Royalty Agreements

Pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger entered into on April 11, 2016, by and between our predecessor entities, LAT Pharma and NanoAntibiotics, Inc., the Company is obligated to pay a low single digit royalty on net sales of BIV201 (continuous infusion terlipressin) to be shared by the members of LAT Pharma Members, PharmaIn Corporation, and The Barrett Edge, Inc.

Pursuant to the Technology Transfer Agreement entered into on July 25, 2016, by and between the Company and the University of Padova (Italy), the Company was obligated to pay a 5% on net sales (capped at a maximum of $200,000 per year) of all terlipressin products covered by US Patent No. 11364277, expiring in 2036 and the European Patent No. EP3347032, expiring in 2036 and pending patent applications in the U.S., Europe, China and Japan, related to the administration of terlipressin as a continuous infusion for the treatment of ascites.

Pursuant to the Intellectual Property Rights Agreement entered into on April 18, 2019, by and between the Company and DOCUCHEM SLU, the Company is obligated to pay DOCUCHEM SLU $25,000 on the issuance of the U.S. patent for terlipressin and $50,000 each calendar year in which the gross sales in the U.S. of a product covered by a claim of an issued U.S. patent as directed to terlipressin exceeds $10,000,000.

Shareholder class action complaint and shareholder derivative complaints

On January 19, 2024, a purported securities class action complaint, captioned Eric Olmstead v. BioVie Inc. et al., No. 3:24-cv-00035, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, naming the Company and certain of its officers as defendants. On February 22, 2024, a second, related putative securities class action was filed in the same court asserting similar claims against the same defendants, captioned Way v. BioVie Inc. et al., No. 2:24-cv-00361. On April 15, 2024, the court consolidated these two actions under the caption In re BioVie Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 3:24-cv-00035 (the “Securities Class Action”), appointed the lead plaintiff, and approved selection of the lead counsel. On June 21, 2024, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint, alleging that the defendants made material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact relating to the Company’s business, operations, compliance, and prospects, including information related to the NM101 Phase 3 study and trial of bezisterim (NE3107) in mild to moderate probable AD, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The class action is on behalf of purchasers of the Company’s securities during the period from December 7, 2022 through November 28, 2023, and seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on August 21, 2024, and on March 27, 2025, the court denied that motion. The parties are now engaged in fact discovery. On February 13, 2026, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification and a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. Defendants opposed the motion for leave to amend, and that motion is now fully briefed and pending before the court. Defendants’ opposition to the motion for class certification is due June 15, 2026.

Three shareholder derivative lawsuits piggy-backing on the Securities Class Action were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, allegedly on behalf of the Company, by three putative stockholders: Andrew Hulm on December 30, 2024; William Settel on April 28, 2025 and Cline Wilkerson on September 11, 2025, (collectively the “Related Derivative Lawsuits”). Each Related Derivative Lawsuit names the same current and former officers and directors as defendants and alleges essentially the same claims: that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by causing or failing to prevent the securities violations alleged in the Securities Class Action, and related claims for unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, gross mismanagement, and abuse of control. On September 29, 2025, at the request of the parties, the court consolidated all three Related Derivative Lawsuits under the caption In re BioVie Inc. Derivative Litigation, Case No. 3:24-cv-0602-CSD (the “Consolidated Derivative Action”). On January 27, 2026, at the request of the parties, the court stayed the Consolidated Derivative Action pending resolution of a summary judgment motion by defendants in the Securities Class Action.

The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends to defend vigorously against them, but there can be no assurances as to the outcome.