NASDAQ: NPCE

Epilepsy is a devastating chronic disorder characterized by a tendency of the brain to produce sudden abnormal bursts of electrical energy that disrupt brain functions and cause seizures. The goal for treating epilepsy is to reduce the number and intensity of seizures that a patient experiences, without causing treatment-related side effects. While antiepileptic drugs are considered first-line treatment and are effective at controlling seizures in a large portion of the epilepsy population, approximately one-third of epilepsy patients are considered drug-resistant because they do not achieve complete seizure control or cannot tolerate the side effects of these drugs. According to the International League Against Epilepsy, or ILAE, drug-resistant epilepsy is defined as a patient failing to achieve sustained seizure freedom after trying two antiseizure medications. These drug-resistant epilepsy patients struggle with a variety of life-impacting challenges including psychological dysfunction, social stigmatization, reduced quality of life, and increased risk of mortality.

Epilepsy is further classified into two main categories– focal epilepsy and generalized epilepsy. Approximately 60% of epilepsy patients have focal epilepsy, which is characterized by electrical discharges that originate in a specific part of the brain. The remaining 40% of patients have generalized epilepsy, which is characterized by widespread electrical discharges that involve the entire brain at once. Our paradigm-shifting RNS System is currently indicated in the United States for use in adult epilepsy patients, meaning patients who are 18 years of age or older, with drug-resistant focal epilepsy, which we believe represents an approximately $27 billion total addressable market. While we are presently focused on this significant market opportunity, we have investigational device exemption, or IDE, approval for clinical trials to evaluate use of the RNS System to treat drug-resistant idiopathic generalized epilepsy, or IGE, and patients between ages 12 and 17 and we may later seek regulatory approval in markets outside the United States. We do not believe we will need to modify our RNS System for potential use in generalized epilepsy or in patients under the age of 18; however, we will need to complete clinical studies and obtain FDA approval prior to marketing the RNS System for these indications. We also believe that our RNS System may be effective in treating other brain disorders including depression, memory disorders, and post-traumatic stress disorder. We will need to conduct additional studies to determine if any modifications to the RNS System are necessary to address these other brain disorders and to obtain FDA approval for any new indications.

Our commercial efforts have historically been focused on growing adoption and utilization across Level 4 comprehensive epilepsy centers, or CECs, in the United States that facilitate appropriate care for drug-resistant epilepsy patients. In 2023, we received FDA approval of a Premarket Approval Supplement, or PMA-S, which updated the qualification criteria for centers and clinicians that may prescribe and implant the RNS System. This

7

supplemental approval allows us to expand our commercial efforts to target and be able to qualify the approximately 1,800 additional epileptologists outside of Level 4 CECs and the entire population of functional neurosurgeons, empowering them to provide the RNS System as a much-needed treatment option for their patients and expanding our current market opportunity to all 575,000 adults in the United States with drug-resistant focal epilepsy.

Our RNS System has an estimated average battery life of nearly 11 years, an increase from the previous model of the device. The sale of replacement neuromodulation devices provides a recurring revenue stream that is additive to the market opportunity for initial implants.

Resective or ablative surgery that removes or destroys brain tissue at the source of the seizure onset has historically been considered the best treatment option for drug-resistant focal epilepsy. However, resective or ablative surgery carries risk, including neurological risk, and only approximately half of resective or ablative surgery patients are seizure free two years after surgery. We estimate that only approximately 20% of drug-resistant focal epilepsy patients have a focus that is both safe to remove and likely to result in seizure control if removed, and are also willing to undergo the procedure. The ILAE guidelines state that drug-resistant epilepsy patients who may not appear to be appropriate candidates for resective or ablative epilepsy surgery should still be referred to a tertiary epilepsy center to evaluate other potential interventions.

There are currently two other neuromodulation devices, Vagus Nerve Stimulation, or VNS, and Deep Brain Stimulation, or DBS, that are also approved to address the approximately 80% of drug-resistant focal epilepsy patients who are not ideal candidates for resective or ablative surgery. However, we believe the technology attributes of these devices limit their utility in practice. Both VNS and DBS devices stimulate an anatomical target that is not specific to where seizures start and use the same treatment paradigm for all patients, regularly stimulating the vagus nerve in the case of VNS or one specific location deep in the brain in the case of DBS, using a non-varying schedule in an attempt to prevent seizures. These devices stimulate for multiple hours per day, increasing the occurrence of stimulation-related side effects such as memory impairment, depression, sleep disruption, and vocal disturbances. Additionally, neither of these devices record the brain electrical data known as intracranial electroencephalograms, or iEEGs, that we believe are important to physicians in helping guide the therapy decisions that improve patient results over time. We believe there is a significant unmet need for a personalized, targeted therapy that collects brain data and improves outcomes over time without causing stimulation-related side effects or presenting the neurocognitive risks that are associated with resective or ablative surgery.

We developed our RNS System to address the individualized nature of drug-resistant epilepsy and deliver a safe and effective therapy for focal onset seizures anywhere in the brain. Unlike other neuromodulation devices, our RNS System continuously monitors and analyzes the brain’s electrical activity, recognizes patient-specific abnormal patterns, and delivers treatment at the seizure source when needed, providing significant, sustained, and improving reductions in seizure frequency, including, in some cases, eliminating seizures, without stimulation-related side effects at therapeutic settings. As such, we believe our RNS System is superior in tolerability and efficacy to other neuromodulation approaches, gathering insights from individual patients’ brain activity which help clinicians in making better treatment decisions and optimizing patient care. In addition, the non-destructive, reversible nature of the implant procedure makes it an attractive option for drug-resistant focal epilepsy patients, the majority of whom are not candidates for, or are unwilling to undergo, resective or ablative surgery.

The key efficacy and safety benefits of our RNS System are demonstrated by four multi-center FDA approved prospective clinical studies that collectively include approximately 600 patients with up to nine years of follow-up, as well as multiple retrospective studies reporting real-world outcomes. Evidence generated from patients enrolled in our initial clinical studies demonstrated a 44% median reduction in seizure frequency at one year that improved to a 75% median reduction at nine years, with enduring improvements in quality of life and cognition. Importantly, the more recent real-world results from a post-approval retrospective study published in 2020 showed a median seizure frequency reduction of 67% at one year (p<0.05), which is consistent with the interim one year results of our ongoing prospective post-approval study, which we refer to herein as the Post-Approval Study, increasing to 82% at three or more years, demonstrating the utility of our unique brain data set in driving improvements in therapy effectiveness across patient cohorts over time – the patients not only start at a higher median seizure frequency reduction rate, but that rate continues to improve. Over the 3,400 patient implant years reported in our prospective studies, our RNS System has been shown to be well tolerated without any adverse stimulation-related side effects at

8

therapeutic settings. We believe our extensive and growing body of clinical data is being used to improve patient outcomes, which we believe will support increased adoption.

We received Pre-Market Approval, or PMA, from the FDA for our RNS System in late 2013 and began the commercial rollout of our RNS System in early 2014. We have historically marketed our RNS System in the United States through a direct sales organization primarily to the epileptologists and neurosurgeons who respectively prescribe and implant neuromodulation devices in the approximately 200 Level 4 CECs in the United States. We have established a significant account base at these CECs. Given the concentrated and underpenetrated nature of our target market, we believe there is a significant opportunity to efficiently foster higher adoption and utilization within these centers, grow our account base, and expand our referral pathways to increase the number of drug-resistant patients referred to Level 4 CECs. Additionally, as a result of the approval of a PMA-S in 2023, we are now able to expand our commercial efforts to the approximately 1,800 additional epileptologists as well as the remaining functional neurosurgeons practicing outside of Level 4 CECs. We initiated a pilot program to begin our outreach to these clinicians in 2024 and have commenced program expansion that will continue through 2026. We plan to address this opportunity in a targeted manner with incremental expansion of our sales force.

The implant procedure for our RNS System and the ongoing patient treatment provided by clinicians, including monitoring and programming, are reimbursed under well-established physician and hospital codes. In addition, we believe that our RNS System is currently the only neuromodulation system for epilepsy with reimbursement available for periodic in-person or remote review of brain activity data. Given the relatively young average age of our patient population, our payor mix has historically been more heavily weighted towards commercial payors. As of December 31, 2024, commercial payors have written positive coverage policies that address over 200 million covered lives in the United States. Medicare and Medicaid also routinely provide coverage for implantation of our RNS System and follow-up care. Based on our experience, less than 1% of potential RNS System patients have been unable to undergo an implant procedure with our RNS System due to lack of payor coverage. We believe the established, differentiated, and favorable reimbursement paradigm for our RNS System will continue to support its broad commercial adoption.

Our near-term research, development, and clinical efforts are focused on continuing to improve therapy effectiveness, enhance the patient and provider experience, and expand the population of patients that can be treated with our RNS System. Our near-term product development pipeline includes enhanced offerings that leverage our extensive brain activity database and our advanced data analysis, machine learning and artificial intelligence, or AI, capabilities. We are also pursuing studies to support label expansion for our RNS System in additional epilepsy populations.

In February 2025, we received $69.7 million in net proceeds from the sale of 7,475,000 shares of our common stock, including 975,000 shares from the exercise of the underwriters’ option to purchase additional shares, at a public offering price of $10.00 per share. We used $49.5 million of the net proceeds from the offering to repurchase all of the shares held by our significant stockholder, KCK Ltd. We are using the remaining net proceeds from the offering for general corporate purposes, including, but not limited to, sales and marketing, clinical trial, and other research and development expenses, general and administrative expenses, debt reduction and working capital.

Our Growth Strategies

We expect that the near-term growth of our business will be primarily driven by new patients being treated with our RNS System. We believe the following strategies will contribute to growth in initial patient implants and advance our mission to dramatically improve clinical outcomes and quality of life for patients living with epilepsy and other disabling brain disorders:

•Increase adoption and utilization of our RNS System within Level 4 CECs. Our commercial efforts have primarily been focused on the Level 4 CECs where drug-resistant focal epilepsy patients are actively seeking treatment. In 2025 there were over 230 Level 4 CECs in the United States. We estimate that there are approximately 1,200 epileptologists affiliated with these centers, approximately five to seven per center on average. We believe the remaining epileptologists in our existing accounts who are not currently prescribing the RNS System represent a significant potential opportunity to foster efficient growth.

9

•Expand RNS System access outside of Level 4 CECs, in the community. Since 2023, our sales team has targeted epileptologists and functional neurosurgeons practicing outside of Level 4 CECs to expand access to RNS therapy, both in the community and through referral of patients to Level 4 CECs. As we expand our footprint, we plan to continue to increase adoption and utilization of our RNS System within new and existing accounts by (i) growing the number of epileptologists recommending our system within each customer account, (ii) increasing utilization of our system by prescribers, and (iii) expanding our referral pathways to increase the number of patients with drug-resistant epilepsy that are referred to CECs for the care that they need. We believe that with incremental additional resources, our focused commercial organization will be able to grow adoption and utilization both at Level 4 CECs and in the community. Our goal is to establish our RNS System as a standard treatment for drug-resistant focal epilepsy patients by engaging in targeted, efficient sales and education efforts to expand our footprint.

•Broaden indications for our RNS System to include patients with generalized epilepsy and patients under age 18. Of the 50,000 drug-resistant epilepsy patients that present at Level 4 CECs in the United States annually, we estimate that approximately 48%, or 24,000, are adults with drug-resistant focal epilepsy who are currently candidates for our RNS System. The remaining patients include approximately 40%, or 20,000 patients with drug-resistant generalized epilepsy and approximately 12%, or 6,000 patients under the age of 18 with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. Of the patients with generalized epilepsy, approximately 50% of those patients have idiopathic generalized epilepsy. Supported by a growing body of evidence published in peer-reviewed journals, we believe that our current RNS System may be able to effectively treat these expanded patient populations, and we are pursuing clinical studies to support label expansion for these indications. In December 2025, we filed a PMA-S application to the FDA seeking to expand the labeled indication for the RNS System to include patients with drug-resistant idiopathic generalized epilepsy. We do not believe we will need to modify our RNS System for potential use in patients under the age of 18 or in idiopathic generalized epilepsy; however, we will need to complete our clinical studies and obtain FDA approval prior to marketing the RNS System for these indications.

•Continue building and using our unique data asset and our monitoring and analysis capabilities. Our RNS System is the only commercially available closed-loop system that is not only able to deliver therapy, but also continuously monitors, analyzes and records brain activity. As we continue to derive insights from AI-driven analyses of our unique and extensive brain data set to further improve the effectiveness of RNS therapy, we believe our data and analyses also have the potential to support more efficient development of other epilepsy therapies through collaborations with third parties. In November 2023, we entered into a collaboration agreement with Rapport Therapeutics, Inc., or Rapport, a clinical-stage biotechnology company, to leverage our RNS System’s unique biomarker monitoring and data analysis capabilities. The collaboration evaluates biomarker changes in currently implanted RNS System patients that have enrolled in Rapport’s clinical trial of its product candidate. Pursuant to this agreement, we provide information to Rapport that will help evaluate the impact of their product candidate on certain biomarkers of patients with focal onset seizures. We have entered into a subsequent agreement with Rapport for continued work. We have entered into a similar collaboration with another company and plan to continue to evaluate additional opportunities for such collaborations.

•Expand into international markets. We estimate that the global drug-resistant epilepsy market includes approximately 16.5 million patients, of which the United States represents approximately 1.2 million patients. While we are presently focused on addressing the significant domestic market opportunity, we believe our RNS System offers an attractive value proposition for patients, providers, and payors in the large potential market outside of the United States and may additionally seek to expand our operations to reach the approximately 16.5 million drug-resistant epilepsy patients globally. In late 2025, after strategic analysis of regulatory and market considerations, we entered into a narrowly-scoped distribution agreement with an Israeli distributor to commence limited sales of the RNS System in Israel, where regulatory approval has been obtained. Since the commencement of this relationship, a small number of cases have been performed in Israel. In 2025, the revenue generated from those cases is slightly less than the 2025 revenue generated from the limited special access program in Canada, where the RNS System may be approved on a case-by-case basis. If and when we determine to further expand internationally, we will

10

continue to pursue regulatory approvals and reimbursement with a priority on markets in which we see significant potential opportunity.

•Pursue additional indications outside of epilepsy. We believe our versatile, closed-loop, brain-responsive neuromodulation platform has potential applications in other brain disorders including depression, memory disorders, and post-traumatic stress disorder. For each of these conditions, we are collaborating with academic investigators in early IDE feasibility studies using our RNS System in patients. In the future, depending on the outcome of these studies, we may seek regulatory approval to commercialize our technology for these or other indications. We will need to conduct additional studies to determine if any modifications to the RNS System are necessary and to obtain FDA approval prior to marketing the RNS System for any new indications.

Our RNS System

Our RNS System, which is a compilation of several of our products, is a paradigm-shifting approach to treating epilepsy that combines the power of continuous iEEG monitoring with responsive neuromodulation. With our RNS System, we offer a personalized treatment option that delivers a safe and effective therapy for focal onset seizures originating anywhere in the brain. We believe our RNS System is superior in tolerability and efficacy to other neuromodulation approaches and provides clinicians with actionable insights based on their patients’ brain activity, facilitating better treatment decisions and optimizing patient care.

Overview

Our RNS System includes our RNS neurostimulator, our cortical strip leads and depth leads, and our Patient Remote Monitor, as well as other implantable and non-implantable accessories. As part of the initial implant procedure, the number and configuration of leads implanted as well as the implantable and non-implantable accessories used in the procedure are determined by the clinician depending on individual patient need and clinician preference and a Patient Remote Monitor is typically included. During a typical replacement implant procedure performed when the battery in our RNS neurostimulator reaches end of service, the RNS neurostimulator is replaced, while the previously implanted RNS leads remain in place and a new Patient Remote Monitor is typically included. Our product offerings also include our Physician Tablet, our Patient Data Management System, or PDMS, and our nSight Platform, which facilitate ongoing patient monitoring and streamline patient support.

We developed our RNS System to address the individualized nature of drug-resistant epilepsy with a differentiated technology that provides personalized, data-driven treatment. Our RNS System is the first and only closed-loop, brain-responsive neuromodulation device approved by the FDA for treatment of drug-resistant focal epilepsy. By continuously monitoring the brain’s electrical activity, recognizing patient-specific abnormal electrical patterns, and responding in real time with imperceptible electrical pulses to prevent seizures, we believe our RNS System addresses the primary unmet needs in epilepsy care today.

The implantable components of our RNS System include a neurostimulator, which is placed within the patient’s skull, and our RNS System leads with both cortical strip electrodes (on the surface of the brain) and depth electrodes (within the brain) that can be positioned according to clinician preference, as well as implantable accessories such as our burr hole cover. The neurostimulator is flush with the patient’s skull, and under the scalp, so that it is not visible externally. Placing the neurostimulator in the skull minimizes external noise and movement artifact so that it is able to sense even the most subtle brain signals and eliminates the need for long tunneled connectors between the chest and head which reduces the risk for breakage, migration and discomfort that can be associated with some other neuromodulation devices.

The electrodes on the leads sense electrical activity from the brain, provide targeted stimulation only when abnormal activity is detected, and record iEEG data that is stored in the neurostimulator and transmitted wirelessly to a secure portal for remote review by the patients’ clinicians. Once fully programmed, patients do not feel the

11

stimulation bursts, which are typically 100 to 200 milliseconds long. Because our RNS System provides targeted, responsive stimulation only when abnormal electrical activity is detected, patients receive approximately three minutes of stimulation on average per day and do not experience stimulation-related side effects at therapeutic settings.

In addition to the implantable components of our RNS System, our RNS System also includes external components such as the Patient Remote Monitor, as well as optional accessories.

Our Patient Remote Monitor is provided to each patient in order to collect and transmit data from the neurostimulator to our PDMS, a secure online database. It consists of a handheld wand and a specially programmed tablet or laptop computer. The patient holds the wand adjacent to the implanted device to wirelessly upload the data from the neurostimulator to the tablet or laptop, and then sends that encrypted data to our PDMS using an internet connection.

Additionally, we provide our Physician Tablet and access to our PDMS and nSight Platform for use with our RNS System.

Our Physician Tablet is used by the prescribing or managing clinicians for programming implanted devices and managing patient care. Using the tablet’s simple, intuitive interface, the clinician retrieves and reviews iEEG data, detections, and stimulations that were recorded by our RNS System, and can program new detection and stimulation settings that are personalized to each patient’s brain activity. While the patient is in clinic, the clinician can look at real time iEEG data or test stimulation settings.

Our PDMS is a secure online database that collects data that have been recorded by our RNS System. These data, which include all programmed parameters, detections, stimulations, and stored iEEG activity for RNS System patients, can be accessed through our Physician Tablet or from any internet browser. The clinician may choose to view recent data or to look at longer term trends in order to assess the effects of RNS System treatment, antiepileptic drugs or even changes to the patient’s routine. This information, combined with the patient’s own reports, is used by the clinicians to make treatment decisions.

In addition to the extensive data set available on our PDMS, our nSight Platform is designed to provide clinicians with personalized patient reports as well as programming suggestions. Our nSight Platform, which is designed to streamline patient care, includes objective iEEG data recorded by our RNS System, patient-reported seizure diary data, prior programmed settings, and programming suggestions which are available in a simple and comprehensive report that provides the clinician actionable information about their patient’s seizure trends and treatment outcomes. This quick snapshot gives clinicians a more complete picture of their patient’s health and enables them to remotely manage certain portions of the patient’s care in a telehealth environment.

As we collect iEEG data from our RNS System, our database of iEEG records continues to grow. As of December 31, 2025, over 8,000 epilepsy patients have received our RNS System, yielding an extensive database of over twenty-two million iEEG records. We believe that we are able to continue to learn and innovate by leveraging this database and our monitoring and data analytics capabilities, thereby improving and enhancing our products and creating actionable insights for clinicians that improve clinical outcomes for patients.

Patient and Clinician Experience

Once an adult patient has been determined to have drug-resistant focal epilepsy, we believe the patient should be considered for our RNS System. Our RNS System is initially implanted by a neurosurgeon in an inpatient

12

procedure. Detection is turned on at the end of the implant procedure when the neurostimulator is placed. The patient typically remains in the hospital overnight, then returns home and resumes normal activities. Prior to the first in-person follow up visit, which typically occurs approximately two weeks to four weeks after the implant procedure, an epileptologist will review the iEEG data recorded by our RNS System and identify patient specific patterns that are associated with the early onset of seizures. During the follow-up visit, the epileptologist will make programming adjustments to the device’s detection parameters in order to optimize for early detection. Once the patient-specific detection parameters are established, the epileptologist will turn on the stimulation feature, activating the closed-loop treatment of our RNS System.

Once the device has been programmed, our RNS System integrates seamlessly into the typical cadence of care that clinicians currently utilize to manage epilepsy patients. Patients visit their clinician on average every three months during the first year after the procedure. During these visits, clinicians review the iEEG data and may fine-tune programming of the device to optimize clinical outcomes. Once the device settings have been sufficiently fine-tuned, patients typically visit their clinician every three to six months, or on an as needed basis. At any point, clinicians can remotely review patient data and connect with the patient on next steps.

Additionally, we believe that patients find that seeing and learning about their own brain data is empowering and engaging. We believe that for the first time, clinicians can show patients their own seizure patterns and seizure cycles recorded by our RNS System, so that patients can directly see the effects on brain activity with changes in activity or treatment. Patients also appreciate that the device is not visible to themselves or others.

Our RNS System has an average battery life of nearly eleven years, an increase from the previous model of the device. The device requires replacement once it approaches the end of its battery life. We believe that patients prefer a longer battery life as it reduces the number of procedures they will require over their lifetime. Replacement procedures are typically performed on an outpatient basis and take approximately one hour. Clinicians are able to view the device’s battery status through our PDMS or on our Physician Tablet, and can plan accordingly with the patient for replacement procedures. In 2019, more than 90% of patients whose RNS System reached the end of its battery life chose to have a replacement RNS System implanted.

Key Clinical Advantages

We believe the key advantages of our RNS System relative to both alternative neuromodulation devices and resective or ablative surgery include:

Significant and improving seizure reduction in all areas of the brain. Four multi-center FDA approved prospective clinical trials and multiple retrospective studies have demonstrated that our RNS System provides significant, sustained and improving reductions in disabling seizures. In our Pivotal Study, patients experienced a median reduction in seizure frequency of 44% after the first year. The patients from the Pivotal Study, all of whom received implants prior to 2010, were followed in a Long-term Treatment Trial, or LTT, in which outcomes reached a 75% median reduction in seizure frequency at nine years. 28% of these patients, who had previously experienced disabling seizures for an average of 20 years, had at least 6 months of seizure freedom and approximately 20% achieved one year or more of seizure freedom. Additionally, we believe the insights obtained from our extensive brain data set are driving improvements in overall therapy effectiveness across patient cohorts over time. The real-world results published in 2020 from a retrospective study across eight epilepsy centers with patients implanted between 2013 and 2018 showed a statistically significant median seizure frequency reduction of 67% at one year (p<0.05), increasing to an 82% reduction in seizures by year three, which we believe is the highest published seizure frequency reduction for any neuromodulation study in adults with focal onset seizures. Recent three-year data from our Post-Approval Study confirmed this reduction in seizure frequency and showed a 100% reduction in seizure frequency among the top quartile of patients. Importantly, peer-reviewed studies have also indicated that our RNS System demonstrates similar efficacy outcomes regardless of the region of the brain being treated, whether there are one or two seizure foci, and whether the patient has been previously treated with VNS or resective or ablative surgery.

13

Real World Study Results (Light Blue); Original FDA Study Results (Dark Blue)

Lack of stimulation-related side effects. Our clinical studies have collectively demonstrated that RNS System therapy is well-tolerated. Patients do not perceive the therapeutic stimulation, which is delivered only when abnormal activity occurs. Unlike other neuromodulation devices for epilepsy, which provide hours of stimulation each day and have been shown to negatively impact sleep, mood, memory, or vocal characteristics, our RNS System provides stimulation only when needed, resulting in a highly effective therapy with approximately three minutes of stimulation on average per day in total.

Quality of life, cognition, and mood improvement. Reduced quality of life and cognitive function, as well as mental health-related comorbidities, are a significant burden for many patients with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. Improvements in these areas are critically important clinical outcomes for patients. In our Pivotal Study, at one and two years of follow-up, patients who began treatment less than ten years after epilepsy onset achieved statistically significant improvements in overall quality of life scores as well as in every subdomain of quality of life, including cognitive function, mental health, and physical health. Additionally, our clinical studies have demonstrated that treatment with our RNS System resulted in lasting improvements in overall quality of life, including cognitive function, sustained through nine years. Based on comprehensive neuropsychological assessments, there were no adverse cognitive effects and, in fact, significant cognitive improvements were demonstrated in areas such as naming, verbal learning, visual memory, and executive function.

Low risk, reversible procedure. As demonstrated by multiple clinical studies, our RNS System has a favorable safety profile relative to surgical procedures for epilepsy and a comparable risk profile to the implantation of other neuromodulation devices. Resective or ablative surgical procedures carry a risk of permanent damage to neurological and cognitive function, whereas the non-destructive RNS System implant procedure has not demonstrated a negative impact on neurological or cognitive function. Additionally, stimulation treatment with our RNS System is reversible and modifiable, and does not take away the option of a surgery in the future.

Reduction in sudden unexpected death in epilepsy. Epilepsy patients, particularly those with uncontrolled epilepsy, face a risk of what is called sudden unexpected death in epilepsy, or SUDEP. Each year, about 1 in 150 patients with uncontrolled epilepsy will die from SUDEP. According to clinical studies, the SUDEP rate is approximately 6.1 per 1,000 patient years in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy and 9.3 per 1,000 patient years in patients referred for resective or ablative surgery. By contrast, data from a published series of 707 patients across our clinical studies and post-market experience indicated that our RNS System was associated with a lower rate of dying from SUDEP, 2.0 per 1,000 patient years, relative to other treatment-resistant epilepsy groups.

The results of our prospective clinical studies, which are the largest and longest published studies in the field of neuromodulation for epilepsy, as well as the data that has been published in multiple retrospective studies of our RNS System, provide evidence that our RNS System is a safe and effective treatment for focal onset seizures and offers a lower risk profile than that of resective or ablative surgery. In addition, we believe our RNS System is

14

superior in tolerability and efficacy to other neuromodulation approaches. We anticipate that the accruing evidence base from our ongoing Post-Approval Study and commercial experience with our RNS System will continue to demonstrate strong and improving clinical outcomes over time, which will support continued adoption.

Benefits to Other Stakeholders

In addition to offering important clinical benefits to patients, we believe our RNS System offers important distinctions for providers and payors.

Providers

We believe the unprecedented insights into brain activity that are enabled by our RNS System’s differentiated ability to record iEEG data offer clinicians the opportunity to more thoroughly understand patient specific brain activity in order to optimize treatment for their patients. With the benefit of objective, long-term data on seizure trends and treatment response, clinicians are better able to actively manage patient care and support improved outcomes over time. In a survey of 50 epileptologists and neurosurgeons at Level 3 and Level 4 epilepsy centers, 88% agreed that having 24/7 monitoring with chronic high-resolution intracranial EEG data is an important consideration and advantage in choosing RNS versus VNS or DBS.

Importantly, in addition to the availability of established clinician and facility reimbursement for the initial and replacement implant procedures, the patient’s managing clinician can seek reimbursement for in-person or remote iEEG data review up to once per month and for device programming. Because our RNS System is the only neuromodulation device that records iEEG data, we believe it is also the only neuromodulation device with established reimbursement for data review by clinicians during and between in-person clinic visits, which we believe is an important element of optimizing patient care.

Payors

Drug-resistant epilepsy is a costly condition that places a significant economic burden on healthcare systems as well as on patients and their families. The estimated direct costs of epilepsy alone are approximately $28 billion annually in the United States and are disproportionately accrued by individuals with uncontrolled drug-resistant epilepsy. By offering drug-resistant focal epilepsy patients a safe, effective treatment alternative that significantly reduces ongoing seizure frequency without stimulation-related side effects at therapeutic settings, we believe our RNS System has the potential to reduce the cost burden associated with drug-resistant epilepsy. We believe the established and favorable reimbursement paradigm for our RNS System, which covers both the implantation procedure and ongoing patient treatment provided by clinicians, endorses the value proposition that it offers payors.

We also believe that the unique ability for clinicians to review their patients’ RNS System data online can facilitate telehealth delivery, potentially reducing the overall cost of care, while improving the patient experience. For example, many patients who might otherwise schedule a clinic visit because of a concern about seizures can now contact their clinician from their home, who can then review their RNS System data online and provide care remotely.

Clinical Data Supporting Our RNS System

The safety, effectiveness and clinical benefits of our RNS System are supported by data from four multi-center, FDA approved prospective clinical studies representing nearly 600 patients and multiple retrospective studies reporting real-world outcomes. Our robust and growing body of clinical evidence, which includes nine-year follow-up with over 3,400 years of patient data, provides the largest and longest published prospective clinical data set in the field of neuromodulation devices for epilepsy. Data from these studies collectively demonstrate that our RNS System provides significant, sustained, and improving reductions in disabling seizures with enduring improvements in quality of life and cognition for patients with drug-resistant focal epilepsy.

Our first prospective clinical trial, which we refer to as the Feasibility Study, was initiated to assess the safety and performance of our RNS System and to provide preliminary evidence of effectiveness for patients living with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. Data from the two-year Feasibility Study supported IDE approval for our two-year

15

Pivotal Study, a double blinded, randomized, sham-stimulation controlled multi-center study that was initiated in 2005 and provided Class I evidence of the safety and effectiveness of our RNS System. Data from the Pivotal Study supported FDA PMA approval of our RNS System. Patients from the Feasibility and Pivotal Studies were subsequently enrolled in our LTT that followed these patients for an additional seven years, culminating in a total of nine years of follow-up data. We are currently conducting a prospective Post-Approval Study evaluating “real world” outcomes across more than 300 additional patients. We are also pursuing studies to support label expansion for our RNS System in additional epilepsy populations.

Across the 256 patients that were enrolled in the Feasibility and Pivotal studies, the average age was 34 years old and the patients had experienced an average of 10.2 disabling seizures per month for an average of 19.6 years. All patients had previously tried multiple anti-epilepsy drugs, or AEDs, 32% of patients had previously been treated with VNS, and 34% had previously undergone resective or ablative surgery.

Feasibility Study

The Feasibility Study was a two-year prospective, primarily open-label study of our RNS System in adult drug-resistant focal epilepsy patients that demonstrated safety and provided sufficient evidence of effectiveness to support the commencement of a pivotal study. Beginning in 2004, 65 patients were treated with our RNS System and 59 patients completed the study.

The primary safety endpoints were the rate of serious adverse events during the first month post-implant and the first three months post-implant. The serious adverse events rates at one month post-implant and three months post-implant of 6.2% and 9.2%, respectively, were not worse than the serious adverse event rates associated with the implantation of intracranial electrodes for localization procedures and epilepsy surgery at one month post-implant of 19%, or the historical adverse event rate for DBS for treatment of movement disorders at three months post-implant of 36%. During this two-year study, 53 serious adverse events, or SAEs, were reported, 18 of which were either associated with the RNS System or were inconclusive as to association with the RNS System. These SAEs included increased seizure frequency, wound erosion, confusion, death (one instance for which we were unable to conclude whether there was association with the RNS System), depression, headaches, or the requirement for explant surgery to remove the RNS System.

This safety experience combined with encouraging data on seizure outcomes supported commencement of the subsequent Pivotal Study.

Pivotal Study

The Pivotal Study was a two-year prospective, double-blinded, randomized, and sham-stimulation controlled study that provided Class I evidence indicating that our RNS System is safe and effective as an adjunctive treatment for adults with drug-resistant focal epilepsy arising from one or two seizure foci. Between December 2005 and November 2008, 191 patients were enrolled in the study and 175 of those patients completed the study.

The primary effectiveness endpoint was assessed by comparing seizure reduction in the group receiving active stimulation (treatment group) relative to the group receiving no stimulation (sham group) during a 12-week blinded evaluation period relative to a 12-week pre-implant baseline. The primary effectiveness endpoint was met with a statistically significant difference between the reduction in seizure frequency for the treatment group relative to the sham group. In the final month of the blinded evaluation period (five months post-implant), patients in the treatment group reached a 41.5% reduction in seizures, compared to a 9.4% reduction for patients in the sham stimulation group.

The primary safety endpoint was also met, demonstrating that the serious adverse event rate at one month was not worse than the literature-derived serious adverse event rates for resective or ablative surgery, implantation of intracranial electrodes for seizure localization, and DBS for treatment of movement disorders.

Stimulation was also well-tolerated. There was no difference in stimulation-related side effects between active and sham patients in the blinded period and no adverse effects of responsive stimulation on cognitive function or mood. In fact, there were statistically significant improvements in a number of areas of cognitive function, including

16

executive function, language, and memory. Memory improvements were most evident in patients with seizure onsets in memory regions and verbal fluency improvements were most significant in those with seizure onsets in language areas. Patients also experienced modest improvements in mood and a decrease in seizure worry at two years of treatment. During this two-year study 220 SAEs were reported, 67 of which were either associated with the RNS System or were inconclusive as to association with the RNS System. These SAEs included procedural complications (such as device lead revision or damage, skin laceration, subdural hematoma, premature battery depletion, or implant site erosion), nervous system disorders (such as an increase in complex partial seizures, exacerbation or increase in tonic-clonic seizures, or hydrocephalus), implant site infections, death (seven instances with one for which we were unable to conclude whether there was association with the RNS System), pain, and discharge.

Patients were also assessed for changes in Quality of Life, or QOL, as measured by a comprehensive industry-recognized questionnaire that is validated and widely used for patients living with epilepsy. As shown in the graph below, there were statistically significant sustained improvements in overall QOL as well as in every subdomain of QOL for patients who began treatment less than ten years after epilepsy onset at both one and two years of follow-up.

Long-term Treatment Trial

The Long-term Treatment Trial, or LTT, was a seven-year prospective, open-label study that followed patients originally treated in either the Feasibility or Pivotal Study. In total, this provided approximately nine years of prospective data on the safety and efficacy of our RNS System. The LTT, which enrolled 230 patients, is the largest and longest prospective trial published in the field of neuromodulation to date and provided additional evidence that our RNS System is safe, reduces seizure frequency, and improves QOL in adults with drug-resistant focal epilepsy with one or two seizure foci. Enrolled patients were studied over a median follow-up of 8.97 years, representing 1,895 cumulative patient-implant years.

The primary effectiveness objective of the LTT was to evaluate the long-term efficacy of our RNS System in reducing the frequency of disabling seizures in patients who participated in the Feasibility Study or Pivotal Study. As indicated in the figure below, the median percent reduction in seizure frequency improved from 44% after one year to 75% at nine years. We believe the substantial improvement in seizure reduction that was observed over time

17

is due, in part, to the brain-responsive nature of our RNS System and the personalized, data-driven, and iterative therapy that it enables.

Additionally, at nine years, 35% of patients had a greater than 90% reduction in seizure frequency, with some of those patients being seizure-free for years, and 28% had at least one seizure-free period of six months or longer. These improvements were particularly notable given that at baseline the patients in this trial had on average more than 10 disabling seizures a month, with an average of nearly 20 years of epilepsy, and had failed multiple other epilepsy therapies. Overall QOL as well as the sub-domains of the comprehensive QOL score remained significantly improved relative to baseline at each year of treatment.

During this seven-year study 576 SAEs were reported, 93 of which were either associated with the RNS System or were inconclusive as to association with the RNS System. These SAEs included procedural complications (such as device lead revision or damage, skin laceration, fractures from falls, premature battery depletion, wound dehiscence, or implant site erosion), nervous system disorders (such as an increase in complex partial seizures, exacerbation or increase in tonic-clonic seizures, or headaches), implant site infections, device removal, death (nine instances with two for which we were unable to conclude whether there was association with the RNS System).

Post-Approval Study

We are currently engaged in follow up and database lock activities for our FDA-mandated prospective open-label “real-world” study of our RNS System in drug-resistant focal epilepsy patients with a planned follow up period of five years, or the Post-approval Study. In April 2025 at the American Academy of Neurology Annual Meeting, we announced our primary effectiveness endpoint data in the Post-approval Study. Of the 324 patients in the trial across 32 participating centers, 271 patients completed three years in the study and 255 patients provided complete seizure data. The data showed that the RNS System efficacy improved over time, with 62.5% median seizure reduction at six months after implant (n=314) and an 82.0% median seizure reduction at 36 months after implant (n=255). Additionally, 42.5% of patients experienced a period of seizure-freedom for at least six months, and 22% of patients were seizure free for at least one year.

In this clinical study, our RNS System was implanted in 324 patients across 32 centers. The objectives of the clinical study are to collect additional information on the safety and effectiveness of our RNS System and to analyze patient outcomes and responses according to center experience and stimulation parameters. An interim analysis of 160 patients followed for one year that was presented at the American Epilepsy Society Annual Meeting in 2019 showed a 67% median reduction in seizure frequency compared to baseline, demonstrating significantly better outcomes than were seen in our Feasibility Study and Pivotal Study at that same time point. In addition, 38.5% of patients followed for more than one year experienced a greater than 90% reduction in seizure frequency.

During this ongoing five-year study, 224 SAEs have been reported, 19 of which were attributed to the implant procedure and none of which were attributed as specific to treatment with the RNS System. These SAEs included

18

nervous system disorders (such as cerebral or intracranial hemorrhage and tinnitus), implant site infections, subdural hematoma, status epilepticus, and implant site dehiscence.

Current Label Expansion Studies

NAUTILUS Study

We are conducting studies to support label expansion for our RNS System in additional epilepsy populations. Supported by evidence published in peer-reviewed journals, we believe that our current RNS System may be able to effectively treat patients with drug-resistant idiopathic generalized epilepsy. In February 2021, our RNS System received Breakthrough Device Designation from the FDA for the treatment of IGE. In the second half of 2021, we received IDE approval to initiate a study in IGE, called the NAUTILUS study, and in March 2024, we completed implanting patients in NAUTILUS, for a total of 87 patients implanted across 23 centers. In March 2025, the last patient in our NAUTILUS study for IGE completed one year of follow up. In May 2025, we announced the preliminary results from the NAUTILUS study based on analysis of the one-year data. The study met the 12-week post-implant primary safety endpoint, demonstrating excellent safety outcomes and confirming the favorable safety profile of the RNS System. While the primary effectiveness endpoint did not reach statistical significance in the overall study, pre-specified secondary endpoints did show meaningful and clinically significant seizure reduction. In December 2025, we filed a PMA-S to support label expansion for our RNS System in patients who have drug-resistant idiopathic generalized epilepsy. The PMA-S is supported by positive preliminary results from the NAUTILUS study, which demonstrated robust 77% median GTC seizure reduction and a favorable safety profile in this highly refractory patient population at 18 months of therapy. Patients in the NAUTILUS trial continue to participate in the study through the completion of two years after the device implant, with prespecified collection of safety and effectiveness data occurring upon completion of the two years post-implant, and we anticipate the final patient two-year completion in the first half of 2026.

RESPONSE Study and NEST Collaboration

We began our efforts to support label expansion of the RNS System in drug-resistant focal epilepsy in patients, ages 12 to 17 (pediatric), with an open-label IDE (‘RESPONSE’) study, which began enrollment in 2021. In 2025, we began a collaboration with Medical Device Innovation Consortium’s, National Evaluation System for health Technology, or NEST, and the FDA to pursue the use of real-world data to support expanded labeling for pediatric patients. These efforts are continuing into 2026.

Commercial Strategy

Our commercial strategy historically targeted epileptologists and neurosurgeons at Level 4 CECs in the United States. Within Level 4 CECs, epileptologists are the primary specialists who prescribe and manage therapy for drug-resistant focal epilepsy patients and neurosurgeons are the specialists who implant our RNS System. We estimate that there are approximately 1,200 epileptologists and 400 neurosurgeons associated with the approximately 200 Level 4 CECs in the United States. We also aim to improve flow of appropriate patients to Level 4 CECs with sales and marketing initiatives designed to enhance awareness of our RNS System and increase referrals of drug-resistant epilepsy patients to these centers.

In 2023, we received FDA approval of a PMA-S, which updated the qualification criteria for centers and clinicians that may prescribe and implant the RNS System. This PMA-S approval allows us to expand our commercial efforts to target and be able to qualify the approximately 1,800 additional epileptologists outside of Level 4 CECs and the entire population of functional neurosurgeons, empowering them to provide the RNS System as a much-needed treatment option for their patients directly and expanding their ability to refer appropriate patients to Level 4 CECs for more enhanced diagnostic and treatment options.

We market and sell our RNS System in the United States through a direct sales organization that consists of sales representatives, known as Therapy Consultants, and clinical and programming support specialists, known as Field Clinical Engineers. Substantially all of our sales of the RNS System are in the United States. Our Therapy Consultants are highly skilled and technically trained with substantial experience launching new disruptive therapies, particularly in neuromodulation, and establishing them as a standard of care by increasing clinician

19

adoption and utilization. Our Field Clinical Engineers have substantial experience training clinicians on the use of sophisticated technology and providing ongoing support for medical centers as they increase adoption of new therapies.

Our Therapy Consultants are responsible for developing territory business plans, targeting and onboarding new accounts, and increasing adoption of our RNS System within accounts. In addition, Therapy Consultants support epileptologists and their staff in incorporating our RNS System into their practice and provide resources to help with patient education within the CECs and community setting, as well as working to expand our referral pathways to increase referrals into Level 4 CECs. Together with our Field Clinical Engineers, they provide information that epileptologists can use to inform the development of appropriate patient selection protocols, and partner with the epilepsy care team to help incorporate our RNS System into their workflow. Our Field Clinical Engineers are responsible for ongoing account management including training clinicians on the use of our RNS System, promoting its benefits within existing accounts, and driving increased clinician utilization.

We support our sales organization with marketing and training initiatives designed to educate clinicians about our RNS System and support clinician adoption. We have developed a robust professional education program that includes educational symposia, fellows training, programming workshops, and peer-to-peer forums. Through webinars, clinical briefs, and scientific conferences, we keep our clinician customers informed about the rapidly growing body of peer-reviewed publications and scientific research involving our RNS System. We also engage in direct-to-patient marketing activities including targeted online advertising and social media to increase awareness about the benefits of our RNS System among potential patients and their caregivers.

Collaborations and Partnerships

DIXI Medical Distribution Agreement

In 2022, we entered into an exclusive distribution agreement, or the Distribution Agreement, with DIXI Medical USA Corp., or DIXI Medical, pursuant to which we became the exclusive U.S. distributor of DIXI Medical’s stereo electroencephalography, or Stereo EEG, product line. These products are used in the epilepsy monitoring units, or EMUs, of Level 4 CECs to determine where epileptic seizures originate. In addition to providing us with an incremental revenue stream, the DIXI Medical partnership provided us with improved visibility of patients moving through the EMUs, many of whom may be candidates for our RNS System. This synergistic partnership leveraged our field organization that was already calling on the same customers and supported our objective to engage earlier in the diagnostic and therapy selection process. The Distribution Agreement had an initial term of three years, which expired on September 30, 2025. In March 2025, we notified DIXI Medical of our intent to not renew the Distribution Agreement and the Distribution Agreement by its terms expired on September 30, 2025. Although the Distribution Agreement originally provided for a six-month wind down period following the September 30, 2025 expiration, the parties agreed to an amendment that ended the wind down period on December 31, 2025. We exercised our right to sell DIXI product inventory that we held through December 31, 2025, and as provided for in the Distribution Agreement, DIXI Medical is in the process of buying back, at cost, all DIXI product inventory held by us that has at least six months of remaining shelf life.

Rapport Agreement

In 2023, we entered into a collaboration agreement with Rapport Therapeutics, Inc., or Rapport, a clinical-stage biotechnology company, to leverage our data as well as our RNS System’s unique biomarker monitoring and data analysis capabilities. The collaboration evaluated biomarker changes in currently implanted RNS System patients that enroll in Rapport’s Phase 2a clinical trial of its product candidate. Pursuant to this agreement, we provided information to Rapport to help evaluate the impact of their product candidate on certain biomarkers of patients with focal onset seizures. We have since agreed to extend our collaboration with a subsequent agreement to provide further monitoring and data analysis services as a part of Rapport’s continuing clinical trial.

Research and Development

We focus our research and development efforts on advancing the treatment of patients living with disabling neurological disorders. These efforts are enhanced by the strong relationships that we have developed with

20

epileptologists and neurosurgeons, as well as other neuroscientists and experts, through our clinical and commercial activities. We believe our brain-responsive RNS System is a platform that can drive a better standard of care for patients living with drug-resistant epilepsy and can also offer a more personalized solution and improved outcomes to the large population of patients living with other brain disorders.

Our research and development activities encompass basic research, clinical research and product development. Our research and development team has mechanical, biomedical and electrical engineering, software development, project management, data science, and machine and deep learning expertise. In addition, our clinical organization has expertise as well as extensive experience in clinical trial design and management, data collection, data management, and clinical data analysis. Our clinical team has conducted three prospective clinical studies on our RNS System and nearing completion of a fourth, prospective Post-Approval Study, in addition to the ongoing NAUTILUS and RESPONSE studies. We believe the strength and strategic vision of our research and development team, combined with our clinical and regulatory expertise, will continue to drive our leadership position in the emerging category of brain-responsive neuromodulation.

Our near-term research and development efforts are focused on continuing to improve therapy effectiveness, enhancing the patient and provider experience through increased ease of use and efficiency, and expanding the population of patients that can be treated with our RNS System. Our research and development activities have resulted in significant new releases of components of the RNS System that advanced these goals. Our near-term development pipeline includes enhancements that leverage our extensive database of iEEG data and our advanced data analysis, machine learning and AI capabilities, which provide clinicians with additional information that they can use to enhance their clinical assessment and establish appropriate program settings for each patient. We believe our unique data, as well as our data analysis, machine learning, and AI capabilities, provide a window into the brain and may be useful to other third parties doing work in or treating patients with epilepsy. In addition to our near-term efforts, we continue to focus on developing our next-generation neurostimulator and developing new features such as streamlined, remote programming capabilities and AI-based software tools for PDMS that drive efficiency in programming the RNS System for detection and stimulation. In the fall of 2025, we submitted the application for the first of such software tools, Seizure ID™, to the FDA for review and approval. Seizure ID, an AI-powered electrographic seizure classifier tool, is the first of a suite of planned NeuroPace AI™ applications that will become a part of the PDMS component of the RNS System.

We also maintain and will continue to build an intellectual property portfolio covering brain-responsive neuromodulation and AI assessment of brain data. In the future, we intend to leverage these assets to expand into other brain disorders that we believe could benefit from the physiologic and engineering advantages made possible by our brain-responsive neuromodulation solution.

Coverage and Reimbursement

We derive most of our revenue from sales of our RNS System to the hospital facilities, typically CECs, that implant our RNS System in the United States. These facilities, in turn, bill third-party payors, including private insurers, Medicare or Medicaid on a per procedure basis including for the implant procedure and post-implant programming and iEEG data review.

Given the relatively young average age of our patient population, many of our patients do not qualify for Medicare. As such, the third-party payor mix for patients implanted with our RNS System has historically been more heavily weighted toward private insurers. As of December 31, 2025, commercial insurance companies that address over 200 million covered lives in the United States have positive written coverage policies for responsive neuromodulation for drug-resistant focal epilepsy, which includes our RNS System. Medicare and Medicaid also routinely provide coverage for implantation of our RNS System and follow-up care. Based on our experience, less than 1% of potential RNS System patients have been unable to undergo an implant procedure with our RNS System due to lack of payor coverage.

Initial implantation of our RNS System takes place in a single hospital inpatient procedure. Hospitals are generally reimbursed for inpatient procedures based on Medicare Severity Diagnosis Related Group, or MS‐DRG, classifications derived from the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, or ICD-10, codes that

21

describe the patient’s diagnoses and procedure(s) performed during the hospital stay. One single MS‐DRG payment is intended to cover all hospital costs associated with treating an individual during his or her hospital stay, with the exception of clinician charges associated with performing medical procedures, which are reimbursed through Current Procedural Terminology, or CPT, codes and payments. While these MS-DRG and CPT codes are generally employed by both private insurers and government payors, the payment rates typically differ substantially, with private insurers generally providing reimbursement at higher rates than Medicare or Medicaid.

Hospitals code for implantation of our RNS System neurostimulator and implantation of the leads using separate ICD-10 procedure codes. When combined with a primary ICD-10 diagnosis code for epilepsy, the codes map into MS-DRG 023 for payment to the hospital. In federal fiscal year 2026, which runs from October 2025 through September 2026, we expect the Medicare average payment rate for MS-DRG 023 at our customer accounts to be approximately $58,675. We believe that most DBS procedures for epilepsy map into MS-DRG 024 and we expect the Medicare average payment rate at these accounts will be approximately $40,655. We believe that VNS implantation procedures take place in a single outpatient procedure and map to New Technology Ambulatory Payment Classification, or New Tech APC, 1580. We expect the Medicare average payment rate in 2026 will be approximately $45,000.

The neurosurgeons who implant our RNS System may seek reimbursement for their services using a variety of Category I CPT codes, depending on the type of leads implanted. These codes include CPT code 61889 for implantation of the RNS neurostimulator in addition to CPT codes 61850 or 61860 for cortical leads or CPT codes 61863 and 61864 for depth leads. We believe these codes for depth leads are the same CPT codes used for reimbursement of physician services for epilepsy DBS procedures. Based on 2026 Non-Qualifying Alternative Payment Model (AMP) Medicare national average payment rates, we expect that physician reimbursement under appropriate combinations of these codes may be between approximately $3,280 to $3,505 per procedure for our RNS System and approximately $2,685 for epilepsy DBS procedures. We believe physician services for the VNS implantation procedure are reimbursed under CPT code 64568 which is associated with a 2026 Non-Qualifying AMP Medicare national average payment rate of approximately $660.

After implantation of our RNS System, the patient’s ongoing care, including device programming and data review, is typically managed by an epileptologist or other qualified clinician. The patient’s managing physician is able to seek reimbursement for programming on an as-needed basis. The physician can also seek reimbursement a maximum of once every 30 days for in-person or remote review of iEEGs, which are also referred to as electrocorticograms, or ECoGs. The codes utilized for device programming for both RNS and DBS are CPT codes 95983 and 95984 and the code for ECoG review is CPT code 95836. We believe this CPT code for ECoG review is only applicable to our RNS System as it is currently the only commercially available implanted brain neuromodulation system that records, stores, and enables online review of the patient’s ECoG data.

Based on 2026 Non-Qualifying AMP Medicare national average payment rates in the physician office setting, reimbursement under CPT codes 95983 and 95984 is expected to range from $52 to $97, depending on length of programming time. Reimbursement under CPT code 95836 is expected to be approximately $107 for ECoG review. Accordingly, physician reimbursement for device programming and ECoG review during a typical RNS System follow-up visit could range from $159 to $204. We believe physicians submit claims for VNS device programming using code 95976 or 95977, depending on the number of device parameters changed. Based on Non-Qualifying AMP Medicare national average payment rates, payment under these codes is expected to range from $38 to $51.

Competition

Our industry is competitive and has been evolving rapidly with the introduction of new products and technologies as well as the market activities of industry participants. Our RNS System is indicated for adult patients with drug-resistant focal epilepsy and we currently market our device primarily to the clinicians who treat these patients. In this patient population, there are two primary treatment options: (i) an ablative or resective surgery, or (ii) implantation of a neuromodulation device. Patients may also choose not to actively seek additional treatment for epilepsy or may choose to trial new therapeutic drugs that become available from time to time. However, none of the AEDs that have been approved in the last decade have been demonstrated to show additional sustained effectiveness beyond that of the established AEDs.

22

We estimate that approximately 80% of drug-resistant focal epilepsy patients are either not ideal candidates for ablative or resective surgery or are unwilling to undergo a destructive surgical procedure and we compete primarily with two manufacturers of neuromodulation devices for the treatment of these patients. Our competitors are LivaNova plc, which manufactures the VNS System and Medtronic plc, which manufactures the DBS System. These competitors are larger, well-capitalized companies with significant resources, which may include:

•established sales and marketing programs and networks, including internationally;

•broad product portfolios;

•long operating histories;

•established relationships with healthcare professionals;

•established manufacturing scale and supplier networks;

•financial resources for product development; and

•name recognition.

In addition to competing for market share, we also compete against these companies for qualified personnel.

We believe that our RNS System is a paradigm-shifting approach to treating drug-resistant focal epilepsy. By continuously monitoring the brain’s electrical activity, recognizing and responding to patient-specific seizure onset patterns, and recording ongoing iEEG data that clinicians can use to optimize patient care, we believe our RNS System addresses the primary unmet needs in epilepsy care today. We compete primarily on the basis that our system is designed to offer superior tolerability and efficacy to other neuromodulation approaches, as well as access to continuous brain data. Our continued success depends on our ability to:

•continue to demonstrate safety and efficacy in our Post-Approval Study and in ongoing commercial use;

•expand our customer footprint within CECs and in the community setting, and increase utilization among these customers;

•increase the number of epileptologists recommending and the number of neurosurgeons implanting our RNS System;

•drive awareness to increase the number of drug-resistant epilepsy patients referred to CECs by expanding our referral pathways;

•maintain adequate reimbursement for procedures using our product;

•attract and retain skilled research, development, sales and clinical personnel;

•continue to innovate in order to improve therapy effectiveness and enhance the patient and provider experience;

•obtain and maintain regulatory clearances and approvals, including for expanded indications;

•cost-effectively manufacture, market and sell our product; and

•obtain, maintain, enforce and defend our intellectual property rights and operate our business without infringing, misappropriating or otherwise violating the intellectual property rights of others.

Intellectual Property

Our commercial success depends in part on our ability to obtain and maintain intellectual property protection for our RNS System and any future products, to prevent others from infringing, misappropriating, or otherwise violating our intellectual property rights, to defend and enforce our intellectual property rights, and to operate

23

without infringing, misappropriating, or otherwise violating valid and enforceable intellectual property rights of others. We actively seek to protect intellectual property that we believe is important to our business, which includes patents covering the components of our RNS System and the methods used for optimizing the therapy that our RNS System delivers. We also seek patent protection for other processes and inventions that are commercially or strategically important to developing and maximizing the value of our enterprise. We take steps to build and maintain the integrity of our brand, for example, with trademarks and service marks, and we seek to protect the confidentiality of trade secrets that may be important to the development of our business. We rely on a strategy that combines the use of patents, trademarks, trade secrets, know-how, and license agreements, as well as other intellectual property laws, employment, confidentiality and invention assignment agreements, and contractual protections, to establish and protect our intellectual property rights.

Patents

Patent Portfolio

Our patent portfolio growth is primarily driven by AI and machine learning methods that may encompass future product features, as well as product hardware design advancements. Our patents and patent applications assert claims generally related to devices, methods and systems. As of December 31, 2025, we owned 98 issued U.S. patents, 9 non-provisional and 3 provisional patent applications pending in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or the USPTO. Our patents have claims that cover our current RNS System or related products, such as the system itself and methods of using it, including detection and stimulation methods, as well as the brain leads, lead connector, neurostimulator tray or ferrule, and elements used in the manufacture of the same. Additionally, we have patents with claims directed to: efficient communication or data transfer between implantable and external components of a neuromodulation system; and the use of data to optimize detection parameters and therapy outcomes, such as by using AI and machine learning and deep learning techniques. Our pending patent applications cover claims describing neural network models used to develop predictive analytical methods based on various biomarkers and the use of machine learning to develop methods for identifying, assessing, and treating various aspects of the epilepsy disease state. We continue to evaluate our intellectual property portfolio as patents reach end of life to determine the optimal course for continuing to protect our technology.

We cannot ensure that patents will issue from any of our pending applications or that, if patents are issued, they will be of sufficient scope or strength to provide meaningful protection for our technology.

Patent Strategy

Our patent strategy is to seek patent protection for our inventions and to preserve our options to file additional, continuation applications pursuing claims covering specific commercial embodiments of the inventions, assuming these are strategically valuable. We also file patent applications covering innovations and developments to prevent third parties from developing competing products. For all patent applications, we determine claiming strategy on a case-by-case basis. Advice of counsel, as well as our business model and needs are also considered.

We recognize that the ability to obtain patent protection and the degree of such protection depends on a number of factors. The patent positions of medical device companies like ours are generally uncertain and involve complex legal, scientific, and factual questions. The protection afforded by a patent varies on a product-by-product basis, from jurisdiction-to-jurisdiction, and depends upon many factors, including the type of patent, the scope of its coverage, the availability of patent term adjustments and extensions, the availability of legal remedies, and the validity and enforceability of the patent.

In addition, the coverage claimed in a patent application can be significantly narrowed before the patent is issued, and patent claims can be reinterpreted or further altered even after patent issuance. We cannot predict whether the patent applications we are currently pursuing will issue as patents or whether the claims of any issued patents will provide sufficient protection from competitors. A competitor could develop systems, devices, or methods of manufacture or treatment that are not covered by our patents. Accordingly, our ability to stop third parties from commercializing any of our patented inventions, either directly or indirectly, will depend in part on our success in obtaining, maintaining, defending, and enforcing patent claims that adequately cover our inventions.

24

Our commercial success will also depend, in part, on not infringing, misappropriating, or otherwise violating the intellectual property rights of third parties. Third parties own numerous patents in the U.S. and in jurisdictions outside the U.S. with claims directed to inventions in the fields in which we operate or plan to operate. It is uncertain whether the issuance of any third-party patent would require us to alter our development or commercial strategies, seek licenses, cease certain activities, or participate in USPTO proceedings. Moreover, such licenses may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Our breach of any license agreements or failure to obtain a license necessary to our business may have a material adverse impact on us.

On July 27, 2005, we entered into a cross-license agreement, or the Cross-License, with Medtronic, Inc., or Medtronic, directed to patent families in a field of use that is generally aligned with our business interests, including direct electrical stimulation or monitoring of the brain via electrodes attached to or implanted in the head for the treatment or diagnosis of epilepsy and other disorders, or the Field. Under the terms of the Cross-License, Medtronic granted to us a royalty-bearing, worldwide, non-exclusive, license in the Field to certain patent families owned or controlled by Medtronic or acquired by or licensed to Medtronic. In turn, we granted to Medtronic a royalty-bearing, worldwide, non-exclusive license in the Field to certain patents owned or controlled by us or acquired by or licensed to us. The term of the Cross-License extends through the life of the licensed patents, unless it is extended by the parties or otherwise terminated early pursuant to its terms. The Cross-License provides that each party may terminate the Cross-License if the other party materially breaches the Cross-License and does not cure the breach within a specified period of time.

Trademarks

Our trademark portfolio is designed to protect the brands of our RNS System and any future products. As of December 31, 2025, we own 25 trademark registrations, three of which are U.S. trademark registrations and the rest in various other countries or regions. We own trademark registrations for “NeuroPace,” the “NeuroPace” logo, and “RNS” in the United States and various other countries.

Trade Secrets

We also rely on trade secrets relating to our product and technology, and we maintain the confidentiality of such proprietary information to protect aspects of our business that are not amenable to, or that we do not consider appropriate for, patent protection. We seek to protect our trade secrets and know-how by entering into confidentiality and invention assignment agreements with employees, contractors, consultants, suppliers, customers, and other third parties, who have access to such information. These agreements generally provide that all confidential information concerning our business or financial affairs developed or made known to the individual during the course of the individual’s relationship with us are to be kept confidential and not disclosed to third parties except in specific circumstances.

For more information regarding the risks related to our intellectual property, please see “Risk Factors—Risks related to our intellectual property.”

Manufacturing and Supply

We currently manufacture our RNS System at and distribute all of our products from our approximately 53,000 square foot facility in Mountain View, California. This facility provides approximately 20,000 square feet of space for our production and distribution operations, including manufacturing, quality control and storage. We believe our existing facility will be sufficient to meet our current and near-term manufacturing needs.

Our manufacturing and distribution operations are subject to regulatory requirements of the FDA’s Quality Management System Regulation, or QMSR, for medical devices sold in the United States. The FDA monitors compliance with the QMSR through periodic inspections of our facilities and may include our suppliers’ facilities as well. We are also subject to applicable state and local regulations relating to the environment, waste management and health and safety matters, including measures relating to the release, use, storage, treatment, transportation, discharge, disposal, sale, labeling, collection, recycling, treatment and remediation of hazardous substances.

25

Our failure, or the failure of our suppliers, to maintain acceptable quality requirements could result in substantial fines, the shutdown of our manufacturing operations or the recall of components of our RNS System, which would harm our business. In the event that one of our suppliers fails to maintain acceptable quality requirements, we may have to find and qualify a new supplier and could experience a material adverse effect to our manufacturing operations and result in manufacturing delays.

We believe our quality management system is compliant with the FDA’s QSRs and the Quality Management System Regulations, or QMSR, which went into effect on February 2, 2026. We have been an FDA registered medical device establishment since 2014 and California licensed medical device manufacturer since 2004. We moved to our current Mountain View, California facility in March 2012.

The FDA conducted a PMA pre-approval inspection of our manufacturing facility in Mountain View, California prior to our PMA approval, as well as an establishment inspection in September 2014 which resulted in no 483 observations. We were accepted into the FDA Voluntary Improvement Program in 2018, and we are in our eighth year of participation in the program. The FDA Voluntary Improvement Program is part of the FDA’s Case for Quality Program. As a participant in this program, we have an on-site appraisal once a year during which an appraisal team assesses our processes to determine areas for improvement, and we have subsequent quarterly check-in assessments that are designed to discuss our progress in continuous improvement. For companies that participate in this program, the FDA forgoes conducting routine facility inspections and pre-approval inspections in order to allow participants to shift resources to innovation and improvement efforts. We believe that we are in compliance, in all material respects, with applicable FDA and QMSR requirements.

The materials, components, and sub-assemblies of our RNS System, as well as manufacturing services, are provided by qualified and approved suppliers, most of which are single source suppliers. For example, Micro Systems Technologies Management AG and Greatbatch Ltd are single source suppliers of key components of our products, including printed circuit assemblies and batteries. Other qualified and approved suppliers provide additional components, materials, and services, which include silicone adhesive, integrated circuits, and other components. We typically maintain several months’ worth of inventory on critical components. From time to time, we have experienced issues with our suppliers. To date, these issues have not had a material impact on our operations. We estimate that qualifying a second source supplier would be a lengthy process. Our suppliers are evaluated, qualified and approved through our supplier management program, which includes various evaluations, assessments, qualifications, validations, testing and inspection to ensure the supplier can meet acceptable quality and regulatory requirements.

Order quantities and lead times for materials, components, and sub-assemblies purchased from suppliers are based on our forecasts derived from historical demand and anticipated future demand. We perform assembly, testing, inspection and final release activities for our RNS System at our Mountain View, California facility.

Government Regulation

Regulation of Medical Devices in the United States

Our RNS System and our operations are subject to extensive and ongoing regulation by the FDA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 and its implementing regulations, collectively referred to as the FDCA, as well as other federal and state regulatory bodies in the United States. The laws and regulations govern, among other things, product design and development, preclinical and clinical testing and research, manufacturing, safety, efficacy, packaging, labeling, storage, record keeping and reporting, clearance or approval, adverse event reporting, advertising, marketing, distribution, promotion, import and export and post-marketing surveillance, to ensure that medical devices distributed domestically are safe and effective for their intended uses and otherwise meet the requirements of the FDCA. Failure to comply with applicable requirements may subject a device and/or its manufacturer to a variety of administrative sanctions, such as FDA refusal to approve pending premarket applications, issuance of warning letters, mandatory product recalls, import detentions, civil monetary penalties, and/or judicial sanctions, such as product seizures, injunctions and criminal prosecution.

26

FDA Premarket Clearance and Approval Requirements

Unless an exemption applies, each medical device commercially distributed in the United States requires either FDA approval of a PMA, clearance of a 510(k) premarket notification, or grant of a de novo request for classification. Under the FDCA, medical devices are classified into one of three classes—Class I, Class II, or Class III—depending on the degree of risk associated with each medical device and the extent of manufacturer and regulatory control needed to provide reasonable assurance of its safety and effectiveness. Classification of a device is important because the class to which a device is assigned determines, among other things, the necessity and type of FDA review required prior to marketing the device, making changes to the device, or otherwise using the device.

Class I devices include those with the lowest risk to the patient and are those for which safety and effectiveness can be reasonably assured by adherence to the FDA’s “general controls” for medical devices, which include compliance with the applicable portions of the QMSR, facility registration and product listing, reporting of adverse medical events and malfunctions through the submission of Medical Device Reports, and appropriate, truthful and non-misleading labeling, advertising, and promotional materials. Some Class I or low risk devices also require premarket clearance by the FDA through the 510(k) premarket notification process described below.

Class II devices are moderate risk devices subject to the FDA’s general controls, and any other “special controls” deemed necessary by the FDA to ensure the safety and effectiveness of the device, such as performance standards, product-specific guidance documents, special labeling requirements, patient registries, or post-market surveillance. Premarket review and clearance by the FDA for Class II devices is accomplished through the 510(k) premarket notification process, though certain Class II devices are exempt from this premarket review process. When required, the manufacturer must submit to the FDA a premarket notification, or 510(k), submission demonstrating that the device is “substantially equivalent” to a legally marketed device, which in some cases may require submission of clinical data. Unless a specific exemption applies, 510(k) premarket notification submissions are subject to user fees. If the FDA determines that the device, or its intended use, is not substantially equivalent to a legally marketed device, the FDA will place the device, or the particular use of the device, into Class III, and the device sponsor must then fulfill more rigorous premarketing requirements.

Class III devices include devices deemed by the FDA to pose the greatest risk, such as life-sustaining, life-supporting or implantable devices and devices deemed not substantially equivalent to a predicate device following a 510(k) submission. The safety and effectiveness of Class III devices cannot be reasonably assured solely by general or special controls. Submission and FDA approval of a PMA, application is required before marketing of a Class III device can proceed. As with 510(k) submissions, unless an exemption applies, PMA submissions are subject to user fees. The PMA process is much more demanding than the 510(k) premarket notification process. A PMA application is required, which is intended to demonstrate that the device is reasonably safe and effective for its intended use and must be supported by extensive data, typically including data from preclinical studies and clinical trials.

Some pre-amendment devices (devices that were on the market prior to May 28, 1976) are unclassified, but are subject to the FDA’s premarket notification and clearance process in order to be commercially distributed.

PMA Approval Pathway

Our RNS System is a Class III device, which required PMA approval before it could be marketed. Additionally, there are certain pre-amendment Class III devices for which the FDA has not yet required a PMA, which are cleared through the 510(k) process. The PMA process is generally more demanding than the 510(k) premarket notification process. In a PMA, the manufacturer must demonstrate that the device is reasonably safe and effective, and the PMA must be supported by extensive data, including data from preclinical studies and clinical trials. The PMA must also contain a full description of the device and its components, a full description of the methods, facilities and controls used for manufacturing, and proposed labeling. Following receipt of a PMA, the FDA determines whether the application is sufficiently complete to permit a substantive review. If the FDA accepts the application for review, it has 180 days under the FDCA to complete its review of a PMA, although in practice, the FDA’s review may take and often takes significantly longer, sometimes taking up to several years. 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. The FDA may or may not accept the panel’s recommendation. In addition, the FDA

27

will generally conduct a pre-approval inspection of the applicant or its third-party manufacturers’ or suppliers’ manufacturing facility or facilities to ensure compliance with the QMSR.

The FDA will approve the new device for commercial distribution if it determines that the data and information in the PMA constitute valid scientific evidence and that there is reasonable assurance that the device is safe and effective for its intended use(s). The FDA may approve a PMA with post-approval conditions intended to ensure the safety and effectiveness of the device, including, among other things, restrictions on labeling, promotion, sale and distribution, and collection of long-term follow-up data from patients in the clinical trial that supported PMA approval or requirements to conduct additional studies post-approval. The FDA may also condition PMA approval on some form of post-market surveillance when deemed necessary to protect the public health or to provide additional safety and efficacy data for the device in a larger population or for a longer period of use. In such cases, the manufacturer might be required to follow certain patient groups for a number of years and to make periodic reports to the FDA on the clinical status of those patients. Failure to comply with the conditions of approval can result in material adverse enforcement action, including withdrawal of the approval.

Certain changes to an approved device, such as changes in manufacturing facilities, certain suppliers, methods, or quality control procedures, or changes in the design performance specifications, that affect the safety or effectiveness of the device, require submission of a PMA supplement. PMA supplements often require submission of the same type of information as a PMA, except that the supplement is limited to information needed to support any changes from the device covered by the original PMA and may not require as extensive clinical data or the convening of an advisory panel. Certain other changes to an approved device require the submission of a new PMA, such as when the design change causes a different intended use, mode of operation, and technical basis of operation, or when the design change is so significant that a new generation of the device will be developed, and the data that were submitted with the original PMA are not applicable for the change in demonstrating a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. Changes to our existing product or the development of new products may require the approval of a PMA or additional submissions of PMA supplements.

510(k) Marketing Clearance Pathway

One of the components of our RNS System, our Burr Hole Cover, which may be used to cover the incision site for depth leads, is subject to premarket notification and clearance under section 510(k) of the FDCA. To obtain 510(k) clearance for a medical device, an applicant must submit to the FDA a 510(k) submission demonstrating that the proposed device is “substantially equivalent” to a legally marketed device, known as a “predicate device.” A legally marketed predicate device may include a pre-amendment device, a device that has been reclassified from Class III to Class II or Class I, or a device that was found substantially equivalent through the 510(k) process. A device is substantially equivalent if, with respect to the predicate device, it has the same intended use and has either (i) the same technological characteristics, or (ii) different technological characteristics, but the information provided in the 510(k) submission demonstrates that the device does not raise new questions of safety and effectiveness and is at least as safe and effective as the predicate device. A showing of substantial equivalence sometimes, but not always, requires clinical data.

Before the FDA will accept a 510(k) submission for substantive review, the FDA will first assess whether the submission satisfies a minimum threshold of acceptability. If the FDA determines that the 510(k) submission is incomplete, the FDA will issue a “Refuse to Accept” letter which generally outlines the information the FDA believes is necessary to permit a substantive review and to reach a determination regarding substantial equivalence. An applicant must submit the requested information within 180 days before the FDA will proceed with additional review of the submission. Once the 510(k) submission is accepted for review, by regulation, the FDA has 90 calendar days to review and issue a determination. As a practical matter, clearance may take and often does take longer. Upon review, the FDA may require additional information, including clinical data, to make a determination regarding substantial equivalence.

If the FDA agrees that the device is substantially equivalent to a predicate device currently on the market, it will grant 510(k) clearance to commercially market the device. If the FDA determines that the device is “not substantially equivalent” to a previously cleared device, for example, due to a finding of a lack of a predicate device, that the device has a new intended use or different technological characteristics that raise different questions

28

of safety or effectiveness when the device is compared to the cited predicate device, the device is automatically designated as a Class III device. The device sponsor must then fulfill more rigorous PMA requirements, or can request a risk-based classification determination for the device in accordance with the “de novo” process, which is a route to market for novel medical devices that are low to moderate risk and are not substantially equivalent to a predicate device. If the FDA determines that the information provided in a 510(k) submission is insufficient to demonstrate substantial equivalence to the predicate device, the FDA generally identifies the specific information that needs to be provided so that the FDA may complete its evaluation of substantial equivalence, and such information may be provided within the time allotted by the FDA or in a new 510(k) submission should the original 510(k) submission have been withdrawn.

After a device receives 510(k) marketing clearance, any modification that could significantly affect its safety or effectiveness, or that would constitute a major change or modification in its intended use, will require a new 510(k) marketing clearance or, depending on the modification, PMA approval. The determination as to whether or not a modification could significantly affect the device’s safety or effectiveness is initially left to the manufacturer using available FDA guidance. Many minor modifications today are accomplished by a “letter to file” in which the manufacturer documents the rationale for the change and why a new 510(k) submission is not required. However, the FDA may review such letters to file to evaluate the regulatory status of the modified product at any time and may require the manufacturer to cease marketing and recall the modified device until 510(k) marketing clearance or PMA approval is obtained. The manufacturer may also be subject to significant regulatory fines or penalties.

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. To market low to moderate risk medical devices that are automatically placed into Class III due to the absence of a predicate device, a manufacturer may request a de novo classification. This procedure allows a manufacturer whose novel device is automatically classified into Class III to request 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. A medical device may 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 or a manufacturer may request de novo classification directly without first submitting a 510(k) premarket notification to the FDA and receiving a not substantially equivalent determination. The FDA is required to classify the device within 120 calendar days following receipt of the de novo application, although in practice, the FDA’s review may take significantly longer. During the pendency of the FDA’s review, the FDA may issue an additional information letter, which places the de novo request on hold and stops the review clock pending receipt of the additional information requested. In the event the de novo requestor does not provide the requested information within 180 calendar days, the FDA will consider the de novo request to be withdrawn. 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 de novo request for classification 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. In the event the FDA determines the data and information submitted demonstrate that general controls or general and special controls are adequate to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness, the FDA will grant the de novo request for classification. When the FDA grants a de novo request for classification, the device is granted marketing authorization and further can serve as a predicate for future devices of that type, through a 510(k) premarket notification. We currently do not have any products with a de novo classification.

Clinical Trials

Clinical trials are typically required to support a PMA, oftentimes for a de novo request for classification, and are sometimes required to support a 510(k) submission. As has and continues to be required for our RNS System, all clinical investigations of devices to determine safety and effectiveness must be conducted in accordance with the FDA’s IDE regulations which govern investigational device labeling, prohibit promotion of the investigational device, and specify an array of recordkeeping, reporting and monitoring responsibilities of study sponsors and study

29

investigators. If the device presents a “significant risk,” as defined by the FDA, to human health, the FDA requires the device sponsor to submit an IDE application to the FDA, which must be approved prior to commencing clinical trials. A significant risk device is one that presents a potential for serious risk to the health, safety, or welfare of a patient and either is implanted, like our RNS System, purported or represented to be used in supporting or sustaining human life, is for a use that is substantially important in diagnosing, curing, mitigating, or treating disorders or otherwise preventing impairment of human health, or otherwise presents a potential for serious risk to a subject. An IDE application must be supported by appropriate data, such as animal and laboratory test results, showing that it is safe to test the device in humans and that the testing protocol is scientifically sound. A clinical trial may begin 30 days after receipt of the IDE by the FDA unless the FDA notifies the company that the investigation may not begin. If the FDA determines that there are deficiencies or other concerns with an IDE for which it requires modification, the FDA may permit a clinical trial to proceed under a conditional approval. Acceptance of an IDE application for review does not guarantee that the FDA will approve the IDE and, if it is approved, the FDA may or may not determine that the data derived from the trials support the safety and effectiveness of the device or warrant the continuation of clinical trials. An IDE supplement must be submitted to, and approved by, the FDA before a sponsor or investigator may make a change to the investigational plan that may affect its scientific soundness, study plan or the rights, safety or welfare of human subjects.

In addition, the clinical trials must be approved by, and conducted under the oversight of, an Institutional Review Board, or IRB, for each clinical site. The IRB is responsible for the initial and continuing review of the IDE, and may pose additional requirements for the conduct of the study. If an IDE application is approved by the FDA and one or more IRBs, clinical trials may begin at a specific number of investigational sites with a specific number of patients, as approved by the FDA.

If the device is considered a “non-significant risk,” IDE submission to FDA is not required. Instead, only approval from the IRB overseeing the investigation at each clinical trial site is required. Abbreviated IDE requirements, such as monitoring the investigation, ensuring that the investigators obtain informed consent, and labeling and record-keeping requirements also apply to non-significant risk device studies.

During a study, the sponsor is required to comply with the applicable FDA requirements, including, for example, trial monitoring, selecting clinical investigators and providing them with the investigational plan, ensuring IRB review, adverse event reporting, record keeping and prohibitions on the promotion of investigational devices, or on making safety or effectiveness claims for them. The clinical investigators in the clinical trial are also subject to FDA’s regulations and must obtain patient informed consent, rigorously follow the investigational plan and study protocol, control the disposition of the investigational device, and comply with all applicable reporting and record keeping requirements.

Additionally, after a trial begins, the FDA or the IRB could suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time for various reasons, including a belief that the risks to study subjects outweigh the anticipated benefits. Even if a clinical trial is completed, there can be no assurance that the data generated during a clinical trial will meet the safety and effectiveness endpoints or otherwise produce results that will lead the FDA to grant marketing clearance or approval.

Post-Market Regulation

After a device is cleared or approved for marketing, numerous and pervasive regulatory requirements continue to apply. These include:

•Annual Reports: As is required for our RNS System, continued FDA approval may be contingent upon the submission of periodic reports, required under 21 CFR 814.84, at intervals of one year (unless otherwise specified) from the date of approval of the original PMA;

•Post-Approval Study Report: As is required for our RNS System, continued FDA approval may also be contingent upon the submission of Post-Approval Study data, as requested by the FDA;

•establishment registration and device listing with the FDA;

30

•QMSR requirements, which require manufacturers and contract manufacturers, including third-party manufacturers, to follow stringent design, testing, control, documentation and other quality assurance procedures during all aspects of the design and manufacturing process;

•labeling regulations and FDA prohibitions against the promotion of investigational products, or “off-label” uses of cleared or approved products;

•requirements related to promotional activities;

•clearance or approval of product modifications to 510(k)-cleared devices that could significantly affect safety or effectiveness or that would constitute a major change in intended use of one of our cleared devices;

•medical device reporting regulations, which require that a manufacturer report to the FDA if a device it markets may have caused or contributed to a death or serious injury, or has malfunctioned and the device or a similar device that it markets would be likely to cause or contribute to a death or serious injury, if the malfunction were to recur;

•correction and removal reporting regulations, which require that manufacturers report to the FDA field corrections and product removals if undertaken to reduce a risk to health posed by the device or to remedy a violation of the FDCA that may present a risk to health;

•the FDA’s recall authority, whereby the agency can order device manufacturers to recall from the market a product that is in violation of governing laws and regulations; and

•post-market surveillance activities and regulations, which apply when deemed by the FDA to be necessary to protect the public health or to provide additional safety and effectiveness data for the device.

Advertising and promotion of medical devices, in addition to being regulated by the FDA, are also regulated by the Federal Trade Commission and by state regulatory and enforcement authorities. Promotional activities for FDA-regulated products have been the subject of enforcement action brought under healthcare reimbursement laws and consumer protection statutes. In addition, under the federal Lanham Act and similar state laws, competitors and others can initiate litigation relating to advertising claims. In general, if the FDA determines that our promotional materials, technical guidance, or training constitutes promotion of an unapproved or uncleared use, it could request that we modify our training, technical guidance, or promotional materials or subject us to regulatory or enforcement actions. It is also possible that other federal, state or foreign enforcement authorities might take action if they consider our promotional, technical guidance, or training materials to constitute promotion of an unapproved or uncleared use, which could result in significant fines or penalties under other statutory authorities, such as laws prohibiting false claims for reimbursement.

Manufacturing processes for commercial products are required to comply with the applicable portions of the QMSR, which cover the methods and the facilities and controls for the design, manufacture, testing, production, processes, controls, quality assurance, labeling, packaging, distribution, installation and servicing of finished devices intended for human use. The QMSR also requires, among other things, maintenance of a device master file, design history file, device history records, and complaint files. As a manufacturer, we are subject to periodic scheduled or unscheduled inspections by the FDA. Failure to maintain compliance with the QMSR requirements could result in the shut-down of, or restrictions on, manufacturing operations and the recall or seizure of products, which would harm our business. The discovery of previously unknown problems with our product, including unanticipated adverse events or adverse events of increasing severity or frequency, whether resulting from the use of the device within the scope of its clearance or off-label by a clinician in the practice of medicine, could result in restrictions on the device, including the removal of the product from the market or voluntary or mandatory device recalls.

31

The FDA has broad regulatory compliance and enforcement powers. If the FDA determines that we failed to comply with applicable regulatory requirements, it can take a variety of compliance or enforcement actions, which may result in any of the following sanctions:

•untitled letters, warning letters, fines, injunctions, consent decrees and civil penalties;

•unanticipated expenditures to address or defend such actions;

•customer notifications for repair, replacement, refunds;

•recall, detention or seizure of our RNS System or any future products;

•operating restrictions or partial suspension or total shutdown of production;

•refusal of or delay in granting our requests for 510(k) clearance or PMA approval of new products or modified products;

•operating restrictions;

•withdrawing 510(k) clearance or PMA approvals that are already granted;

•refusal to grant export approval for our RNS System or any future products; or

•criminal prosecution.

Other Healthcare and Privacy Laws

Our RNS System and our operations are also subject to various federal, state and local laws targeting fraud and abuse in the healthcare industry. For example, in the United States, there are federal and state anti-kickback laws that prohibit the payment or receipt of kickbacks, bribes or other remuneration intended to induce the purchase or recommendation of healthcare products and services or reward past purchases or recommendations.

Violations of these laws can lead to significant administrative, civil and criminal penalties, including fines, disgorgement, imprisonment, exclusion from participation in federal healthcare programs, integrity oversight and reporting obligations, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings and the forced curtailment or restructuring of our operations. These laws are applicable to us as a medical device company and also apply to hospitals, epileptologists, neurologists, neurosurgeons, and other potential purchasers or users of our RNS System or any future products.

In particular, the federal Anti-Kickback Statute (42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b(b)) prohibits persons from knowingly and willfully soliciting, receiving, offering or providing remuneration, directly or indirectly, to induce either the referral of an individual, or the furnishing, recommending or arranging for a good or service, for which payment may be made under a federal healthcare program such as the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Remuneration is not defined in the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and has been broadly interpreted to include anything of value, including, for example, gifts, discounts, coupons, the furnishing of supplies or equipment, provision of items or services with independent value such as administrative support, credit arrangements, payments of cash, waivers of payments, ownership interests, relieving a referral source of a financial or administrative burden, and the provision of anything at less than its fair market value. The federal Anti- Kickback Statute and implementing regulations provide for certain narrow exceptions and “safe harbors” for certain defined practices including discounting, rebating or personal services arrangements, among other things. Failure to meet all the requirements of a particular applicable statutory exception or regulatory safe harbor does not make the conduct per se illegal under the Anti Kickback Statute. Instead, the legality of the arrangement will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis based on a cumulative review of all its facts and circumstances. In addition, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of this statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation. In addition, the government may assert that a claim, including items or services resulting from a violation of federal Anti- Kickback Statute, constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the civil False Claims Act, or FCA, or the civil monetary penalties statute, which imposes fines against any person who is determined to have presented or caused to

32

be presented claims to a federal healthcare program that the person knows or should know is for an item or service that was not provided as claimed or is false or fraudulent. Moreover, the lack of uniform court interpretation of the Anti-Kickback Statute makes compliance with the law difficult.

Violations are also subject to civil monetary penalties, which can be further assessed under the federal False Claims Act. Violations of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute may also result in civil and criminal penalties, including criminal fines and imprisonment, or exclusion from Medicare, Medicaid or other governmental programs.

Certain arrangements between medical device companies and referring, or prescribing clinicians have been identified in fraud alerts issued by the Office of Inspector General, or OIG, as implicating the Anti-Kickback Statute. Moreover, the provision of payments or other items of value by a medical device company to a referral source could be prohibited under the Stark Law (described below) unless the arrangement meets all criteria of an applicable exception. The government has been active in enforcement of these laws as they apply to medical device companies.

Other federal healthcare fraud-related laws also provide criminal liability for violations. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA (18 U.S.C. § 1347), also created additional federal criminal statutes that prohibit, among other actions, knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program, including payors, knowingly and willfully embezzling or stealing from a healthcare benefit program, willfully obstructing a criminal investigation of a healthcare offense, and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services. Similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation. Federal criminal law at 18 U.S.C. § 1001, among other sections, prohibits knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing, or covering up a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services.

The civil FCA imposes liability on any person or entity who, among other things, knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment by a federal healthcare program. The qui tam provisions of the FCA allow a private individual to bring civil actions on behalf of the federal government alleging that the defendant has submitted or caused the submission of a false claim to the federal government, and to share in any monetary recovery. These laws can apply to entities that provide information on coverage, coding, and reimbursement of their products and assistance with obtaining reimbursement to persons who bill payors. When an entity is determined to have violated the federal civil FCA, the government may impose civil fines, award treble damages, and exclude the entity from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other federal healthcare programs. In addition, various states have enacted false claim laws analogous to the federal FCA.

The Civil Monetary Penalty Act of 1981 imposes penalties against any person or entity that, among other things, is determined to have presented or caused to be presented a claim to a federal healthcare program that the person knows or should know is for an item or service that was not provided as claimed or is false or fraudulent, or offering or transferring remuneration to a federal healthcare beneficiary that a person knows or should know is likely to influence the beneficiary’s decision to order or receive items or services reimbursable by the government from a particular provider or supplier.

The Stark Law prohibits payments made by a clinician (as defined under such law) to a medical device company in exchange for the delivery of a product or provision of a services, presenting or causing to be presented claims to Medicare and Medicaid for products or services referred by clinicians who personally, or through a family member, have an investment interest in, or a compensation arrangement with, the medical device company manufacturing the product or delivering the service, unless an exception applies. Similarly, medical device companies may not bill Medicare for services furnished pursuant to a prohibited self- referral. Any person who presents or causes to be presented a claim to the Medicare or Medicaid programs in violation of the Stark Law is subject to civil monetary penalties and possible exclusion from participation in federal governmental payor programs. Sanctions for violating the Stark Law include denial of payment, civil monetary and exclusion from the federal health care programs. Failure to refund amounts received as a result of a prohibited referral on a timely basis may constitute a false or fraudulent claim and may result in civil penalties and additional penalties under the FCA.

33

The statute also provides for additional penalties for a circumvention scheme. In addition, many states, including California, also have state anti-“self-referral” and other laws that are not limited to Medicare and Medicaid referrals, with which we must comply.

The Federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, collectively referred to as the Affordable Care Act, which require certain applicable manufacturers of devices, drugs, biologics, kits that required FDA approval or clearance, and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program, or CHIP, to report annually to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, information related to payments and other transfers of value to physicians, defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors, and teaching hospitals, other healthcare professionals (such as physician assistants and nurse practitioners), and applicable manufacturers and group purchasing organizations, and to report annually ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members. Applicable manufacturers are required to submit annual reports to CMS. Failure to submit required information may result in civil monetary penalties, which can be increased for “knowing failures”, for all payments, transfers of value or ownership or investment interests that are not timely, accurately, and completely reported in an annual submission, and may result in liability under other federal laws or regulations.

Numerous states have enacted laws prohibiting business corporations, such as us, from practicing medicine and other professions and employing or engaging physicians and other professionals to practice medicine, generally referred to as the prohibition against the corporate practice of medicine. These laws are designed to prevent interference in the medical decision-making process by anyone who is not a licensed professional. Violation of these corporate practice of medicine laws may result in civil or criminal fines, as well as sanctions imposed against the business corporation and/or the professional through licensure proceedings and programs and criminal penalties. In addition, various states have enacted false claim laws analogous to the federal False Claims Act, although many of these laws apply where a claim is submitted to any third-party payor and not merely a governmental payor program.

Laws Governing Foreign Business Activities

We are subject to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, as amended, 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. Other U.S. companies in the medical device and pharmaceutical field have faced criminal penalties under the FCPA for allowing their agents to deviate from appropriate practices in doing business with foreign government officials. We may also become subject to similar anti-bribery laws in other jurisdictions in which we decide to 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. Violations of these laws could result in severe penalties, including criminal and civil penalties, disgorgement, and other remedial measures. Any violations of these laws, or allegations of such violations, could involve significant costs and expenses, including legal fees, and could result in a material adverse effect on our business operations and revenue.

U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

Medicare is a federal program administered by CMS through fiscal intermediaries, Medicare Administrative Contractors and carriers. Available to individuals aged 65 or over, and certain other individuals, the Medicare program provides, among other things, healthcare benefits that cover, within prescribed limits, the major costs of most medically necessary care for such individuals, subject to certain deductibles and copayments.

CMS has established guidelines for the coverage and reimbursement of certain products and procedures by Medicare. In general, in order to be reimbursed by Medicare, a healthcare procedure furnished to a Medicare beneficiary must be reasonable and necessary for the diagnosis or treatment of an illness or injury, or to improve the functioning of a malformed body part. The methodology for determining coverage status and the amount of Medicare reimbursement varies based upon, among other factors, the setting in which a Medicare beneficiary received healthcare products and services. Any changes in federal legislation, regulations and policy affecting CMS

34

coverage and reimbursement relative to the procedures of implanting or using our RNS System could have a material effect on our performance.

CMS also administers the Medicaid program, a cooperative federal/state program that provides medical assistance benefits to qualifying low income and medically needy persons. State participation in Medicaid is optional, and each state is given discretion in developing and administering its own Medicaid program, subject to certain federal requirements pertaining to payment levels, eligibility criteria and minimum categories of services. The coverage, method and level of reimbursement vary from state to state and is subject to each state’s budget restraints. Changes to the availability of coverage, method or level of reimbursement for our RNS System and supplemental procedures may affect future revenue negatively if reimbursement amounts are decreased or discontinued.

All CMS programs are subject to statutory and regulatory changes, retroactive and prospective rate adjustments, administrative rulings, interpretations of policy, intermediary determinations, and government funding restrictions, all of which may materially increase or decrease the rate of program payments to healthcare facilities and other healthcare providers, including those paid for the implantation of our RNS System and supplemental procedures.

United States Health Reform

Changes in healthcare policy could increase our costs and subject us to additional regulatory requirements that may interrupt commercialization of our RNS System and future products. Changes in healthcare policy could increase our costs, decrease our revenue and impact sales of and reimbursement for our RNS System and future products. The Affordable Care Act substantially changes the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers, and significantly impacts our industry. The United States and some foreign jurisdictions are considering or have enacted a number of legislative and regulatory proposals to change the healthcare system in ways that could affect our ability to sell our RNS System and any future products profitably. Among policy makers and payors in the United States and elsewhere, there is significant interest in promoting changes in healthcare systems with the stated goals of containing healthcare costs, improving quality or expanding access. Current and future legislative proposals to further reform healthcare or reduce healthcare costs may limit coverage of or lower reimbursement for the procedures associated with the use of our RNS System and any future products. The cost containment measures that payors and providers are instituting and the effect of any healthcare reform initiative implemented in the future could impact our revenue from the sale of our RNS System and any future products.

The implementation of the Affordable Care Act in the United States, for example, has changed healthcare financing and delivery by both governmental and private insurers substantially, and affected medical device manufacturers significantly. During its history, there have been amendments to and judicial, executive and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act. For example, on July 4, 2025, the One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act, or OBBBA, was signed into law, which narrowed access to Affordable Care Act marketplace exchange enrollment and declined to extend the Affordable Care Act enhanced advanced premium tax credits that expired at the end of 2025, which, among other provisions in the law, are anticipated to reduce the number of Americans with health insurance. The OBBBA also is expected to reduce Medicaid spending and enrollment by implementing work requirements for some beneficiaries, capping state-directed payments, reducing federal funding, and limiting provider taxes used to fund the program. Congress is considering proposed legislation intended to further reduce healthcare costs with alternatives to replace the expired Affordable Care Act subsidies. It is possible that the Affordable Care Act will be subject to judicial or Congressional challenges in the future. It is unclear how any such challenges and the healthcare reform measures of the current administration will impact the Affordable Care Act.

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the Affordable Care Act was enacted. For example, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, included reductions to CMS payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect on April 1, 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, will remain in effect through 2032 unless additional Congressional action is taken.

In addition, the current administration is pursuing policies to reduce regulations and expenditures across government agencies including at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the FDA, CMS and related

35

agencies. These actions, presently directed by executive orders or memoranda from the Office of Management and Budget, may propose policy changes that create additional uncertainty for our business. Recent actions, for example, include directing agencies to reduce agency workforce and cut programs and imposing tariffs on imported products. Additionally, the current administration recently called on Congress to enact “The Great Healthcare Plan,” to codify and expand Most-Favored Nation pricing, lower government subsidies to private insurance companies, increase healthcare price transparency, and enact restrictions on pharmacy benefit manager payment methodologies, among other things. These actions and policies may significantly reduce U.S. medical device prices, potentially impacting manufacturers’ global pricing strategies and profitability, while increasing their operational costs and compliance risks.

We believe that there will continue to be proposals by legislators at both the federal and state levels, regulators and third-party payors to reduce costs while expanding individual healthcare benefits. We are not sure whether additional legislative changes will be enacted, or whether the current regulations, guidance or interpretations will be changed by the current administration or what the impact of such changes on our business, if any, may be. Certain of these changes could impose additional limitations on the rates we will be able to charge for our RNS System and future products or the amounts of reimbursement available for our RNS System and future products from governmental agencies or third-party payors. Current and future healthcare reform legislation and policies could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition.

HIPAA and Other Privacy Laws

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009, or HITECH, established uniform standards governing the conduct of certain electronic healthcare transactions and requires certain entities, called covered entities, to comply with standards that include the privacy and security of protected health information, or PHI. HIPAA also requires business associates and their covered subcontractors, such as independent contractors or agents of covered entities that have access to PHI in connection with providing a service to or on behalf of a covered entity, of covered entities to enter into business associate agreements with the covered entity and to safeguard the covered entity’s PHI against improper use and disclosure. In addition, companies, such as many medical device companies, that would not otherwise be subject to HIPAA may become contractually obligated to follow certain HIPAA requirements through agreements with Covered Entities and Business Associates, and some of our customers may require us to comply with certain of these provisions.

As a company that maintains a substantial amount of patient-level data and interacts frequently with both Covered Entities and Business Associates, we may have certain obligations regarding the use and disclosure of any PHI that may be provided to us or data that is generated by us. If we or our operations are found to be in violation of HIPAA, HITECH or their implementing regulations, and similar state laws, we may be subject to significant penalties, including civil, criminal and administrative penalties, fines, imprisonment and exclusion from participation in federal or state healthcare programs, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations.

We are also subject to numerous other federal, state, local, and foreign laws, rules, regulations and standards related to data privacy, security and protection, including consumer protection laws and regulations that govern the collection, dissemination, use, access to, confidentiality and security of patient health and other personal information, such as the Federal Trade Commission Act and the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, as amended.

In addition, Congress and various other states have enacted or are considering new laws and regulations regarding the privacy and security of heath and other personal information to which we may become subject. Further, all 50 states have passed laws regulating the actions that a business must take if it experiences a data breach, such as prompt disclosure to affected individuals. In addition to data breach notification laws, some states have enacted statutes and rules requiring businesses to reasonably protect certain types of personal information they hold or to otherwise comply with certain specified data security requirements for personal information.

In addition, as noted above, we are planning for regulatory clearances in non-U.S. jurisdictions, including the European Union (EU), Canada, and Japan, and may be subject to non-U.S. data privacy and security laws, rules,

36

regulations and standards as our operations expand. For example, the collection, use, disclosure, transfer, or other processing of personal information regarding individuals in the EU, including personal health data, is subject to the European Union General Data Protection Regulation 2016/679, or EU GDPR.

For more information regarding the risks related to data privacy and security, please see “Risk Factors—Risks related to privacy, information technology and cybersecurity.”

Human Capital Resources

NeuroPace was founded with a mission to transform the lives of people living with brain neurologic disorders. We are focused on developing high quality products that address critical patient needs and maintaining a work environment where employees are respected and encouraged to excel. As of December 31, 2025, we had 209 employees, all of which are based in the United States. We believe that the success of our business will depend, in part, on our ability to attract and retain qualified personnel. None of our employees are represented by a labor union or are a party to a collective bargaining agreement and we believe that we have strong employee relations.

Culture and Values

We strive to create a respectful work environment characterized by open communication and trust. As employees of NeuroPace, we each uphold the following core values that drive our culture and define the way we do business:

•Innovation: We develop world class technology

•Integrity: We do what’s right

•Leadership: We are becoming the standard of care

•Patient Focus: We transform lives

•Science: We enable fundamental discoveries

It is our philosophy to foster open communication. Employee input on ways to improve our business strategy and tactics, work environment and organization is valued and encouraged. We believe that our ability to provide employees with a dynamic and challenging environment where they are empowered to succeed and accountable to lead further drives a culture embedded in our values.

Business Ethics

We are committed to conducting our business activities with employees, consultants, patients, vendors, customers, communities, and stockholders with integrity and fairness and in accordance with the highest ethical standards. We believe that our conduct has a direct impact on our reputation, our brand, and our stakeholders. We are focused on ensuring that our legal, compliance, and risk mitigation protocols further enhance our ability to comport ourselves with the highest levels of ethical standards.

Talent Attraction, Retention and Engagement

We have a strong employee value proposition that leverages our unique patient-driven culture, collaborative working environment, shared sense of purpose, desire to do the right thing and ground-breaking work, to attract talent to our Company. By focusing on individual performance, as well as teamwork and collaboration, we believe that we foster an environment that helps employees excel as individuals and as team members. Eighty-three employees, or 45% of our workforce, have been at NeuroPace for at least five years. To further engage and incentivize our workforce, we offer a wide range of programs and avenues for support, motivation, and professional development. For example, we utilize both instructor-led training and online learning to deliver proprietary, targeted training courses designed to position our commercial organization at the cutting edge of neuromodulation. For our talent pipeline development, we utilize a variety of tools and work closely with individual business functions to

37

provide training and hands-on support for managers and leaders for assessing talent, identifying development opportunities, and discussing succession planning.

Communication is also key to our employee development and retention. We hold regular all-hands meetings designed to keep our employees informed and engaged. We also employ employee engagement surveys through which we incorporate critical employee feedback into our culture, operations, and strategic plans.

Compensation Philosophy

We strive to provide comprehensive and competitive compensation packages, including cash, equity, benefits and services that attract, motivate and retain exceptional employees. Compensation is driven by local market conditions, internal equity, and employee performance.

Health and Wellness

We offer a comprehensive benefits package including: 401(k) plan, medical, dental, and vision insurance, life and long-term disability insurance, health care and childcare spending accounts, Section 529 college savings plan, three weeks paid vacation for most employees at start, 12 paid holidays, and paid time off for sick time and family emergencies. Other benefits include hybrid work schedules, online wellness program, patent awards, company picnics, parties and barbecues, and more.

Corporate and Available Information

We were incorporated under the laws of the state of Delaware in November 1997 under the name NeuroPace, Inc. Our principal executive offices are located at 455 N. Bernardo Avenue, Mountain View, California 94043, and our telephone number is (650) 237-2700.

Our website address is www.neuropace.com. Information found on, or accessible through, our website is not a part of, and is not incorporated into, this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We file electronically with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC, our Annual Reports 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 Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. We make available on our website at www.neuropace.com, free of charge, copies of these reports and other information as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the SEC. All SEC filings are also available at the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov.

38