Note 6. Commitments and Contingencies

Legal Proceedings

On September 16, 2021, the Company filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (C.A. No. 1:21-cv-01317) (the “Court”) alleging that Ivantis, Inc. (“Ivantis”) directly and indirectly infringes the Company’s U.S. Patent Nos. 8,287,482, 9,370,443, 9,486,361, and 10,314,742 by making, using, selling, and offering for sale the Hydrus® Microstent. The Company’s complaint seeks money damages and injunctive relief. On January 24, 2022, Ivantis asserted counterclaims requesting declaratory judgments that the Company's asserted patents-in-suit are not infringed and/or invalid. On August 1, 2022, the Company filed an amended complaint alleging that Alcon Inc., Alcon Vision, LLC and Alcon Research, LLC (collectively, “Alcon”) infringe the four originally asserted patents by making, using, selling, and offering for sale the Hydrus® Microstent, and that all defendants also infringe U.S. Patent No. 11,389,328. The defendants asserted counterclaims requesting declaratory judgments that the Company’s asserted patents-in-suit are not infringed and/or are invalid. In September 2022, Ivantis and Alcon filed petitions with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) seeking inter partes review of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,287,482, 9,370,443, 9,486,361, and 10,314,742 (IPR2022-01529, IPR2022-01530,

IPR2022-01533, IPR2022-01540), each of which the USPTO denied for raising prior art references and invalidity arguments that were cumulative of those previously considered by the USPTO. On April 26, 2024, at the conclusion of a five-day jury trial, the Company was awarded a positive jury trial verdict of $34 million, comprised of $5.5 million in lost profits damages and $28.5 million in royalty damages for commercial sales of the Hydrus® Microstent for the period between its commercial launch through trial. The patents at issue were U.S. Patent Nos. 8,287,482, 9,370,443, and 11,389,328. In December 2024, the Court heard oral arguments on the parties’ post-trial briefings at the conclusion of which, the Court ordered the parties to engage in non-binding mediation. In March 2025, the Company and Alcon informed the Court that the dispute had not been resolved through mediation and asked the Court to rule on the parties’ post-trial motions and enter a judgment. On April 22, 2026, the Court entered its final judgment on the parties’ post-trial motions. The final judgment upheld the trial jury’s findings that the patent claims asserted by the Company at trial were valid and were willfully infringed by Alcon and awarded the Company: (i) total monetary damages of $55.4 million, and (ii) an ongoing royalty of 10% of Hydrus revenue through the date of expiration of the last of the patents. The final judgment is subject to appeal.

In June 2025, Alcon filed petitions with the USPTO for ex parte reexaminations challenging the validity of each of the three patents asserted by the Company at trial, based on prior art patents and publications. The USPTO granted Alcon’s requests to initiate the reexaminations. On May 5, 2026, the USPTO issued a Notice of Intent to Issue ex parte Reexamination Certificate for U.S. Patent No. 9,370,443 (“the ‘443 patent”), which confirms the patentability of the patent claims at issue in the ‘443 patent, including claims 8, 24, and 58, which were found infringed by Alcon by a jury in the federal court for the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The Reexamination Certificate is expected to publish in the next few months and cannot be appealed by Alcon. Ex parte reexamination proceedings regarding the other two patents that were found infringed by the jury remain pending in the USPTO.

It is possible that the April 2024 jury verdict in the Company’s favor, including its ability to collect past damages and ongoing royalties, may be materially and adversely impacted if either or both of the two remaining reexamination proceedings result in final, non-appealable judgments of invalidity of the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit before a final, non-appealable judgment is entered by the Court in the patent infringement litigation or if the asserted claims are amended during the reexamination proceedings. For example, entry of such judgments of invalidity by the USPTO could include vacating the jury verdict and a finding of invalidity by the court of either or both of these patents-in-suit. The Company is presently unable to predict the outcome of the lawsuit or the remaining two ex parte reexamination proceedings or to reasonably estimate the potential financial impact of the lawsuit or ex parte reexamination proceedings. The entry of the final judgment triggered the Company’s obligation to pay a $5.4 million success fee to its litigation counsel, which was accrued in the first quarter of 2026 and paid in the second quarter of 2026.

In addition to the foregoing, from time to time, the Company is subject to legal claims, regulatory matters and contingencies in the ordinary course of business. Accruals for these matters are reflected in the financial statements based on management’s assessment, including the advice of legal counsel, of the expected outcome of these matters. Liabilities for estimated losses are accrued if the potential losses from any legal proceedings, regulatory matters or contingencies are considered probable and the amounts can be reasonably estimated. Significant judgment is required in both the determination of probability of loss and the determination as to whether the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. Accruals are based only on information available at the time of the assessment due to the uncertain nature of such matters. As additional information becomes available, management reassesses potential liabilities related to legal claims, regulatory matters and contingencies, and may revise its previous estimates, which could materially affect the Company’s results of operations in a given period.

Except as described above, as of March 31, 2026 the Company was not a party to any legal proceedings, regulatory matters, or other disputes or claims which, if determined adversely, it believes would, individually or taken together, have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, operating results, liquidity, or future prospects.

Indemnification

In the normal course of business, the Company enters into contracts and agreements that contain a variety of representations and warranties and provide for general indemnifications. The Company’s exposure under these agreements is unknown because it involves claims that may be made against the Company in the future, but that have not yet been made. To date, the Company has not paid any claims or been required to defend any action related

to its indemnification obligations. However, the Company may record charges in the future as a result of these indemnification obligations.

The Company indemnifies each of its directors and officers for certain events or occurrences, subject to certain limits, while the director is or was serving at the Company’s request in such capacity, as permitted under Delaware law and in accordance with its certificate of incorporation and bylaws. The term of the indemnification period lasts as long as a director or officer may be subject to any proceeding arising out of acts or omissions of such director or officer in such capacity. The maximum amount of potential future indemnification is unlimited; however, the Company currently holds director and officer liability insurance. This insurance allows the transfer of risk associated with the Company’s exposure and may enable it to recover a portion of any future amounts paid. The Company believes that the fair value of these indemnification obligations is minimal. Accordingly, the Company has not recognized any liabilities relating to these obligations as of March 31, 2026 and December 31, 2025.