Exhibit 1.01

INTERLINK ELECTRONICS, INC.

Conflict Minerals Report
For the Calendar Year Ended December 31, 2025

This Conflict Minerals Report (“Report”) of Interlink Electronics, Inc. has been prepared in accordance with Rule 13p-1 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Rule 13p-1”) for the reporting period January 1, 2025 to December 31, 2025. As used in this Report and unless otherwise expressly stated or the context otherwise requires, all references to “Interlink,” “we,” “our,” “Company” and similar references are references to Interlink Electronics, Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Final Conflict Minerals Rule (SEC Final Rule)¹ requires a three-step compliance process: the first step is determining the applicability of the rule; the second step is conducting a “reasonable country of origin inquiry” (RCOI) to determine whether or not there is reason to believe that tin, tungsten, tantalum or gold (3TG), also referred to as conflict minerals, from the Democratic Republic of Congo or adjoining countries (collectively, the “Covered Countries”) are present in the company’s products or are from recycled or scrap sources; and if so, the third step is conducting due diligence to determine the source and origin of those conflict minerals based on the facilities (smelter or refiners, “SORs”) in which they were processed. Companies requiring due diligence must use a nationally or internationally recognized standard such as the OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas (OECD Guidance ²) to meet the SEC regulatory requirements. The sections below describe Interlink’s approach as part of our internal regulatory compliance program activities to meet each of the three steps in the SEC Final Rule compliance process; these activities were completed by our sourcing team.

The first step in SEC Final Rule compliance is examining the rule’s applicability to Interlink’s activities. According to the Final Rule, there are four decision criteria:

Interlink engaged with a specialist compliance consultancy, 3TGs who acted as an extension of our sourcing team and enabled us to carry out an analysis of our supply chain about the presence and sourcing of conflict minerals used in the products and components supplied to us. We prepared a list of Tier 1 suppliers determined to be in-scope for each of our business units. Based on Interlink’s influence over the manufacturing process (i.e., meeting the manufacture or contract to manufacture definitions in Rule 13p-1) and potential use of 3TG these suppliers were engaged following the RCOI process described in section 4.1 below.

¹ Securities and Exchange Commission, 17 CFR Parts 240 and 249b, http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2012/34-67716.pdf.

² OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas, http://www.oecd.org/daf/inv/mne/GuidanceEdition2.pdf.

³ Conflict minerals are considered “outside the supply chain” if they were smelted or refined or were outside of a covered country prior to January 31, 2013. 

2.0

Company Overview

Interlink designs, develops, manufactures, and sells a range of force-sensing and related technologies that incorporate our proprietary materials technology, firmware, and software into a portfolio of standard sensor-based products and custom sensor-system solutions. These include sensor components, sub-assemblies, modules, and products that support effective, efficient cursor control and novel three-dimensional user inputs. Our human machine interface technology platforms are deployed in a wide range of markets including consumer electronics, automotive, industrial, and medical. In addition to our printed electronic and HMI sensors, we manufacture a range of gas and environmental sensors and instruments which are targeted at the consumer, industrial, medical and wearable markets.

In December 2024, Interlink acquired Conductive Transfers Limited, located in Barnsley, South Yorkshire, UK. Conductive Transfers developed a proprietary transfer printing technology used in the integration of electrical circuits and sensors enabling the manufacture of smart fabrics, textiles and related products. Conductive Transfers has successfully brought to market smart products incorporating their technology in products such as Innovo™, a smart wearable used in the treatment of urinary incontinence.

The Conflict Minerals reporting rule permits a reporting company which acquires another company that manufactures or contracts for the manufacture of products which potentially contain conflict minerals and which previously had not been required to file a Form SD report for those minerals, to delay the reporting on the acquired company’s products until the end of the first calendar year that begins no sooner than eight months after the closing date of the acquisition. As such this current report now includes the supply chain of Conductive Transfers.

We have adopted a Conflict Minerals Policy that states our commitment to ethical business conduct and the responsible sourcing of minerals throughout our global supply chain. The Conflict Minerals Policy is available on our website at www.interlinkelectronics.com under “About Us - Environment and Sustainability” and can be directly accessed using the following link - https://www.interlinkelectronics.com/assets/legacy/pdfs/Conflict_Minerals_Policy_January_2020.pdf

4.0

Supply Chain and Reasonable Country of Origin Inquiry

It was determined that certain conflict minerals are necessary to the functionality of one or more of our products that we manufactured or had manufactured during the Reporting Period, and thus we had our consultant 3TGs conduct a reasonable country of origin inquiry (RCOI) to determine whether any conflict minerals necessary to the functionality or production of such products originated in the Covered Countries or are from recycled or scrap sources. Their team followed a structured process for the reasonable country of origin inquiry consisting of assessment, supplier engagement, data collection and validation and final consolidation into a summary report. We established an internal team which included employees who were responsible for material procurement to support the 3TGs team in this process. This engagement with our supply chain partners enabled us to ascertain the sources of any conflict minerals included in the raw materials supplied by these suppliers.

We contract with numerous suppliers that contribute to the manufacture of our products, and are several levels removed from the SORs that process the minerals used in our products and from the mines of origin for those minerals. Interlink does not purchase raw ore or unrefined conflict minerals, and we made no purchases in the Covered Countries. As a result, in conducting our RCOI, we relied upon our suppliers to provide conflict minerals sourcing information and identify those SORs that represent the sources of conflict minerals in our supply chain.

4.1.

Reasonable Country of Inquiry Process

The RCOI began with an evaluation of our suppliers who provided materials, components or products that became part of products we manufactured or contracted to be manufactured in 2025 which contained or were likely to contain conflict minerals necessary to the production or functionality of those products. To complete the RCOI required by the SEC Final Rule, we engaged our suppliers to collect information about the presence and sourcing of tantalum, tin, tungsten, and gold (3TG) used in the products and components supplied to Interlink. The program utilized the Responsible Minerals Initiative’s (“RMI”) Conflict Minerals Reporting Template (“CMRT”). Only CMRTs version 6.5 or higher were accepted. Suppliers were requested to submit the required information by providing the CMRT in MS Excel format for review and analysis by 3TGs team.

We used our supplier contact information from our purchasing history which is contained in our ERP systems in various business units to identify which suppliers should be included on our Tier 1 list. 3TGs then reached out to our primary contacts at these suppliers by at least one method of contact for each Tier 1 supplier designated as in-scope (email address, telephone number, fax number, or mailing address). Email was the preferred and primary method of communication.

The RCOI began with an email to our suppliers describing the Conflict Minerals Compliance Program requirements, introducing 3TGs as our compliance partner and outlining our expectations from our supply partners. Following that introductory email, regular follow-up emails were initiated until a response was received. A final telephone outreach was also carried out for non-responsive suppliers.

If, after all of the above efforts, a given supplier still did provide the information requested, an escalation process was initiated. The escalation process consisted of direct follow up by Interlink’s sourcing team.

In recognition that the information requested can take time to collect and aggregate, suppliers were given a final deadline of May 3, 2026 to provide information about the metal processors present in their supply chains for the 2025 reporting year.

Suppliers were asked to provide information regarding the sourcing of their materials with the goal of identifying the 3TG SORs and associated mine countries of origin. Many of our suppliers are long-term suppliers who supply the same material and do not change from year to year. In some cases, we may have relied on the previous year’s CMRT data where appropriate. Suppliers who had already performed a RCOI using the CMRT provided this document to us for inclusion in our supply chain analysis and reporting.

We chose to give our suppliers the ability to share information at a level with which they were most comfortable, i.e. company, product or user-defined, but the declaration scope had to be specified. Several of our suppliers are distributors and in some cases we received compliance information from the distributors while in other cases we reached out directly to the original manufacturers for support with the compliance information required.

Supplier responses were validated for plausibility, consistency, and gaps. If any of the following “quality control” flags were raised, suppliers were requested to check their response and resubmit.

We identified a total of 124 Tier 1 suppliers across our 4 business units as in-scope for conflict mineral regulatory purposes and these were contacted as part of our Conflict Minerals investigation. The number of suppliers continues to increase with the addition of suppliers due to our acquisition of other companies into the group. The response rate for the 2025 reporting year was 55.6%.

The response rate is higher than the previous year as we used an outside compliance consultant to manage the process for us. We expect the response rate to be higher in subsequent years as we develop a more robust compliance program and as our suppliers become more educated in the requirements for conflict mineral reporting.

We identified 494 unique SORs with unique Smelter IDs. Of these 333 were identified as legitimate with 206 RMAP conformant. There were only 37 SORs identified as high risk. The risk profile is summarized below:

Based on the smelter/refiner database, and as shown in the attached Data Summaries, there was an indication of 54 SORs from DRC with 66 SORs from adjoining covered countries sourcing (Rwanda, Burundi, Congo and Tanzania).

The 333 SORs along with the specific metals they refine are listed in Annex I. The 54 SORs identified as potentially sourcing from DRC are listed in Annex II and the 66 from adjoining covered countries are listed in Annex III of this report.

The RMAP (Responsible Minerals Assurance Process) audit status was recorded for all SORs identified in our supply chain. The status was recorded according to the following status categories:

Detailed Survey Data and Conclusion

We collected the results of our RCOI campaign. We have prepared the necessary information for this report, and it is provided in the attached Annexes.

Based on our best efforts, Interlink has concluded that certain of its products in calendar year 2025 may contain conflict minerals that may have originated in the Covered Countries and were not from scrap or recycled sources.

For those supply chains with 54 SORs that are known or thought to be sourcing conflict minerals from the DRC and 66 SORs that are sourcing from adjoining countries additional investigation is needed to determine the source and chain-of-custody of the conflict minerals. These have been risk assessed based on 3TGs and only 37 SORs are considered high risk. For these reasons, and because only 56% of the Identified Suppliers responded to our RCOI request for information, we are unable to determine whether any conflict minerals in products that we manufactured or had manufactured in 2025 financed or benefited armed groups in a Covered Country. However, of the 120 SORs only 37 have been identified as high risk.

6.0

SOR Summary

In response to our RCOI, our responding suppliers identified 333 SORs in their CMRTs which may have processed conflict minerals contained in materials, components or products provided to us. A list of these SORs is set forth in Annex I. We cross-referenced these SORs against the list of facilities that have received a “conflict free” designation from the Conflict-Free Smelter Program (“CFSP”) and its cross-recognized programs (e.g. the Responsible Jewellery Council and the London Bullion Market Association), whose designations provide country of origin and additional due diligence information on the conflict minerals sourced by such facilities. Of these 333 identified SORs 120 SORs were identified as sourcing from Covered Countries, as of May 3, 2026. A list of these is set forth in Annex II and Annex III:

Interlink believes that the Subject Minerals contained in our products originate from the countries listed in Annex III below, as well as from recycled and scrap sources.

Interlink intends to undertake the following additional steps to continue to mitigate any potential risk that the necessary conflict minerals in our products could benefit armed groups in the Covered Countries:

8.0

Definitions

Our reports used in the preparation of this Conflict Mineral Report contained data regarding the certification status and the types of certifications that each SOR has obtained. These are not reported here but below is a list of some of the definitions that are used to support this report.

Certification Status:

Responsible Minerals Assurance Process: Responsible Minerals Initiative (RMI)

Responsible Gold Certificate: London Bullion Market Association (LBMA)

Chain of Custody Certificate: Responsible Jewelry Council (RJC)

Verification Status:

RMI Standard Smelter: Smelter or Refiner (SOR) is listed on the CMRT Smelter Look-up tab.

Sourcing Country Level:

RMI Standard Smelter

Smelter or Refiner (SOR):

A smelter or refiner is any company that procures and processes mineral ore, slag and/or materials from recycled or scrap sources into refined metal or metal-containing intermediate products. The output can be pure (99.5% or greater) metals, powders, ingots, bars, grains, oxides, or salts. The following additional definitions are used in the classification of these SORs.

Probable - SOR company website indicates that company meets CFSI definition of SOR but not confirmed

Alleged - 3rd party website indicates that company meets CFSI definition of SOR, but not confirmed

Uncertain - Information about the SOR cannot be found. The name may have been provided by a supplier through a CMRT but no further evidence about the company has been located.

Removed - The CFSI has determined that the smelter no longer meets the definition of a SOR.

Retired - The CFSI has retired the parent or group level smelter and CID and replaced it with separate smelting facilities.

Inactive - the entity no longer meets the definition of a SOR.

In Progress – still need to determine if SOR meets the definition of a SOR.

Non-Processor -The company does not actually process/smelt the mineral.

CFSI - Conflict-Free Sourcing Initiative

Annex I

SMELTERS AND REFINERS IN SUPPLY CHAIN

333 Smelters Or Refiners (SORs) Reported In Interlink’s Supply Chain For 2025

Annex II

SMELTERS AND REFINERS SOURCING FROM DRC

54 Smelters Or Refiners (SORs) Sourcing from Democratic Republic of Congo

Reported In Interlink’s Supply Chain For 2025

54 Smelters or Refiners (SORs) Reported In Interlink’s Supply Chain Who Source Metals Democratic Republic of Congo and their Smelter Risk Status and Current RMAP Audit Status For the Year 2025

Annex III

SMELTERS AND REFINERS SOURCING FROM

ADJOINING COVERED COUNTRIES

66 Smelters Or Refiners (SORs) Sourcing from Adjoining Countries

Reported In Interlink’s Supply Chain For 2025

66 Smelters or Refiners (SORs) Reported In Interlink’s Supply Chain Who Source Metals from Adjoining Covered Countries and their Smelter Risk Status and Current RMAP Audit Status For the Year 2025

Annex IV

COUNTRIES FROM WHICH SUBJECT MINERALS ARE SOURCED

Interlink believes that the Subject Minerals contained in its products originate from the 117 countries listed below, as well as from recycled and scrap sources.