as our 2018 acquisition of Aushon and our 2019 acquisition of Uman. Our ability to successfully integrate any business, product or technology we acquire depends on a number of factors, including, but not limited to, our ability to:

If we are unable to perform the above functions or otherwise effectively integrate any acquired businesses, products or technologies, our business, financial condition and operating results will suffer.

Foreign acquisitions (such as our acquisition of Uman) involve unique risks in addition to those mentioned above, including those related to integration of operations across different cultures and languages, currency risks and the particular economic, political and regulatory risks associated with specific countries.

Also, the anticipated benefit of any acquisition may not materialize. Future acquisitions or dispositions could result in potentially dilutive issuances of our equity securities, the incurrence of debt, contingent liabilities or amortization expenses or write‑offs of goodwill, any of which could harm our financial condition. We cannot predict the number, timing or size of future joint ventures or acquisitions, or the effect that any such transactions might have on our operating results.

Risks Related to Government Regulation and Diagnostic Product Reimbursement

If the FDA determines that our products are medical devices or if we seek to market our products for clinical diagnostic or health screening use, we will be required to obtain regulatory clearance(s) or approval(s) and may be required to cease or limit sales of our then marketed products, which could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. Any such regulatory process would be expensive, time‑consuming and uncertain both in timing and in outcome.

We have focused initially on the life sciences research market. This includes offering products for use by laboratories associated with academic and governmental research institutions, as well as pharmaceutical, biotechnology and contract research companies. Accordingly, our products are labeled as “Research Use Only,” or RUO, and are not intended for diagnostic uses. While we have focused initially on the life sciences research market and RUO products only, our future strategy includes expanding our product line to encompass products that are intended to be used for the diagnosis of disease, either alone or in collaboration with third parties. Such IVD products, once developed and offered, will be subject to regulation by the FDA, or comparable international agencies, as medical devices including requirements for regulatory clearance or approval of such products before they can be marketed.

The process of obtaining regulatory clearances to market a medical device can be costly and time consuming, and we or our collaborators may not be able to obtain these clearances or approvals on a timely basis, if at all. In general, the FDA permits commercial distribution of a new medical device only after the device has received clearance under Section 510(k) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, or is the subject of an approved premarket approval application, or PMA, unless the device is specifically exempt from those requirements. The FDA will clear marketing of a lower risk medical device through the 510(k) process if the manufacturer demonstrates that the new product is substantially equivalent to other pre‑amendment, 510(k)‑exempt, 510(k) cleared products, or PMA‑approved products that have subsequently been down‑classified. If the FDA determines that the device is not “substantially equivalent” to a predicate device, or if the device is automatically classified into Class III, the device sponsor must then fulfill the much more rigorous premarketing requirements of the PMA approval process, or seek reclassification of the device through the de novo process. Pursuant to amendments to the statute in 2012, a manufacturer can also submit a petition for a direct de novo review if the manufacturer is unable to identify an appropriate predicate device and the new device or new use of the device presents a moderate or low risk.

High risk devices deemed to pose the greatest risk, such as life‑sustaining, life‑supporting, or implantable devices, or devices not deemed substantially equivalent to a previously cleared device, require the approval of a PMA. The PMA process is more costly, lengthy and uncertain than the 510(k) clearance process. A PMA application must be supported by extensive data, including, but not limited to, technical, preclinical, clinical trial, manufacturing and labeling data, to demonstrate to the FDA’s satisfaction the safety and efficacy of the device for its intended use.

Foreign governmental authorities that regulate the manufacture and sale of medical devices have become increasingly stringent and, to the extent we market and sell our products internationally for such uses, we may be subject to rigorous international regulation in the future. In these circumstances, we may rely significantly on our foreign independent distributors or collaborators to comply with the varying regulations, and any failures on their part could result in restrictions on the sale of our products in foreign countries.

If we or our collaborators are required to obtain a PMA or 510(k) clearance for products based on our technology, we or they would be subject to a substantial number of additional requirements for medical devices, including establishment registration, device listing, Quality Systems Regulations, or QSRs, which cover the design, testing, production, control, quality assurance, labeling, packaging, servicing, sterilization (if required), and storage and shipping of medical devices (among other activities), product labeling, advertising, recordkeeping, post‑market

surveillance, post‑approval studies, adverse event reporting, and correction and removal (recall) regulations. One or more of the products we or a collaborator may develop using our technology may also require clinical trials in order to generate the data required for a  PMA. Complying with these requirements may be time‑consuming and expensive. We or our collaborators may be required to expend significant resources to ensure ongoing compliance with the FDA regulations and/or take satisfactory corrective action in response to enforcement action, which may have a material adverse effect on the ability to design, develop, and commercialize products using our technology as planned. Failure to comply with these requirements may subject us or a collaborator to a range of enforcement actions, such as warning letters, injunctions, civil monetary penalties, criminal prosecution, recall and/or seizure of products, and revocation of marketing authorization, as well as significant adverse publicity. If we or our collaborators fail to obtain, or experience significant delays in obtaining, regulatory approvals for IVD products, such products may not be able to be launched or successfully commercialized in a timely manner, or at all.

Laboratory developed tests, or LDTs, are a subset of IVD tests that are designed, manufactured and offered as services by high complexity clinical laboratories and used within a single laboratory. The FDA maintains that LDTs are medical devices and has for the most part exercised enforcement discretion for most LDTs. A significant change in the way that the FDA regulates any LDTs that we, our collaborators or our customers develop using our technology could affect our business. The FDA has considered the appropriate way to regulate such tests, but after publishing several draft guidances and holding a number of public hearings and workshops, no final guidance has been issued. However, if the FDA requires laboratories to undergo premarket review and comply with other applicable FDA requirements in the future, the cost and time required to commercialize an LDT will increase substantially, and may reduce the financial incentive for laboratories to develop LDTs, which could reduce demand for our instruments and our other products.

Foreign jurisdictions have laws and regulations similar to those described above, which may adversely affect our ability to market our products as planned in such countries. The number and scope of these requirements are increasing. As in the United States, the cost and time required to comply with regulatory requirements may be substantial, and there is no guarantee that we will obtain the necessary authorization(s) required to make our products commercially viable. As a result, the imposition of foreign requirements may also have a material adverse effect on the commercial viability of our operations.

Our products may in the future be subject to product recalls that could harm our reputation, business and financial results.

The FDA and similar foreign governmental authorities have the authority to require the recall of commercialized products, including RUO products, in the event of material deficiencies or defects in design or manufacture. In the case of the FDA, the authority to require a recall must be based on an FDA finding that there is a reasonable probability that the device would cause serious injury or death.  Manufacturers may, under their own initiative, recall a product if any material deficiency in a device is found. A government‑mandated or voluntary recall by us or one of our distributors could occur as a result of component failures, manufacturing errors, design or labeling defects or other deficiencies and issues. Recalls of any of our products would divert managerial and financial resources and have an adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. The FDA requires that certain classifications of recalls be reported to FDA within 10 working days after the recall is initiated. Companies are required to maintain certain records of recalls, even if they are not reportable to the FDA. We may initiate voluntary recalls involving our products in the future that we determine do not require notification of the FDA. If the FDA disagrees with our determinations, they could require us to report those actions as recalls. A future recall announcement could harm our reputation with customers and negatively affect our sales. In addition, the FDA could take enforcement action for failing to report the recalls when they were conducted.

U.S. legislative, FDA or global regulatory reforms may make it more difficult and costly for us to obtain any required regulatory approval of our product candidates and to manufacture, market and distribute our products after approval is obtained.

From time to time, legislation is drafted and introduced in Congress that could significantly change the statutory provisions governing the regulatory approval, manufacture and marketing of regulated products or the reimbursement thereof. Any new regulations or revisions or reinterpretations of existing regulations may impose additional costs or

lengthen review times of future products. In addition, FDA regulations and guidance are often revised or reinterpreted by the agency in ways that may significantly affect our business and our products. It is impossible to predict whether legislative changes will be enacted or FDA regulations, guidance or interpretations changed, and what the impact of such changes, if any, may be.

Moreover, leadership, personnel and structural changes within the FDA as well as recent and future federal election outcomes could result in significant legislative and regulatory reforms impacting the FDA’s regulation of our products. Any change in the laws or regulations that govern the clearance and approval processes relating to our current and future products could make it more difficult and costly to obtain clearance or approval for new products, or to produce, market and distribute existing products. Significant delays in receiving clearance or approval, or the failure to receive clearance or approval for our new products would have an adverse effect on our ability to expand our business.

In addition, on May 25, 2017, the new Medical Devices Regulation (2017/745 or “MDR”) entered into force. Following its entry into application on May 26, 2020, the MDR will introduce substantial changes to the obligations with which medical device manufacturers must comply in the EU. High risk medical devices will be subject to additional scrutiny during the conformity assessment procedure. Specifically, the EU Medical Devices Regulation repeals and replaces the EU Medical Devices Directive. Unlike directives, which must be implemented into the national laws of the European Economic Area (“EEA”) Member States, the regulations would be directly applicable, i.e., without the need for adoption of EEA member state laws implementing them, in all EEA Member States and are intended to eliminate current differences in regulation of medical devices among EEA Member States. The EU MDR, among other things, is intended to establish a uniform, transparent, predictable and sustainable regulatory framework across the EEA for medical devices to ensure a high level of safety and health while supporting innovation. The MDR will become applicable three years after publication (in May 2020). Once applicable, the new regulations will among other things:

Once applicable, the MDR may impose increased compliance obligations for us to access the EU market.

In order to continue to sell our products in Europe, we must maintain our CE marks and continue to comply with certain EU directives and, in the future with the MDR. Our failure to continue to comply with applicable foreign regulatory requirements, including those administered by authorities of the EEA countries, could result in enforcement actions against us, including refusal, suspension or withdrawal of our CE Certificates of Conformity by our Notified Body, which could impair our ability to market products in the EEA in the future. Any changes to the membership of the European Union, such as the departure of the United Kingdom (Brexit), may impact the regulatory requirements for the impacted countries and impair our business operations and our ability to market products in such countries.

If we do not comply with governmental regulations applicable to our CLIA‑certified laboratory, we may not be able to continue our operations.

The operation of our Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments, or CLIA, certified laboratory is subject to regulation by numerous federal, state and local governmental authorities in the United States. This laboratory holds a

CLIA certificate of compliance and is licensed by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the State of Maryland, and we may obtain other state licenses if required in the future. Failure to comply with federal or state regulations or changes in those regulatory requirements could result in a substantial curtailment or even prohibition of the operations of our laboratory and could have an adverse effect on our business. CLIA is a federal law that regulates clinical laboratories that perform testing on human specimens for the purpose of providing information for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of disease. To maintain CLIA certification, laboratories are subject to survey and inspection every two years. Moreover, CLIA inspectors may make unannounced inspections of these laboratories. If we were to lose our CLIA certification or any required state licenses, whether as a result of a revocation, suspension or limitation, it could have a material adverse effect on our business.

We expect to rely on third parties in conducting any required future studies of diagnostic products that may be required by the FDA or other regulatory authorities, and those third parties may not perform satisfactorily.

We do not have the ability to independently conduct clinical trials or other studies that may be required to obtain FDA and other regulatory clearance or approval for future diagnostic products. Accordingly, we expect that we would rely on third parties, such as clinical investigators, consultants, and collaborators to conduct such studies if needed. Our reliance on these third parties for clinical and other development activities would reduce our control over these activities. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or regulatory obligations or meet expected deadlines, if the third parties need to be replaced or if the quality or accuracy of the data they obtain is compromised, we may not be able to obtain regulatory clearance or approval.

If diagnostic procedures that are enabled by our technology are subject to unfavorable pricing regulations or third‑party coverage and reimbursement policies, our business could be harmed.

The ability of us, our customers or our collaborators to commercialize diagnostic tests based on our technology will depend in part on the extent to which coverage and reimbursement for these tests will be available from government health programs, private health insurers and other third‑party payors. In the United States, the principal decisions about reimbursement for new technologies are often made by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS. Private payors often follow CMS to a substantial degree. It is difficult to predict what CMS will decide with respect to reimbursement. A primary trend in the U.S. healthcare industry and elsewhere is cost containment. Government authorities and third‑party payors have attempted to control costs by limiting coverage and the amount of payments for particular products and procedures. We cannot be sure that coverage will be available for any diagnostic tests based on our technology, and, if coverage is available, the level of payments. Reimbursement may impact the demand for those tests. If reimbursement is not available or is available only to limited levels, any tests for which marketing authorization is received may not be able to be successfully commercialized.

Current and future legislation may increase the difficulty and cost to obtain marketing approval of and commercialize any products based on our technology and affect the prices that may be obtained.

In March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act, collectively, the ACA, became law. The ACA is a sweeping law intended to broaden access to health insurance, reduce or constrain the growth of healthcare spending, enhance remedies against fraud and abuse, add new transparency requirements for the healthcare and health insurance industries, impose new taxes and fees on the health industry and impose additional health policy reforms. Since its enactment, there have been judicial and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA. Both Congress and President Trump have expressed their intention to repeal or repeal and replace the ACA, and as a result certain sections of the ACA have not been fully implemented or were effectively repealed. The uncertainty around the future of the ACA, and in particular the impact to reimbursement levels and the number of insured individuals, may lead to uncertainty or delay in the purchasing decisions of our customers, which may in turn negatively impact our product sales. If there are not adequate reimbursement levels, our business and results of operations could be adversely affected.

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted. We expect that the ACA, as well as other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future, may result in more rigorous coverage criteria and in additional downward pressure on the price that we or our collaborators will receive for any

cleared or approved product. Any reduction in payments from Medicare or other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability, or commercialize any of our products for which we receive marketing approval.

In addition, sales of our tests outside of the United States will subject us to foreign regulatory requirements, which may also change over time.

We cannot predict whether future healthcare initiatives will be implemented at the federal or state level or in countries outside of the United States in which we may do business, or the effect any future legislation or regulation will have on us. The expansion in government’s effect on the United States healthcare industry may result in decreased profits to us, lower reimbursements by payors for our products or reduced medical procedure volumes, all of which may adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Risks Related to Our Operations

We depend on our information technology systems, and any failure of these systems could harm our business.

We depend on information technology and telecommunications systems to operate our business. We have installed, and expect to expand, a number of enterprise software systems that affect a broad range of business processes and functional areas, including, for example, systems handling human resources, accounting, manufacturing, inventory control, financial controls and reporting, sales administration, and other infrastructure operations. In addition to the aforementioned business systems, we intend to extend the capabilities of both our preventative and detective security controls by augmenting the monitoring and alerting functions, network design, and automatic countermeasure operations of our technical systems. These information technology and telecommunications systems support a variety of functions, including manufacturing operations, quality control, customer service support, and general administrative activities.

Information technology and telecommunications systems are vulnerable to damage from a variety of sources, including telecommunications or network failures, malicious human acts and natural disasters. Moreover, despite network security and back‑up measures, some of our servers are potentially vulnerable to physical or electronic break‑ins, computer viruses, and similar disruptive problems. Despite the precautionary measures we have taken to prevent unanticipated problems that could affect our information technology and telecommunications systems, failures or significant downtime of our information technology or telecommunications systems or those used by our third‑party suppliers could prevent us from operating our business and managing the administrative aspects of our business. Any disruption or loss of information technology or telecommunications systems on which critical aspects of our operations depend could have an adverse effect on our business.

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

In the ordinary course of our business, we collect and store sensitive data, and intellectual property and proprietary business information owned or controlled by ourselves or our customers. This data encompasses a wide variety of business‑critical information including research and development information, commercial information, and business and financial information. We face four primary risks relative to protecting this critical information: loss of access; inappropriate disclosure; inappropriate modification; and inadequate monitoring of our controls over the first three risks.

The secure processing, storage, maintenance, and transmission of this critical information is vital to our operations and business strategy, and we devote significant resources to protecting such information. Although we take measures to protect sensitive information from unauthorized access or disclosure, our information technology and infrastructure may be vulnerable to attacks by hackers or viruses, breaches, interruptions due to employee error, malfeasance, lapses in compliance with privacy and security mandates, or other disruptions. Any such breach or

interruption could compromise our networks and the information stored there could be accessed by unauthorized parties, publicly disclosed, lost, or stolen.

Any such security breach or interruption, as well as any action by us or our employees or contractors that might be inconsistent with the rapidly evolving data privacy and security laws and regulations applicable within the United States and elsewhere where we conduct business, could result in enforcement actions by U.S. states, the U.S. federal government or foreign governments, liability or sanctions under data privacy laws that protect personally identifiable information, regulatory penalties, other legal proceedings such as but not limited to private litigation, the incurrence of significant remediation costs, disruptions to our development programs, business operations and collaborations, diversion of management efforts and damage to our reputation, which could harm our business and operations. Because of the rapidly moving nature of technology and the increasing sophistication of cybersecurity threats, our measures to prevent, respond to and minimize such risks may be unsuccessful.

In addition, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union adopted a comprehensive general data privacy regulation, or GDPR, in 2016 to replace the current European Union Data Protection Directive and related country‑specific legislation. The GDPR took effect in May 2018 and governs the collection and use of personal data in the European Union. The GDPR, which is wide‑ranging in scope, will impose several requirements relating to the consent of the individuals to whom the personal data relates, the information provided to the individuals, the security and confidentiality of the personal data, data breach notification and the use of third party processors in connection with the processing of the personal data. The GDPR also imposes strict rules on the transfer of personal data out of the European Union to the United States, enhances enforcement authority and imposes large penalties for noncompliance, including the potential for fines of up to €20 million or 4% of the annual global revenues of the infringer, whichever is greater. While we have taken steps to comply with the GDPR, including such as reviewing our security procedures and entering into data processing agreements with relevant contractors, we cannot assure you that our efforts to remain in compliance will be fully successful.

Further, unauthorized access, loss or dissemination of sensitive information could also disrupt our operations, including our ability to conduct research and development activities, process and prepare company financial information, manage various general and administrative aspects of our business and damage our reputation, any of which could adversely affect our reputation and our business. In addition, there can be no assurance that we will promptly detect any such disruption or security breach, if at all. To the extent that any disruption or security breach were to result in a loss of or damage to our data or applications, or inappropriate disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, we could incur liability and the further development of our products could be delayed.

We face risks related to handling of hazardous materials and other regulations governing environmental safety.

Our operations are subject to complex and stringent environmental, health, safety and other governmental laws and regulations that both public officials and private individuals may seek to enforce. Our activities that are subject to these regulations include, among other things, our use of hazardous materials and the generation, transportation and storage of waste. Although we have secured clearance from the EPA historically, and currently are operating in compliance with applicable EPA rules and regulations, our business could be adversely affected if we discover that we or an acquired business is not in material compliance with these rules and regulations. In the future, we may pursue the use of other surfactant substances that will require clearance from the EPA, and we may fail to obtain such clearance. Existing laws and regulations may also be revised or reinterpreted, or new laws and regulations may become applicable to us, whether retroactively or prospectively, that may have a negative effect on our business and results of operations. It is also impossible to eliminate completely the risk of accidental environmental contamination or injury to individuals. In such an event, we could be liable for any damages that result, which could adversely affect our business.

Risks Related to Intellectual Property

If we are unable to protect our intellectual property, it may reduce our ability to maintain any technological or competitive advantage over our competitors and potential competitors, and our business may be harmed.

We rely on patent protection as well as trademark, copyright, trade secret and other intellectual property rights protection and contractual restrictions to protect our proprietary technologies, all of which provide limited protection and may not adequately protect our rights or permit us to gain or keep any competitive advantage. As of March 1, 2020, we owned or exclusively licensed 30 granted U.S. patents and approximately 15 pending U.S. patent applications. We also owned or exclusively licensed a number of pending patent applications and granted patents in particular jurisdictions outside of the United States. If we fail to protect our intellectual property, third parties may be able to compete more effectively against us, we may lose our technological or competitive advantage, or we may incur substantial litigation costs in our attempts to recover or restrict use of our intellectual property.

We cannot assure investors that any of our currently pending or future patent applications will result in granted patents, and we cannot predict how long it will take for such patents to be granted. It is possible that, for any of our patents that have granted or that may grant in the future, others will design around our patented technologies. Further, we cannot assure investors that other parties will not challenge any patents granted to us or that courts or regulatory agencies will hold our patents to be valid or enforceable. We cannot guarantee investors that we will be successful in defending challenges made against our patents and patent applications. Any successful third‑party challenge to our patents could result in the unenforceability or invalidity of such patents, or to such patents being interpreted narrowly or otherwise in a manner adverse to our interests. Our ability to establish or maintain a technological or competitive advantage over our competitors may be diminished because of these uncertainties. For these and other reasons, our intellectual property may not provide us with any competitive advantage. For example:

To the extent our intellectual property offers inadequate protection, or is found to be invalid or unenforceable, we would be exposed to a greater risk of direct competition. If our intellectual property does not provide adequate

coverage over our products and protection aganinst our competitors’ products, our competitive position could be adversely affected, as could our business.

Software is a critical component of our instruments. To the extent such software is not protected by our patents, we depend on trade secret protection and non‑disclosure agreements with our employees, strategic partners and consultants, which may not provide adequate protection.

The measures that we use to protect the security of our intellectual property and other proprietary rights may not be adequate, which could result in the loss of legal protection for, and thereby diminish the value of, such intellectual property and other rights.

In addition to pursuing patents on our technology, we also rely upon trademarks, trade secrets, copyrights and unfair competition laws, as well as license agreements and other contractual provisions, to protect our intellectual property and other proprietary rights. Despite these measures, any of our intellectual property rights could be challenged, invalidated, circumvented or misappropriated. In addition, we take steps to protect our intellectual property and proprietary technology by entering into confidentiality agreements and intellectual property assignment agreements with our employees, consultants, corporate partners and, when needed, our advisors. Such agreements may not be enforceable or may not provide meaningful protection for our trade secrets or other proprietary information in the event of unauthorized use or disclosure or other breaches of the agreements, and we may not be able to prevent such unauthorized disclosure. Moreover, if a party having an agreement with us has an overlapping or conflicting obligation to a third party, our rights in and to certain intellectual property could be undermined. 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, the outcome would be unpredictable, and any remedy may be inadequate. In addition, courts outside the United States may be less willing to protect trade secrets.

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

Some of our owned and in‑licensed intellectual property has been discovered through government funded programs and thus is subject to federal regulations such as “march‑in” rights, certain reporting requirements, and a preference for U.S. industry. Compliance with such regulations may limit our exclusive rights, subject us to expenditure of resources with respect to reporting requirements, and limit our ability to contract with non‑U.S. manufacturers.

Some of the intellectual property rights we own and have in‑licensed have been generated through the use of U.S. government funding and are therefore subject to certain federal regulations. For example, all of the issued U.S. patents we own and all of the intellectual property rights licensed to us under our license agreement with Tufts have been generated using U.S. government funds. As a result, the U.S. government has certain rights to intellectual property embodied in our current or future products pursuant to the Bayh‑Dole Act of 1980, or Bayh‑Dole Act. These U.S. government rights in certain inventions developed under a government‑funded program include a non‑exclusive, non‑transferable, irrevocable worldwide license to use inventions for any governmental purpose. In addition, the U.S. government has the right to require us to grant exclusive, partially exclusive, or non‑exclusive licenses to any of these inventions to a third party if the government determines that: (i) adequate steps have not been taken to commercialize the invention; (ii) government action is necessary to meet public health or safety needs; or (iii) government action is necessary to meet requirements for public use under federal regulations (also referred to as “march‑in rights”). The U.S. government also has the right to take title to these inventions if we fail, or the applicable licensor fails, to disclose the invention to the government, elect title, and file an application to register the intellectual property within specified time limits. In addition, the U.S. government may acquire title to these inventions in any country in which a patent application is not filed 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, or the applicable licensor, to expend substantial resources. In addition, the U.S. government requires that any products embodying the subject invention or

produced through the use of the subject invention be manufactured substantially in the U.S. The manufacturing preference requirement can be waived if the owner 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. manufacturing may limit our ability to license the applicable patent rights on an exclusive basis under certain circumstances.

If we enter into future arrangements involving government funding, and we make inventions as a result of such funding, intellectual property rights to such discoveries may be subject to the applicable provisions of the Bayh‑Dole Act. To the extent any of our current or future intellectual property is generated through the use of U.S. government funding, the provisions of the Bayh‑Dole Act may similarly apply. Any exercise by the government of certain of its rights could harm our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Our Simoa bead-based technology is licensed to us by Tufts University. Any loss of our rights to this technology could prevent us from selling our products.

Our Simoa bead‑based technology is licensed exclusively to us from Tufts University. We do not own the patents that underlie this license. Our rights to use this technology and employ the inventions claimed in the licensed patents are subject to the continuation of and compliance with the terms of the license. Our principal obligations under our license agreement with Tufts are as follows:

If we breach any of these obligations, Tufts may have the right to terminate the license, which could result in our being unable to develop, manufacture and sell products using our Simoa bead-based technology or a competitor’s gaining access to the Simoa technology. Termination of our license agreement with Tufts would have a material adverse effect on our business.

In addition, we are a party to a number of other agreements that include licenses to intellectual property, including non‑exclusive licenses. We expect that we may need to enter into additional license agreements in the future. Our business could suffer, for example, if any current or future licenses terminate, if the licensors fail to abide by the terms of the license, if the licensed patents or other rights are found to be invalid or unenforceable, or if we are unable to enter into necessary licenses on acceptable terms.

We may need or may choose to obtain licenses from third parties to advance our research or allow commercialization of our current or future products, and we cannot provide any assurances that we would be able to do so.

We may need or may choose to obtain licenses from third parties to advance our research or allow commercialization of our current or future products, and we cannot provide any assurances that third‑party patents do not exist that might be enforced against our current or future products in the absence of such a license. We may fail to obtain any of these licenses on commercially reasonable terms, if at all. Even if we are able to obtain a license, it may be non‑exclusive, thereby giving our competitors access to the same technologies licensed to us. If we could not obtain a

license, we may be required to expend significant time and resources to develop or license replacement technology. If we are unable to do so, we may be unable to develop or commercialize the affected products, which could materially harm our business and the third parties owning such intellectual property rights could seek either an injunction prohibiting our sales, or, with respect to our sales, an obligation on our part to pay royalties and/or other forms of compensation.

Licensing of intellectual property involves complex legal, business and scientific issues. Disputes may arise between us and our licensors regarding intellectual property subject to a license agreement, including:

If disputes over intellectual property that we have licensed prevent or impair our ability to maintain the licensing arrangements on acceptable terms, we may be unable to successfully develop and commercialize the affected product, or the dispute may have an adverse effect on our results of operation.

In addition to agreements pursuant to which we in‑license intellectual property, we have in the past and expect to in the future to grant licenses under our intellectual property. Like in‑licenses, out‑licenses are complex, and disputes may arise between us and our licensees, such as the types of disputes described above. Moreover, our licensees may breach their obligations, or we may be exposed to liability due to our failure or alleged failure to satisfy our obligations. Any such occurrence could have an adverse effect on our business.

If we or any of our partners are sued for infringing intellectual property rights of third parties, it would be costly and time‑consuming, and an unfavorable outcome in that litigation could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Our success also depends on our ability to develop, manufacture, market and sell our products and perform our services without infringing upon the proprietary rights of third parties. Numerous U.S. and foreign‑issued patents and pending patent applications owned by third parties exist in the fields in which we are developing products and services. As part of a business strategy to impede our successful commercialization and entry into new markets, competitors have claimed, and may claim in the future, that our products and/or services infringe their intellectual property rights and have suggested, and may suggest in the future, that we enter into license agreements.

Even if such claims are without merit, we could incur substantial costs and divert the attention of our management and technical personnel in defending ourselves against claims of infringement made by third parties or settling such claims. Any adverse ruling by a court or administrative body, or perception of an adverse ruling, may have a material adverse impact on our ability to conduct our business and our finances. Moreover, third parties making claims against us may be able to obtain injunctive relief against us, which could block our ability to offer one or more products or services and could result in a substantial award of damages against us. In addition, since we sometimes indemnify customers, collaborators or licensees, we may have additional liability in connection with any infringement or alleged infringement of third‑party intellectual property.

Because patent applications can take many years to issue, there may be pending applications, some of which are unknown to us, that may result in issued patents upon which our products or proprietary technologies may infringe. Moreover, we may fail to identify issued patents of relevance or incorrectly conclude that an issued patent is invalid or not infringed by our technology or any of our products. There is a substantial amount of litigation involving patent and other intellectual property rights in our industry. If a third party claims that we or any of our licensors, customers or collaboration partners infringe upon a third party’s intellectual property rights, we may have to:

We may be involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our patents or the patents of our licensors, which could be expensive, time‑consuming and unsuccessful.

Competitors may infringe our patents or the patents that we license. In the event of infringement or unauthorized use, we may file one or more infringement lawsuits, which can be expensive and time‑consuming. An adverse result in any such litigation proceedings could put one or more of our patents at risk of being invalidated, being found to be unenforceable or being interpreted narrowly and could put our patent applications at risk of not issuing. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation.

Many of our competitors are larger than we are and have substantially greater resources. They are, therefore, likely to be able to sustain the costs of complex patent litigation longer than we could. In addition, the uncertainties associated with litigation could have a material adverse effect on our ability to raise any funds necessary to continue our operations, continue our internal research programs, in‑license needed technology, or enter into development partnerships that would help us bring our products to market.

In addition, patent litigation can be very costly and time‑consuming. An adverse outcome in such litigation or proceedings may expose us or any of our future development partners to loss of our proprietary position, expose us to significant liabilities, or require us to seek licenses that may not be available on commercially acceptable terms, if at all.

Our issued patents could be found invalid or unenforceable if challenged in court, which could have a material adverse impact on our business.

If we or any of our partners were to initiate legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent covering one of our products or services, the defendant in such litigation could counterclaim that our patent is invalid and/or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity and/or unenforceability are commonplace. Grounds for a validity challenge could be an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, including lack of novelty, obviousness or non‑enablement, or failure to claim patent eligible subject matter. Grounds for an unenforceability assertion could be an allegation that someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld relevant information from the USPTO, or made a misleading statement, during prosecution. Third parties may also raise similar claims before the USPTO even outside the context of litigation. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. With respect to the validity

question, for example, we cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior art of which we and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution. If a defendant were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity and/or unenforceability, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the challenged patent. Such a loss of patent protection would have a material adverse impact on our business.

We may be subject to claims that our employees, consultants or independent contractors have wrongfully used or disclosed alleged trade secrets of their other clients or former employers to us, which could subject us to costly litigation.

As is common in the life sciences industry, we engage the services of consultants and independent contractors to assist us in the development of our products. Many of these consultants and independent contractors were previously employed at, or may have previously or may be currently providing consulting or other services to, universities or other technology, biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. We may become subject to claims that our company, a consultant or an independent contractor inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed trade secrets or other information proprietary to their former employers or their former or current clients. We may similarly be subject to claims stemming from similar actions of an employee, such as one who was previously employed by another company, including a competitor or potential competitor. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. Even if we are successful in defending against these claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to our management team. If we were not successful we could lose access or exclusive access to valuable intellectual property.

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

We generally enter into confidentiality and intellectual property assignment agreements with our employees, consultants, and contractors. These agreements generally provide that inventions conceived by the party in the course of rendering services to us will be our exclusive property. However, those agreements may not be honored and may not effectively assign intellectual property rights to us. For example, even if we have a consulting agreement in place with an academic advisor pursuant to which such academic advisor is required to assign any inventions developed in connection with providing services to us, such academic advisor may not have the right to assign such inventions to us, as it may conflict with his or her obligations to assign all such intellectual property to his or her employing institution.

In addition, we sometimes enter into agreements where we provide services to third parties, such as customers. Under such circumstances, our agreements may provide that certain intellectual property that we conceive in the course of providing those services is assigned to the customer. In those cases, we would not be able to use that particular intellectual property in, for example, our work for other customers without a license.

We may not be able to protect our intellectual property rights throughout the world, which could materially, negatively affect our business.

Filing, prosecuting and defending patents on current and future products in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and our intellectual property rights in some countries outside the United States can be less extensive than those in the United States. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as federal and state laws in the United States. Consequently, regardless of whether we are able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in the United States, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in all countries outside the United States, or from selling or importing products made using our inventions in and into the United States or other jurisdictions. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not pursued and obtained patent protection to develop their own products, and further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we have patent protection, but enforcement is not as strong as it is in the United States. These products may compete with our products and our patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing. Even if we pursue and obtain issued patents in particular jurisdictions, our patent claims or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent third parties from competing. Patent protection must ultimately be sought on a country‑by‑country basis, which is an expensive and time‑consuming process with uncertain outcomes. Accordingly, we may choose not to seek patent protection in certain countries, and we will not have the benefit of patent protection in such countries.

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

In addition, we and our partners also face the risk that our products are imported or reimported into markets with relatively higher prices from markets with relatively lower prices, which would result in a decrease of sales and any payments we receive from the affected market. Recent developments in U.S. patent law have made it more difficult to stop these and related practices based on theories of patent infringement.

Changes in patent laws or patent jurisprudence could diminish the value of patents in general, thereby impairing our ability to protect our products.

The America Invents Act, or the AIA, was signed into law on September 16, 2011, and many of the substantive changes became effective on March 16, 2013. An important change introduced by the AIA is that, as of March 16, 2013, the United States transitioned to a “first‑to‑file” system for deciding which party should be granted a patent when two or more patent applications are filed by different parties claiming the same invention. A third party that files a patent application in the USPTO after that date but before us could therefore be awarded a patent covering an invention of ours even if we had made the invention before it was made by the third party. This will require us to be cognizant going forward of the time from invention to filing of a patent application, but circumstances could prevent us from promptly filing patent applications on our inventions.

Among some of the other changes introduced by the AIA are changes that limit where a patent holder may file a patent infringement suit and providing additional opportunities for third parties to challenge any issued patent in the USPTO. This applies to all of our owned and in‑licensed U.S. patents, even those issued before March 16, 2013. Because of a lower evidentiary standard in USPTO proceedings compared to the evidentiary standard in U.S. federal courts necessary to invalidate a patent claim, a third party could potentially provide evidence in a USPTO proceeding sufficient for the USPTO to hold a claim invalid even though the same evidence would be insufficient to invalidate the claim if first presented in a district court action. Accordingly, a third party may attempt to use the USPTO procedures to invalidate our patent claims that would not have been invalidated if first challenged by the third party as a defendant in a district court action. The AIA and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents.

Additionally, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on several patent cases in recent years, such as Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc., Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.,  Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. and Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, either narrowing the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances or weakening the rights of patent owners in certain situations. In addition to increasing uncertainty with regard to our ability to obtain patents in the future, this combination of events has created uncertainty with respect to the value of patents, once obtained. Depending on decisions by the U.S. Congress, the federal courts, and the USPTO, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that could weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce our existing patents and patents that we might obtain in the future.

Obtaining and maintaining our patent protection depends on compliance with various procedural, document submission, fee payment and other requirements imposed by governmental patent agencies, and our patent protection could be reduced or eliminated for non‑compliance with these requirements.

The USPTO and various foreign governmental patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other provisions during the patent process. There are situations in which noncompliance can result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. In such an event, competitors might be able to enter the market earlier than would otherwise have been the case. In some cases, our licensors may be responsible for, for example, these payments, thereby decreasing our control over compliance with these requirements.

If our trademarks and trade names are not adequately protected, then we may not be able to build name recognition in our markets of interest and our business may be adversely affected.

Our registered or unregistered trademarks or trade names may be challenged, infringed, circumvented or declared generic or determined to be infringing on other marks. We may not be able to protect our rights to these trademarks and trade names, which we need to build name recognition by potential partners or customers in our markets of interest. At times, competitors may adopt trade names or trademarks similar to ours, thereby impeding our ability to build brand identity and possibly leading to market confusion. In addition, there could be potential trade name or trademark infringement claims brought by owners of other registered trademarks. Over the long term, if we are unable to establish name recognition based on our trademarks and trade names, then we may not be able to compete effectively and our business may be adversely affected.

We may use third‑party open source software components in future products, and failure to comply with the terms of the underlying open source software licenses could restrict our ability to sell such products.

While our current products do not contain any software tools licensed by third‑party authors under “open source” licenses, we may choose to use open source software in future products. Use and distribution of open source software may entail greater risks than use of third‑party commercial software, as open source licensors generally do not provide warranties or other contractual protections regarding infringement claims or the quality of the code. Some open source licenses may contain requirements that we make available source code for modifications or derivative works we create based upon the type of open source software we use. If we combine our proprietary software with open source software in a certain manner, we could, under certain open source licenses, be required to release the source code of our proprietary software to the public. This would allow our competitors to create similar products with less development effort and time and ultimately could result in a loss of product sales.

Although we intend to monitor any use of open source software to avoid subjecting our products to conditions we do not intend, the terms of many open source licenses have not been interpreted by U.S. courts, and there is a risk that any such licenses could be construed in a way that could impose unanticipated conditions or restrictions on our ability to commercialize our products. Moreover, we cannot assure investors that our processes for controlling our use of open source software in our products will be effective. If we are held to have breached the terms of an open source software license, we could be required to seek licenses from third parties to continue offering our products on terms that are not economically feasible, to re‑engineer our products, to discontinue the sale of our products if re‑engineering could not be accomplished on a timely basis, or to make generally available, in source code form, our proprietary code, any of which could adversely affect our business, operating results, and financial condition.

We use third‑party software that may be difficult to replace or may cause errors or failures of our products that could lead to lost customers or harm to our reputation.

We use software licensed from third parties in our products. In the future, this software may not be available to us on commercially reasonable terms, or at all. Any loss of the right to use any of this software could result in delays in the production of our products until equivalent technology is either developed by us, or, if available, is identified, obtained and integrated, which could harm our business. In addition, any errors or defects in third‑party software or other third‑party software failures could result in errors, defects or cause our products to fail, which could harm our business

and be costly to correct. Many of these providers attempt to impose limitations on their liability for such errors, defects or failures, and if enforceable, we may have additional liability to our customers or third‑party providers that could harm our reputation and increase our operating costs.

We will need to maintain our relationships with third‑party software providers and to obtain software from such providers that does not contain any errors or defects. Any failure to do so could adversely impact our ability to deliver reliable products to our customers and could harm our reputation and results of operations.

Numerous factors may limit any potential competitive advantage provided by our intellectual property rights.

The degree of future protection afforded by our intellectual property rights is uncertain because intellectual property rights have limitations, and may not adequately protect our business, provide a barrier to entry against our competitors or potential competitors, or permit us to maintain our competitive advantage. 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:

Should any of these events occur, they could significantly harm our business and results of operations.

Risks Related to Our Common Stock and Being a Public Company

We expect that our stock price may fluctuate significantly.

The market price of shares of our common stock could be subject to wide fluctuations in response to many risk factors listed in this section, and others beyond our control, including:

These and other market and industry factors may cause the market price and demand for our common stock to fluctuate substantially, regardless of our actual operating performance, which may limit or prevent investors from readily selling their shares of common stock and may otherwise negatively affect the liquidity of our common stock. In addition, the stock market in general, and life science companies in particular, have experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have often been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of these companies. In the past, when the market price of a stock has been volatile, holders of that stock have on occasion instituted securities class action litigation against the company that issued the stock. If any of our stockholders were to bring a lawsuit against us,

the defense and disposition of the lawsuit could be costly and divert the time and attention of our management and harm our operating results.

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

The trading market for our common stock will be influenced by the research and reports that industry or securities analysts publish about us or our business. If one or more of the analysts who cover us issues an adverse opinion about our company, our stock price would likely decline. If one or more of these analysts ceases coverage of us or fails to regularly publish reports on us, we could lose visibility in the public markets, which could cause our stock price or trading volume to decline.

Our principal stockholders and management own a significant percentage of our stock and will be able to exercise significant influence over matters subject to stockholder approval.

As of December 31, 2019, our executive officers and directors, and entities affiliated with our executive officers and directors, owned or controlled approximately 31% of our outstanding common stock. Accordingly, our executive officers, directors and principal stockholders have significant influence over our operations. This concentration of ownership could have the effect of delaying or preventing a change in our control or otherwise discouraging a potential acquirer from attempting to obtain control of us, which in turn could have a material adverse effect on our stock price and may prevent attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove the board of directors or management.

We have never paid dividends on our capital stock, and we do not anticipate paying any dividends in the foreseeable future. Consequently, any gains from an investment in our common stock will likely depend on whether the price of our common stock increases.

We have not paid dividends on any of our classes of capital stock to date and we currently intend to retain our future earnings, if any, to fund the development and growth of our business. In addition, the terms of our indebtedness with Hercules prohibit us from paying dividends. As a result, capital appreciation, if any, of our common stock will be your sole source of gain for the foreseeable future. Consequently, in the foreseeable future, you will likely only experience a gain from an investment in our common stock if the price of our common stock increases.

Anti‑takeover provisions contained in our restated certificate of incorporation and restated by‑laws, as well as provisions of Delaware law, could impair a takeover attempt.

Our restated certificate of incorporation, restated by‑laws and Delaware law contain provisions which could have the effect of rendering more difficult, delaying or preventing an acquisition deemed undesirable by our board of directors. Our corporate governance documents include provisions:

These provisions, alone or together, could delay or prevent hostile takeovers and changes in control or changes in our management.

As a Delaware corporation, we are also subject to provisions of Delaware law, including Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation law, which prevents some stockholders holding more than 15% of our outstanding common stock from engaging in certain business combinations without approval of the holders of substantially all of our outstanding common stock.

Any provision of our restated certificate of incorporation, restated by‑laws or Delaware law that has the effect of delaying or deterring a change in control could limit the opportunity for our stockholders to receive a premium for their shares of our common stock, and could also affect the price that some investors are willing to pay for our common stock.

We are an “emerging growth company” and are able to avail ourselves of reduced disclosure requirements applicable to emerging growth companies, and we plan to avail ourselves of the ability to adopt new accounting standards on the timeline permitted for private companies, which could make our common stock less attractive to investors and our financial statements less comparable to other companies who are complying with new accounting standards on public company timelines.

We are an “emerging growth company,” as defined in the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2012, as amended, or the JOBS Act, and we intend to take advantage of certain exemptions from various reporting requirements that are applicable to other public companies that are not “emerging growth companies,” including not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes‑Oxley Act, reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation in our periodic reports and proxy statements, and exemptions from the requirements of holding a nonbinding advisory vote on executive compensation and stockholder approval of any golden parachute payments not previously approved. In addition, Section 107 of the JOBS Act also provides that an emerging growth company can take advantage of the extended transition period provided in Section 7(a)(2)(B) of the Securities Act for complying with new or revised accounting standards. In other words, an emerging growth company can delay the adoption of certain accounting standards until those standards would otherwise apply to private companies. We have elected to take advantage of the extended transition period afforded by the JOBS Act for the implementation of new or revised accounting standards and, as a result, will comply with new or revised accounting standards not later than the relevant dates on which adoption of such standards is required for non‑public companies. As a result of this election, the timeline to comply with certain accounting standards will in many cases be delayed as compared to other public companies who are not eligible to have made or have not made this election. As a result, investors may view our financial statements as not comparable to other public companies. We cannot predict if investors will find our common stock less attractive because we may rely on these exemptions. If some investors find our common stock less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for our common stock and our stock price may be more volatile. We may take advantage of these reporting exemptions until we are no longer an emerging growth company. We will remain an emerging growth company until the earliest of (i) the last day of the fiscal year in which we have total annual gross revenue of $1.07 billion or more; (ii) December 31, 2022; (iii) the date on which we have issued more than $1.0 billion in nonconvertible debt during the previous three years; or (iv) the date on which we are deemed to be a large accelerated filer under the rules of the SEC.

We incur increased costs and devote substantial management time as a result of operating as a public company.

As a public company, we incur significant legal, accounting and other expenses that we did not incur as a private company, and these expenses may increase even more after we are no longer an “emerging growth company.”

We are subject to the reporting requirements of the Exchange Act, the Sarbanes‑Oxley Act, the Dodd‑Frank Wall Street Reform and Protection Act, as well as rules adopted, and to be adopted, by the SEC and The Nasdaq Global Market. Our management and other personnel devote a substantial amount of time to these compliance initiatives. Moreover, these rules and regulations substantially increase our legal and financial compliance costs and make some activities more time‑consuming and costly. The increased costs increase our net loss. For example, we expect these rules and regulations to make it more difficult and more expensive for us to obtain director and officer liability insurance and we may be required to incur substantial costs to maintain the sufficient coverage. We cannot predict or estimate the amount or timing of additional costs we may incur to respond to these requirements. The impact of these requirements could also make it more difficult for us to attract and retain qualified persons to serve on our board of directors, our board committees or as executive officers.

In addition, as a public company we incur additional costs and obligations in order to comply with SEC rules that implement Section 404 of the Sarbanes‑Oxley Act. Under these rules, we are required to make a formal assessment of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting, and once we cease to be an emerging growth company, we will be required to include an attestation report on internal control over financial reporting issued by our independent registered public accounting firm. To achieve timely compliance with Section 404, we engaged in a process to document and evaluate our internal control over financial reporting, which was both costly and challenging. We will need to continue to dedicate internal resources, engage outside consultants and adopt a detailed work plan to assess and document the adequacy of our internal control over financial reporting, continue steps to improve control processes as appropriate, validate through testing that controls are designed and operating effectively, and implement a continuous reporting and improvement process for internal control over financial reporting. If we identify one or more material weaknesses, it could result in an adverse reaction in the financial markets due to a loss of confidence in the reliability of our financial statements.

Item 1B. UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS

Not applicable.

Item 2. PROPERTIES

We currently lease approximately 91,600 square feet of office, laboratory, and manufacturing space at our headquarters in Billerica, Massachusetts. The premises covered by this new lease serve as our principal office and laboratory space. The initial term of the lease is 11 years and five months beginning on April 1, 2019, and we have the option to extend the lease for two additional five‑year periods. We believe that this office, laboratory and manufacturing space will be sufficient to meet our needs for the foreseeable future.

In addition, our subsidiary, Uman, leases a total of approximately 6,500 square feet of office, laboratory, manufacturing and storage space in Umeå, Sweden.  These leases expire at various dates between May 31, 2020 and February 28, 2023.   

Item 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

We are not currently a party to any material legal proceedings.

Item 4. MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES

Not applicable.

PART II

Item 5. MARKET FOR REGISTRANT’S COMMON EQUITY, RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES

Market Information

Our common stock began trading on The Nasdaq Global Market on December 7, 2017 under the symbol “QTRX.”

Stockholders

As of March 1, 2020, there were approximately 47 stockholders of record of the 28,225,653 outstanding shares of common stock.

Unregistered Sales of Securities

There were no unregistered sales of equity securities during the fourth quarter ended December 31, 2019.

Use of Proceeds from Initial Public Offering of Common Stock

On December 11, 2017, we completed the initial public offering of our common stock, which resulted in the sale of 4,916,480 shares, including 641,280 shares sold by us pursuant to the exercise in full by the underwriters of their option to purchase additional shares in connection with the initial public offering, at a price to the public of $15.00 per share. The offer and sale of all of the shares in our initial public offering was registered under the Securities Act pursuant to a registration statement on Form S‑1 (File No. 333‑221475), which was declared effective by the SEC on December 6, 2017, and a registration statement on Form S‑1 (File No. 333‑221932) under Rule 462(b) of the Securities Act that became effective upon its filing. Following the sale of all of the shares in connection with the closing of our initial public offering, the offering terminated. J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Leerink Partners LLC and Cowen and Company, LLC (Cowen) acted as joint book‑running managers for the initial public offering. BTIG, LLC and Evercore Group L.L.C. acted as co‑managers.

We received approximately $65.6 million in net proceeds after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and offering costs payable by us. As of December 31, 2019, we had used all of the net proceeds from the offering for: operating expenses, capital investments, debt payments and the acquisition of Aushon. None of the offering expenses consisted of direct or indirect payments made by us to directors, officers or persons owning 10% or more of our common stock or to their associates, or to our affiliates, and we have not used any of the net proceeds from the offering to make payments, directly or indirectly, to any such persons. There has been no material change in the planned use of the net proceeds from our initial public offering as described in our final prospectus filed with the SEC on December 7, 2017 pursuant to Rule 424(b)(4) under the Securities Act.

Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

Not applicable.

Item 6. SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA 

You should read the following selected financial data together with our consolidated financial statements and the related notes and the information under the caption “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10‑K. We have derived the statement of operations data for the years ended December 31, 2019, 2018, and 2017 and the balance sheet data as of December 31, 2019 and 2018 from our audited consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10‑K. Note that the results for the year ended December 31, 2018 include activity related to the acquisition of Aushon, which occurred on January 1, 2018, and the results for the year ended December 31, 2019 include activity from

the acquisition of Uman, which occurred on August 1, 2019. The statement of operations data for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, and the selected balance sheet data as of December 31, 2017, 2016, and 2015 is derived from audited financial statements that are not included in this Annual Report on Form 10‑K. Our historical results are not necessarily indicative of the results that should be expected in the future.  

Consolidated statement of operations data (in thousands, except per share data)

Consolidated balance sheet data (in thousands)

Item 7. MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

The following discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations should be read in conjunction with our consolidated financial statements and related notes included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10‑K. In addition to historical consolidated financial information, the following discussion contains forward‑looking statements that reflect our plans, estimates and beliefs. Our actual results could differ materially from those discussed in the forward‑looking statements. See “Special Note Regarding Forward‑Looking Statements.” Factors that could cause or contribute to these differences include those discussed below and elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10‑K, particularly in “Risk Factors.”

Overview

We are a life sciences company that has developed next generation, ultra-sensitive digital immunoassay platforms that advance precision health for life sciences research and diagnostics. Our platforms are based on our proprietary digital “Simoa” detection technology. Our Simoa bead-based and planar array platforms enable customers to

reliably detect protein biomarkers in extremely low concentrations in blood, serum and other fluids that, in many cases, are undetectable using conventional, analog immunoassay technologies, and also allow researchers to define and validate the function of novel protein biomarkers that are only present in very low concentrations and have been discovered using technologies such as mass spectrometry. These capabilities provide our customers with insight into the role of protein biomarkers in human health that has not been possible with other existing technologies and enable researchers to unlock unique insights into the continuum between health and disease. We believe this greater insight will enable the development of novel therapies and diagnostics and facilitate a paradigm shift in healthcare from an emphasis on treatment to a focus on earlier detection, monitoring, prognosis and, ultimately, prevention. We are currently focusing on protein detection, which we believe is an area of significant unmet need and where we have significant competitive advantages. However, in addition to enabling new applications and insights in protein analysis, we are also developing our Simoa bead-based technology to detect nucleic acids in biological samples.

We currently sell all of our products for life science research, primarily to laboratories associated with academic and governmental research institutions, as well as pharmaceutical, biotechnology and contract research companies, through a direct sales force and support organizations in North America and Europe, and through distributors or sales agents in other select markets, including Australia, Brazil, China, Czech Republic, India, Israel, Japan, Lebanon, Mexico, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan.

Our instruments are designed to be used either with assays fully developed by us, including all antibodies and supplies required to run the tests, or with “homebrew” kits where we supply some of the components required for testing, and the customer supplies the remaining required elements. Accordingly, our installed instruments generate a recurring revenue stream. We believe that our recurring consumable revenue is driven by our customers’ ability to extract more valuable data using our platform and to process a large number of samples quickly with little hands-on preparation.

We commercially launched our first immunoassay platform, the Simoa HD-1, in January 2014. The HD-1 is based on our bead-based technology, and assays run on the HD-1 are fully automated. We initiated commercial launch of the SR-X instrument in December 2017. The SR-X utilizes the same Simoa bead-based technology and assay kits as the HD-1 in a compact benchtop form with a lower price point, more flexible assay preparation, and a wider range of applications. In July 2019, we launched the Simoa HD-X, an upgraded version of the Simoa HD-1, which replaces the HD-1. The HD-X has been designed to deliver significant productivity and operational efficiency improvements, as well as greater user flexibility. We began shipping and installing HD-X instruments at customer locations in the third quarter of 2019, ahead of our original fourth quarter expectation. As the installed base of the Simoa instruments increases, total consumables revenue overall is expected to increase. We believe that consumables revenue should be subject to less period-to-period fluctuation than our instrument sales revenue, and will become an increasingly important contributor to our overall revenue.

On January 30, 2018, we acquired Aushon for $3.2 million in cash, with an additional payment of $0.8 million made in July 2018, six months after the acquisition date. With the acquisition of Aushon, we acquired a CLIA certified laboratory, as well as Aushon’s proprietary sensitive planar array detection technology. Leveraging our proprietary sophisticated Simoa image analysis and data analysis algorithms, we further refined this planar array technology to develop the SP-X instrument to provide the same Simoa sensitivity found in our Simoa bead-based platform. We initiated an early-access program for the SP-X instrument in January 2019, with the full commercial launch commenced in April 2019.

On August 1, 2019, we completed our acquisition of Uman for an aggregate purchase price of $21.2 million, comprised of (i) $15.7 million in cash plus (ii) 191,152 shares of our common stock (representing $5.5 million based on the closing prices of our common stock on the Nasdaq Global Market on July 1, 2019 and August 1, 2019, the dates of issuance). The acquisition closed with respect to 95% of the outstanding shares of capital stock of Uman on July 1, 2019 and with respect to the remaining 5% of the outstanding shares of capital stock of Uman on August 1, 2019. Uman supplies neurofilament light (Nf-L) antibodies and ELISA kits, which are widely recognized by researchers and biopharmaceutical and diagnostics companies world-wide as the premier solution for the detection of Nf-L to advance the development of therapeutics and diagnostics for neurodegenerative conditions. 

As of December 31, 2019, we had cash and cash equivalents of $109.2 million. Since inception, we have incurred net losses. Our net loss was $40.8 million, $31.5 million, and $27.0 million for the years ended December 31, 2019, 2018, and 2017, respectively. As of December 31, 2019, we had an accumulated deficit of $216.2 million and stockholders' equity of $128.7 million. We expect to continue to incur significant expenses and operating losses at least through the next 24 months. We expect our expenses will increase substantially as we:

Financial Operations Overview

Revenue

Under Topic 606, an entity recognizes revenue when its customer obtains control of promised goods or services, in an amount that reflects the consideration that the entity expects to receive in exchange for those goods or services. To determine revenue recognition for arrangements that an entity determines are within the scope of Topic 606, the entity performs the following five steps: (i) identify the contract(s) with a customer; (ii) identify the performance obligations in the contract; (iii) determine the transaction price, including variable consideration, if any; (iv) allocate the transaction price to the performance obligations in the contract; and (v) recognize revenue when (or as) the entity satisfies a performance obligation. We only apply the five-step model to contracts when it is probable that the entity will collect the consideration to which it is entitled in exchange for the goods or services it transfers to the customer.

Once a contract is determined to be within the scope of Topic 606, we assess the goods or services promised within each contract and determine those that are performance obligations.  Arrangements that include rights to additional goods or services that are exercisable at a customer’s discretion are generally considered options.  We assess if these options provide a material right to the customer and if so, they are considered performance obligations.  The identification of material rights requires judgments related to the determination of the value of the underlying license relative to the option exercise price, including assumptions about technical feasibility and the probability of developing a candidate that would be subject to the option rights. The exercise of a material right is accounted for as a contract modification for accounting purposes.

The transaction price is then determined and allocated to the identified performance obligations in proportion to their standalone selling prices (“SSP”) on a relative SSP basis. SSP is determined at contract inception and is not updated to reflect changes between contract inception and when the performance obligations are satisfied. Determining the SSP for performance obligations requires significant judgment. In developing the SSP for a performance obligation, we consider applicable market conditions and relevant entity-specific factors, including factors that were contemplated in negotiating the agreement with the customer and estimated costs. We validate the SSP for performance obligations by evaluating whether changes in the key assumptions used to determine the SSP will have a significant effect on the allocation of arrangement consideration between multiple performance obligations.

We generate product revenue primarily from sales of our HD-X, HD‑1, SR‑X, and SP‑X instruments and related reagents and other consumables. We currently sell our products for research use only applications and our

customers are primarily laboratories associated with academic and governmental research institutions, as well as pharmaceutical, biotechnology and contract research companies. Sales of our consumables have consistently increased due to an increasing number of instruments being installed in the field, all of which require certain of our consumables to run customers’ specific tests. Consumable revenue consists of sales of complete assays which are developed internally by us, plus sales of “homebrew” kits which contain all the elements necessary to run tests with the exception of the specific antibodies utilized which are separately provided by the customer.

Service and other revenue consists of testing services provided by us in our Accelerator Laboratory on behalf of certain research customers, in addition to warranty and other service‑based revenue. Services provided in our Accelerator Laboratory include sample testing, homebrew assay development and custom assay development.

Collaboration and license revenue consists of revenue associated with licensing our technology to third parties and for related services.

Cost of Products, Services and Collaboration Revenue

Cost of goods sold for products consists of HD-X, HD‑1, and SR‑X instrument costs from the manufacturer. Cost of goods sold for SP‑X consists of costs based on the internal assembly of this item. Raw material part costs, associated freight, shipping and handling costs, contract manufacturer costs, salaries,  personnel costs, royalties, stock‑based compensation, overhead and other direct costs related to those sales are classified as cost of goods sold for products.

Cost of goods sold for services consists of salaries and other personnel costs, royalties, stock‑based compensation and facility costs associated with operating the Accelerator Laboratory on behalf of customers, in addition to costs related to warranties and other costs of servicing equipment at customer sites.

Cost of collaboration revenue consists of royalty expense due to third parties from revenue generated by collaboration or license deals.

Research and Development Expenses

Research and development expenses consist of salaries and other personnel costs, stock‑based compensation, research supplies, third‑party development costs for new products, materials for prototypes, and allocated overhead costs that include facility and other overhead costs. We have made substantial investments in research and development since our inception, and plan to continue to make substantial investments in the future. Our research and development efforts have focused primarily on the tasks required to support development and commercialization of new and existing products. We believe that our continued investment in research and development is essential to our long‑term competitive position and expect these expenses to increase in future periods.

Selling, General and Administrative Expenses

Selling, general and administrative expenses consist primarily of salaries and other personnel costs, and stock‑based compensation for our sales and marketing, finance, legal, human resources and general management, as well as professional services, such as legal and accounting services. We expect selling, general and administrative expenses to increase in future periods as the number of sales, technical support and marketing and administrative personnel grows and we continue to introduce new products, broaden our customer base and grow our business. We also expect to incur additional expenses as a public company, including expenses related to compliance with the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Nasdaq Stock Market, additional insurance expenses, and expenses related to investor relations activities and other administrative and professional services.

Critical Accounting Policies, Significant Judgments and Estimates

Our consolidated financial statements and the related notes included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10‑K are prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States. The

preparation of these consolidated financial statements requires us to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities, revenue, costs and expenses and related disclosures. We base our estimates on historical experience and on various other assumptions that we believe to be reasonable under the circumstances. Changes in accounting estimates may occur from period to period. Accordingly, actual results could differ significantly from the estimates made by our management. We evaluate our estimates and assumptions on an ongoing basis. To the extent that there are material differences between these estimates and actual results, our future financial statement presentation, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows will be affected.

We believe that the following critical accounting policies involve a greater degree of judgment and complexity than our other significant accounting policies. Accordingly, these are the policies we believe are the most critical to understanding and evaluating our consolidated financial condition and results of operations. Our significant accounting policies are more fully described in “Significant Accounting Policies” (Note 2) in the notes to our consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10‑K.

Revenue Recognition

We recognize revenue when a customer obtains control of a promised good or service. The amount of revenue recognized reflects consideration that we expect to be entitled to receive in exchange for these goods and services, incentives and taxes collected from customers, that are subsequently remitted to governmental authorities.

We adopted Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) Topic 606, Revenue from Contracts with Customers, or ASC 606, on January 1, 2019, using the modified retrospective method for all contracts not completed as of the date of adoption. The reported results for 2019 reflect the application of ASC 606 guidance, while the reported results for 2018 were prepared under ASC 605, Revenue Recognition

Product Revenue

Our products are composed of analyzer instruments, assay kits and other consumables such as reagents.  Products are sold directly to biopharmaceutical and academic research organizations or are sold through distributors in EMEA and Asia Pacific regions.  The sales of instruments are generally accompanied by an initial year of implied service-type warranties and may be bundled with assays and other consumables and may also include other items such as training and installation of the instrument and/or an extended service warranty. Revenues from the sale of products are recognized at a point in time when we transfer control of the product to the customer, which is upon installation for instruments sold to direct customers, and based upon shipping terms for assay kits and other consumables.  Revenue for instruments sold to distributors is generally recognized based upon shipping terms (either upon shipment or delivery).

Service and Other Revenue

Service revenues are composed of contract research services, initial implied one-year service-type warranties, extended services contracts and other services such as training.  Contract research services are provided through our Accelerator Laboratory and generally consist of fixed fee contracts.  Revenues from contract research services are recognized at a point in time when we complete and deliver our research report on each individually completed study, or over time if the contractual provisions allow for the collection of transaction consideration for costs incurred plus a reasonable margin through the period of performance of the services.  Revenues from service-type warranties are recognized ratably over the contract service period.  Revenues from other services are immaterial.

Collaboration and License Revenue

We may enter into agreements to license the intellectual property and know-how associated with its instruments in exchange for license fees and future royalties (as described below).  The license agreements provide the licensee with a right to use the intellectual property with the license fee revenues recognized at a point in time as the underlying license is considered functional intellectual property. We have recognized revenues from a sales- or usage based royalties related to our licensing technology and intellectual property..

Payment Terms

Our payment terms vary by the type and location of customer and the products or services offered. Payment from customers is generally required in a term ranging from 30 to 45 days from date of shipment or satisfaction of the performance obligation with no discounts for early payment. Occasionally we do provide extended payment terms or financing arrangements to customers.

Disaggregated Revenue

When disaggregating revenue, we considered all of the economic factors that may affect revenues. The following tables disaggregate our revenue from contracts with customers by revenue type: