Table of Contents

​

​

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 20-F

(Mark One) ☐ REGISTRATION STATEMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 12(b) OR SECTION 12(g) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

OR

☒ ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021

OR

☐ TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from      to

OR

☐ SHELL COMPANY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

Date of event requiring this shell company report

Commission file number:  001-41316

Alpha Tau Medical Ltd.

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)

Not Applicable

(Translation of Registrant’s name into English)

State of Israel

(Jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)

Kiryat HaMada St. 5

Jerusalem 9777605, Israel

(Address of principal executive offices)

Uzi Sofer

Chief Executive Officer

E-mail: IR@alphatau.com

Telephone: +972 (3) 577-4115

Alpha Tau Medical Ltd.

Kiryat HaMada St. 5

Jerusalem 9777605, Israel

(Name, Telephone, E-mail and/or Facsimile number and Address of Company Contact Person)

Securities registered or to be registered, pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act

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

Securities for which there is a reporting obligation pursuant to Section 15(d) of the Act: None

​

Table of Contents

Indicate the number of outstanding shares of each of the issuer’s classes of capital stock or common stock as of the close of the period covered by the annual report. As of December 31, 2021, the registrant had outstanding 40,528,913 ordinary shares, no par value and 13,739,186 preferred shares, no par value. As of March 21, 2022, the registrant had 66,529,265 ordinary shares outstanding.

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.

Yes ☐ No ☒

If this report is an annual or transition report, indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Yes ☐ No ☒

Note—Checking the box above will not relieve any registrant required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 from their obligations under those Sections.

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.

Yes ☐ No ☒

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit such files).

Yes ☒ No ☐

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

​

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

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed a report on and attestation to its management’s assessment of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting under Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (15 U.S.C. 7262(b)) by the registered public accounting firm that prepared or issued its audit report.☐

Indicate by check mark which basis of accounting the registrant has used to prepare the financial statements included in this filing:

​

If “Other” has been checked in response to the previous question indicate by check mark which financial statement item the registrant has elected to follow.

Item 17 ☐ Item 18 ☐

If this is an annual report, indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).

Yes ☐ No ☒

​

​

​

​

Table of Contents

CONTENTS

​

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

ABOUT THIS ANNUAL REPORT

Except where the context otherwise requires or where otherwise indicated in this Annual Report, the terms “Alpha Tau Medical Ltd.,” “Alpha Tau,” the “Company,” “we,” “us,” “our,” “our company” and “our business” refer to Alpha Tau Medical Ltd. and its subsidiaries.

All references in this Annual Report to “Business Combination” refer to the transactions effected under the merger agreement, dated as of July 7, 2021 (the “Merger Agreement”), by and among Healthcare Capital Corp., a Delaware corporation (“HCCC”), Alpha Tau and Archery Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Alpha Tau (“Merger Sub”). Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub merged with and into HCCC, with HCCC surviving the merger. Upon consummation of the Business Combination and the other transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement on March 7, 2022, HCCC became a wholly owned subsidiary of Alpha Tau.

All references in this Annual Report to “Israeli currency” and “NIS” refer to New Israeli Shekels, the terms “dollar,” “USD” or “$” refer to U.S. dollars and the terms “€” or “euro” refer to the currency introduced at the start of the third stage of European economic and monetary union pursuant to the treaty establishing the European Community, as amended.

PRESENTATION OF FINANCIAL AND OTHER INFORMATION

Our financial statements have been prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States (“GAAP”). We present our consolidated financial statements in U.S. dollars.

Our fiscal year ends on December 31 of each year. References to fiscal 2019 and 2019 are references to the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, references to fiscal 2020 and 2020 are references to the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, and references to fiscal 2021 and 2021 are references to the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021.

Market and Industry Data

Unless otherwise indicated, information contained in this Annual Report concerning our industry and the regions in which we operate, including our general expectations and market position, market opportunity, market share and other management estimates, is based on information obtained from various independent publicly available sources and other industry publications, surveys and forecasts, which we believe to be reliable based upon our management’s knowledge of the industry. We assume liability for the accuracy and completeness of such information to the extent included in this Annual Report. Such assumptions and estimates of our future performance and growth objectives and the future performance of our industry and the markets in which we operate are necessarily subject to a high degree of uncertainty and risk due to a variety of factors, including those discussed under the headings “Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Statements” Item 3.D. “Key Information—Risk Factors” and Item 5. “Operating and Financial Review and Prospects” in this Annual Report.

Certain monetary amounts, percentages and other figures included in this Annual Report have been subject to rounding adjustments. Certain other amounts that appear in this Annual Report may not sum due to rounding. Revenue shown throughout this Annual Report is revenue from continuing operations, unless otherwise stated.

Unless otherwise noted, in this Annual Report we cite a source the first time a statement relying upon that source is made, and do not include citations subsequently when that statement is repeated.

Trademarks

This Annual Report contains references to trademarks, trade names and service marks belonging to other entities. Solely for convenience, trademarks, trade names and service marks referred to in this Annual Report may appear without the ® or TM symbols, but such references are not intended to indicate, in any way, that the applicable licensor will not assert, to the fullest extent under applicable law, its rights to these trademarks and trade names. We do not intend our use or display of other companies’ trade names, trademarks or service marks to imply a relationship with, or endorsement or sponsorship of us by, any other companies.

i

Table of Contents

CAUTIONARY STATEMENT REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

In addition to historical facts, this Annual Report contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), Section 21E of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) and the safe harbor provisions of the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements are principally contained in the sections entitled Item 3.D. “Key Information—Risk Factors,” Item 4. “Information on the Company,” and Item 5. “Operating and Financial Review and Prospects.” In some cases, these forward-looking statements can be identified by words or phrases such as “may,” “might,” “will,” “could,” “would,” “should,” “expect,” “plan,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “seek,” “believe,” “estimate,” “predict,” “potential,” “continue,” “contemplate,” “possible” or similar words. Statements regarding our future results of operations and financial position, growth strategy and plans and objectives of management for future operations, including, among others, expansion in new and existing markets, are forward-looking statements.

Forward-looking statements involve a number of risks, uncertainties and assumptions, and actual results or events may differ materially from those projected or implied in those statements. Important factors that could cause such differences include, but are not limited to:

ii

Table of Contents

Our estimates and forward-looking statements are mainly based on our current expectations and estimates of future events and trends which affect or may affect our business, operations and industry. Although we believe that these estimates and forward-looking statements are based upon reasonable assumptions, they are subject to numerous risks and uncertainties.

These forward-looking statements are subject to a number of known and unknown risks, uncertainties, other factors and assumptions, including the risks described in Item 3.D “Key Information—Risk Factors” and elsewhere in this Annual Report.

You should not rely on forward-looking statements as predictions of future events. We have based the forward-looking statements contained in this Annual Report primarily on our current expectations and projections about future events and trends that we believe may affect our business, financial condition and operating results. The outcome of the events described in these forward-looking statements is subject to risks, uncertainties and other factors described in the section titled “Risk factors” and elsewhere in this Annual Report. Moreover, we operate in a very competitive and rapidly changing environment. New risks and uncertainties emerge from time to time, and it is not possible for us to predict all risks and uncertainties that could have an impact on the forward-looking statements contained in this Annual Report. The results, events and circumstances reflected in the forward-looking statements may not be achieved or occur, and actual results, events or circumstances could differ materially from those described in the forward-looking statements.

In addition, statements that “we believe” and similar statements reflect our beliefs and opinions on the relevant subject. These statements are based on information available to us as of the date of this Annual Report. While we believe that information provides a reasonable basis for these statements, that information may be limited or incomplete. Our statements should not be read to indicate that we have conducted an exhaustive inquiry into, or review of, all relevant information. These statements are inherently uncertain, and investors are cautioned not to unduly rely on these statements. We qualify all of our estimates and forward-looking statements by these cautionary statements.

The forward-looking statements made in this Annual Report relate only to events as of the date on which the statements are made. We undertake no obligation to update any forward-looking statements made in this Annual Report to reflect events or circumstances after the date of this Annual Report or to reflect new information or the occurrence of unanticipated events, except as required by law. We may not actually achieve the plans, intentions or expectations disclosed in our forward-looking statements, and you should not place undue reliance on our forward-looking statements. Our forward-looking statements do not reflect the potential impact of any future acquisitions, mergers, dispositions, joint ventures or investments.

​

​

iii

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Risks Related to Our Business and the Alpha DaRT Technology

Our approach to the development of our proprietary Alpha DaRT technology represents a novel approach to radiation therapy, which creates significant and potentially unpredictable challenges for us.

Our future success depends on the successful development of our Alpha DaRT technology, which is designed to treat solid tumors through alpha-irradiation by intratumoral insertion of radium-224 impregnated sources, representing what we believe to be a novel

2

Table of Contents

approach to local radiotherapy. Alpha-emitting isotope oncology therapy is relatively new, and only one alpha-emitting isotope therapy has been approved in the United States or the European Union, or EU and only a limited number of clinical trials of products based on alpha-emitting isotope therapies have commenced. In addition, the majority of the clinical trials evaluating alpha-emitting isotope oncology therapy have focused on systemic delivery of drugs like radiopharmaceuticals (including Xofigo or certain antibody-radionuclide conjugates), while our Alpha DaRT technology is designed to be a local therapy. As such, it is difficult to accurately predict the developmental challenges we may incur for our Alpha DaRT technology as it proceeds through preclinical studies and clinical trials. In addition, beyond the limited universe of patients treated with Xofigo, the sole alpha-emitting isotope therapy approved in the United States or the EU, as well as other uses of alpha-emitting isotope therapy outside of oncology, such as in the use in treating ankylosing spondylitis, assessments of the long-term safety of targeted alpha-emitting isotope therapies in humans have been limited, and there may be long-term effects from treatment with our Alpha DaRT technology or any future products or product candidates we develop that we cannot predict at this time. It is difficult for us to predict the time and cost of the regulatory development of our Alpha DaRT technology, and we cannot predict whether the application of our technology, or any similar or competitive technologies, will result in the identification, development, and marketing authorization or certification of any products. There can be no assurance that any development problems we experience in the future related to our technology or any of our research programs will not cause significant delays or unanticipated costs, or that such development problems can be solved at all. Any of these factors may prevent us from completing our preclinical studies and clinical trials that we may initiate or commercializing any product candidates we may develop on a timely or profitable basis, if at all. In addition, the success of our Alpha DaRT technology will depend on several factors, including the following:

The commercial success of our Alpha DaRT technology, if authorized or certified for commercial sale, will depend in part upon public perception of radiation therapies, and to a lesser extent, radiopharmaceuticals, and the degree of their market acceptance by physicians, patients, healthcare payors and others in the medical community.

Adverse events in clinical trials of our Alpha DaRT technology or in clinical trials of others developing similar products and the resulting negative publicity, as well as any other adverse events in the field of radiation therapies or radiopharmaceuticals that may occur in the future, could result in a decrease in demand for our Alpha DaRT technology or any future products or any product candidates that we may develop that rely on radiation therapy. If public perception is influenced by claims that radiation therapies or radiopharmaceuticals or specific therapies within radiation therapies or radiopharmaceuticals are unsafe or if alternative therapies for cancer treatment are developed and proven to be more successful or provide an actual or perceived, preferred course of treatment for cancer(s), our Alpha DaRT technology or any future products or any product candidates we may develop may not be accepted by the general public or the medical community.

In particular, the future commercial success of our Alpha DaRT technology or any future products or any product candidates we may develop, as applicable, depends and will depend upon, among other things, these products and product candidates gaining and maintaining acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors and other members of the medical community as efficacious and cost-effective alternatives to competing products and treatments. If any of our products or product candidates do not achieve and maintain an adequate level of acceptance, we may not generate material sales of that product or product candidate or be able to

3

Table of Contents

successfully commercialize it. The degree of market acceptance of our products and product candidates, if authorized for sale or certified, will depend on a number of factors, including:

If our Alpha DaRT technology or any of our other future products or product candidates, if authorized or certified, do not become widely accepted by potential customers, physicians, patients, third-party payors and other members of the medical community, such a lack of acceptance could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We are exploring development of our Alpha DaRT technology in combination with other therapies, which exposes us to additional risks.

We are conducting a combination trial evaluating our Alpha DaRT technology in combination with pembrolizumab for the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, and in the future we may explore conduct additional combination trials with one or more currently approved or experimental cancer therapies for this or other indications. Even if our Alpha DaRT technology receives marketing authorization or obtains certification for use in combination with other existing therapies, we would continue to be subject to the risks that the FDA or similar foreign regulatory authorities could revoke marketing authorization of the therapy used in combination with our Alpha DaRT technology or that safety, efficacy, manufacturing or supply issues could arise with these other therapies. Combination therapies are commonly used for the treatment of cancer, and we would be subject to similar risks if we develop any of our products or product candidates for use in combination with other drugs or for indications other than cancer. This could result in our own products being removed from the market or being less successful commercially.

We may also evaluate our Alpha DaRT technology in combination with one or more other cancer therapies that have not yet been approved for marketing by the FDA or similar foreign regulatory authorities. We will not be able to market and sell our product candidate we develop in combination with any such unapproved cancer therapies that do not ultimately obtain marketing authorization.

If the FDA or similar foreign regulatory authorities do not approve these other drugs or revoke their marketing authorization, or if safety, efficacy, manufacturing, or supply issues arise with, the drugs we choose to evaluate in combination with our product candidate, we may be unable to obtain marketing authorization or certification of or market our product candidate.

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic could continue to adversely impact our business, including our clinical trials, supply chain and business development activities.

In connection with the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, governments have implemented significant measures, including closures of businesses, quarantines, travel restrictions and other social distancing directives, intended to control the spread of the virus.

4

Table of Contents

Companies have also taken precautions, such as requiring employees to work remotely, imposing travel restrictions and temporarily closing businesses. In response to these public health directives and orders, we have implemented certain travel restrictions and work-from-home policies for our employees, and as a result we have experienced limitations on employee resources. The effects of government actions and our own policies and those of third parties to reduce the spread of COVID-19 may negatively impact productivity and slow down or delay our ongoing and future clinical trials, preclinical studies and research and development activities, may cause disruptions to our supply chain, to the administrative functions of clinical trial sites and/or to the operations of our other partners, and as a result may impair our ability to execute our programs and/or business development strategy. In the event that government authorities were to enhance current restrictions, our employees who currently are not telecommuting may no longer be able to access our facilities, including our laboratories and our operations may be further limited or curtailed.

Our clinical trials have been, and may in the future be, affected by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. In particular, certain of our clinical trial sites, most notably Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, and Centre hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal in Montreal, have both seen significantly decreased clinical trial recruitment in general due to the devastating local impact of COVID-19, and therefore have not yet recruited any patients into our clinical trials in these cities. However, in July 2021, the first participant in our U.S. pilot trial for skin cancer was treated with Alpha DaRT at University Cancer Center in Houston, Texas, and we completed recruitment of this trial in October 2021. We may experience other disruptions due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic that could severely impact our business, preclinical studies and clinical trials, including:

5

Table of Contents

These and other disruptions in our operations and the global economy could negatively impact our business, operating results and financial condition.

The spread of COVID-19 and actions taken to reduce its spread may also materially affect us economically. While the potential economic impact brought by, and the duration of, the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic may be difficult to assess or predict, there have recently been, and could in the future be, significant disruptions of global financial markets, reducing our ability to access capital, which could in the future negatively affect our liquidity and financial position. In addition, the trading prices for other medical device and other biopharmaceutical companies have been highly volatile as a result of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. As a result, we may face difficulties raising capital or such capital raises may be on unfavorable terms.

COVID-19 and actions taken to reduce its spread continue to rapidly evolve. The extent to which COVID-19 may impede the development of our product Alpha DaRT technology or any future products or product candidates, reduce the productivity of our employees, disrupt our supply chains, delay our clinical trials, reduce our access to capital or limit our business development activities, will depend on future developments, which are highly uncertain and cannot be predicted with confidence. To the extent the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic adversely affects our business and financial results, it may also have the effect of heightening many of the other risks described in this “Risk Factors” section, such as those relating to the timing and results of our clinical trials and our financing needs.

The market opportunities for our Alpha DaRT technology may be smaller than we anticipated or may be limited to those patients who are ineligible for or have failed prior treatments. If we encounter difficulties enrolling patients in our clinical trials, our clinical development activities could be delayed or otherwise adversely affected.

Our current and future target patient populations are based on our beliefs and estimates regarding the incidence or prevalence of certain types of cancers that may be addressable by our Alpha DaRT technology or any future products or product candidates we develop, which is derived from a variety of sources, including scientific literature, publications by medical societies and non-profit organizations, and surveys of clinics. Our projections may prove to be incorrect and the number of potential patients may turn out to be lower than expected. Even if we obtain significant market share for our Alpha DaRT technology, because the potential target populations could be small, we may never achieve profitability without obtaining marketing authorizations for additional indications in the United States or similar authorizations or certifications in other target jurisdictions, including use of our Alpha DaRT technology for front-line and second-line therapy.

We currently have no commercial marketing and sales organization and have no experience in marketing products. If we are unable to establish marketing and sales capabilities or enter into agreements with third parties to market and sell our Alpha DaRT technology, if approved or certified for commercial sale, we may not be able to generate product revenue.

We currently have no in-house sales or distribution capabilities and have no experience in marketing products. We intend to develop an in-house marketing organization and sales force, which will require significant capital expenditures, management resources and time. We will have to compete with other pharmaceutical, medical device and biotechnology companies to recruit, hire, train and retain marketing and sales personnel.

If we are unable or decide not to establish internal sales and marketing capabilities, we will pursue collaborative arrangements regarding the sales and marketing of our products, if licensed, as we have done in Canada and Israel. However, there can be no assurance that we will be able to establish or maintain such collaborative arrangements, or if we are able to do so, that they will have effective sales forces. Any revenue we receive will depend upon the efforts of such third parties, which may not be successful. We may have little or no control over the marketing and sales efforts of such third parties and our revenue from product sales may be lower than if we had commercialized our Alpha DaRT technology ourselves. We also face competition in our search for third parties to assist us with the sales and marketing efforts of our Alpha DaRT technology.

There can be no assurance that we will be able to develop in-house sales and distribution capabilities or establish or maintain relationships with third-party collaborators to commercialize any product in the United States or overseas for which we are able to obtain marketing authorization or certification.

6

Table of Contents

We may expend our resources to pursue a particular indication and forgo the opportunity to capitalize on Alpha DaRT technology in indications that may ultimately be more profitable or for which there is a greater likelihood of success.

We have limited financial and personnel resources and are placing significant focus on the development of our Alpha DaRT technology in certain indications, and as such, we may forgo or delay pursuit of opportunities with other future products or product candidates or other indications that later prove to have greater commercial potential. Our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial products or profitable market opportunities. Our spending on current and future research and development programs and other future products or product candidates for specific indications may not yield any commercially viable future products or product candidates. If we do not accurately evaluate the commercial potential or target market for a particular future product candidate, we may relinquish valuable rights to those future products or product candidates through collaboration, licensing or other royalty arrangements in cases in which it would have been more advantageous for us to retain sole development and commercialization rights to such future products or product candidates.

We currently conduct and in the future intend to continue conducting pre-clinical studies, clinical trials for our Alpha DaRT technology outside the United States, and the FDA and similar foreign regulatory authorities may not accept data from such trials.

We are currently conducting clinical trials in Israel, Canada, the United States, Japan and Europe and may in the future choose to conduct additional clinical trials, including in Asia, Australia, elsewhere in Europe or other foreign jurisdictions. The acceptance of trial data from clinical trials conducted outside the United States by the FDA may be subject to certain conditions. For example, in cases where data from clinical trials conducted outside the United States are intended to serve as the sole basis for marketing authorization in the United States, the FDA will generally not approve the application on the basis of foreign data alone unless such clinical trials were conducted in accordance with good clinical practices, or GCP, and (i) the data are applicable to the United States population and United States medical practice; (ii) the trials were performed by clinical investigators of recognized competence; and (iii) the data may be considered valid without the need for an on-site inspection by the FDA or, if the FDA considers such an inspection to be necessary, the FDA is able to validate the data through an on-site inspection or other appropriate means. In addition, even where the foreign study data are not intended to serve as the sole basis for approval, the FDA will not accept the data as support for an application for marketing approval unless the study is well-designed and well-conducted in accordance with GCP requirements and the FDA is able to validate the data from the study through an onsite inspection if deemed necessary. Many foreign regulatory bodies have similar requirements. In addition, such foreign trials would be subject to the applicable local laws of the foreign jurisdictions where the trials are conducted. There can be no assurance that the FDA or any similar foreign regulatory authority or notified bodies will accept data from trials conducted outside of the United States or the applicable jurisdiction. If the FDA or any similar foreign regulatory authority or other bodies does not accept such data, it would result in the need for additional trials, which would be costly and time-consuming and delay aspects of our business plan, and which may result in our Alpha DaRT not receiving approval, clearance or certification for commercialization in the applicable jurisdiction.

Risks Related to Government Regulation

Our Alpha DaRT technology and operations are subject to extensive government regulation and oversight both in the United States and abroad, and our failure to comply with applicable requirements could harm our business.

Any products or product candidates which ultimately integrate our Alpha DaRT technology are expected to be regulated as medical devices in the United States. Medical devices and their manufacturers and product developers are subject to extensive regulation in the United States and elsewhere, including by the FDA and its foreign counterparts. The FDA and foreign regulatory agencies regulate, among other things, with respect to medical devices: design, development and manufacturing; testing, labeling, content and language of instructions for use and storage; clinical trials; product safety; establishment registration and device listing; marketing, sales and distribution; premarket clearance, classification and approval or certification; recordkeeping procedures; advertising and promotion; recalls and field safety corrective actions; postmarket surveillance, including reporting of deaths or serious injuries and malfunctions that, if they were to recur, could lead to death or serious injury; post-market studies; and product import and export.

The regulations to which we are subject are complex, burdensome to understand and apply and have tended to become more stringent over time. Regulatory changes could result in restrictions on our ability to carry on or expand our operations, higher than anticipated costs or lower than anticipated sales, if our product candidate receives marketing authorization or certification. The FDA and foreign regulatory authorities enforces their regulatory requirements through, among other means, periodic unannounced inspections. We do not know whether we or any contract manufacturers we may utilize will be found compliant in connection with

7

Table of Contents

any future FDA or foreign inspections. Failure to comply with applicable regulations could jeopardize our ability to sell our Alpha DaRT technology or any future products or product candidates, if they obtain marketing authorization or certification, and result in enforcement actions such as: warning letters; fines; injunctions; civil penalties; termination of distribution; recalls or seizures of products; delays in the introduction of products into the market; total or partial suspension of production; refusal to grant future clearances, approvals or certifications; withdrawals or suspensions of clearances, approvals or certifications, resulting in prohibitions on sales of our products; and in the most serious cases, criminal penalties.

We may not receive, or may be delayed in receiving, the necessary marketing authorizations or certifications for our Alpha DaRT technology or any future products or product candidates, and failure to timely obtain necessary marketing authorizations or certifications for our product candidates would have a material adverse effect on our business.

In the United States, before we can market a new medical device, or a new use of, or other significant modification to an existing, marketed medical device, we must first receive either clearance under Section 510(k) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or the FDCA, approval of a premarket approval application, or PMA, or grant of a de novo classification request from the FDA, unless an exemption applies. In the 510(k) clearance process, before a device may be marketed, the FDA must determine that a proposed device is “substantially equivalent” to a legally-marketed “predicate” device, which includes a device that has been previously cleared through the 510(k) process, a device that was legally marketed prior to May 28, 1976 (pre-amendments device), a device that was originally on the U.S. market pursuant to an approved PMA and later down-classified, or a 510(k)-exempt device. To be “substantially equivalent,” the proposed device must have the same intended use as the predicate device, and either have the same technological characteristics as the predicate device or have different technological characteristics and not raise different questions of safety or effectiveness than the predicate device. Clinical data are sometimes required to support substantial equivalence. In the process of obtaining PMA approval, the FDA must determine that a proposed device is safe and effective for its intended use based, in part, on extensive data, including, but not limited to, technical, pre-clinical, clinical trial, manufacturing and labeling data. The PMA process is typically required for devices that are deemed to pose the greatest risk, such as life-sustaining, life-supporting or implantable devices. In the de novo classification process, a manufacturer whose novel device under the FDCA would otherwise be automatically classified as Class III and require the submission and approval of a PMA prior to marketing is able to request down-classification of the device to Class I or Class II on the basis that the device presents a low or moderate risk. If the FDA grants the de novo classification request, the applicant will receive authorization to market the device. This device type may be used subsequently as a predicate device for future 510(k) submissions.

The PMA approval, 510(k) clearance and de novo classification processes can be expensive, lengthy and uncertain. The FDA’s 510(k) clearance process usually takes from three to 12 months, but can take longer. The process of obtaining a PMA is much more costly and uncertain than the 510(k) clearance process and generally takes from one to three years, or even longer, from the time the application is submitted to the FDA. In addition, a PMA generally requires the performance of one or more clinical trials. Clinical data may also be required in connection with an application for 510(k) clearance or a de novo request. Despite the time, effort and cost, a device may not obtain marketing authorization by the FDA. Any delay or failure to obtain necessary regulatory marketing authorizations could harm our business. Furthermore, even if we are granted such marketing authorizations, they may include significant limitations on the indicated uses for the device, which may limit the potential commercial market for the device.

To date, we have not obtained authorization from the FDA to market any product candidate in the United States, and we expect to pursue the de novo classification process for our Alpha DaRT technology. If the FDA requires us to go through a lengthier, more rigorous examination for our products than we had expected, our product introductions or modifications could be delayed or prevented, which would have a material impact on our business and prospects. For example, if the FDA disagrees with our determination that the de novo classification pathway is the appropriate path to obtain marketing authorization for Alpha DaRT, the FDA may require us to submit a PMA application, which is generally more costly, time-consuming, and uncertain.

In the United States, any modification to a product candidate for which we receive marketing authorization may require us to submit a new 510(k) premarket notification and obtain clearance, to submit a PMA and obtain FDA approval, or to submit a de novo request prior to implementing the change. For example, any modification to a 510(k)-cleared device that could significantly affect its safety or effectiveness, or that would constitute a major change in its intended use, design or manufacture, generally requires a new 510(k) clearance or other marketing authorization. The FDA requires every manufacturer to make such determinations in the first instance, but the FDA may review any manufacturer’s decision. The FDA may not agree with a manufacturer’s decisions regarding whether new clearances or approvals are necessary. If we obtain marketing authorizations from the FDA, we may make modifications or add additional features in the future that we believe do not require a new 510(k) clearance, de novo request or approval of a PMA. If the FDA disagrees with our determination and requires us to seek new marketing authorizations for the modifications for which we

8

Table of Contents

have concluded that new marketing authorizations are unnecessary, we may be required to cease marketing or to recall the modified product until we obtain such marketing authorization, and we may be subject to significant regulatory fines or penalties. If the FDA requires us to go through a lengthier, more rigorous examination for future products or modifications to existing products than we had expected, product introductions or modifications could be delayed or canceled, which could adversely affect our business.

The FDA, applicable foreign regulatory entity or notified body can delay, limit or deny marketing authorization or certification of a device for many reasons, including:

In order to sell our products in member states of the EU, our products must comply with the general safety and performance requirements of the EU Medical Devices Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 2017/745), which repeals and replaces the EU Medical Devices Directive (Council Directive 93/42/EEC) and the Active Implantable Medical Devices Directive (Council Directive 90/385/EEC). Compliance with these requirements is a prerequisite to be able to affix the European Conformity, or CE, mark to our products, without which they cannot be sold or marketed in the EU. All medical devices placed on the market in the EU must meet the general safety and performance requirements laid down in Annex I to the EU Medical Devices Regulation including the requirement that a medical device must be designed and manufactured in such a way that, during normal conditions of use, it is suitable for its intended purpose. Medical devices must be safe and effective and must not compromise the clinical condition or safety of patients, or the safety and health of users and – where applicable – other persons, provided that any risks which may be associated with their use constitute acceptable risks when weighed against the benefits to the patient and are compatible with a high level of protection of health and safety, taking into account the generally acknowledged state of the art. The European Commission has adopted various standards applicable to medical devices. These include standards governing common requirements, such as sterilization and safety of medical electrical equipment and product standards for certain types of medical devices. There are also harmonized standards relating to design and manufacture. While not mandatory, compliance with these standards is viewed as the easiest way to satisfy the general safety and performance requirements as a practical matter, as it creates a rebuttable presumption that the device satisfies the general safety and performance requirements.

To demonstrate compliance with the general safety and performance requirements we must undergo a conformity assessment procedure, which varies according to the type of medical device and its (risk) classification. As a general rule, demonstration of conformity of medical devices and their manufacturers with the general safety and performance requirements must be based, among other things, on the evaluation of clinical data supporting the safety and performance of the products during normal conditions of use. Specifically, a manufacturer must demonstrate that the device achieves its intended performance during normal conditions of use, that the known and foreseeable risks, and any adverse events, are minimized and acceptable when weighed against the benefits of its intended performance, and that any claims made about the performance and safety of the device are supported by suitable evidence. Except for low-risk medical devices (Class I non-sterile, non-measuring devices), where the manufacturer can self-assess the conformity of its products with the general safety and performance requirements (except for any parts which relate to sterility, metrology or reuse aspects), a conformity assessment procedure requires the intervention of an organization accredited or designated

9

Table of Contents

by a member state of the EU to conduct conformity assessments, or a notified body. Depending on the relevant conformity assessment procedure, the notified body would typically audit and examine the technical file and the quality system for the manufacture, design and final inspection of our devices. If satisfied that the relevant product conforms to the general safety and performance requirements, the notified body issues a certificate of conformity, which the manufacturer uses as a basis for its own declaration of conformity. The manufacturer may then apply the CE mark to the device, which allows the device to be placed on the market throughout the EU. If we fail to comply with applicable EU laws and regulations, and corresponding EU member state laws, we would be unable to affix the CE mark to our products, which would prevent us from selling them within the EU.

In the EU, we must inform the notified body that carried out the conformity assessment of the devices that we market or sell in the EU and EEA of any planned substantial changes to our quality system or substantial changes to our medical devices that could affect compliance with the general safety and performance requirements laid down in Annex I to the EU Medical Devices Regulation or cause a substantial change to the intended use for which the device has been CE marked. The notified body will then assess the planned changes and verify whether they affect the products’ ongoing conformity with the EU Medical Devices Regulation. If the assessment is favorable, the notified body will issue a new certificate of conformity or an addendum to the existing certificate attesting compliance with the general safety and performance requirements and quality system requirements laid down in the Annexes to the EU Medical Devices Regulation.

The aforementioned EU rules are generally applicable in the European Economic Area, or EEA, which consists of the 27 EU member states plus Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland. Non-compliance with the above requirements would also prevent us from selling our products in these three countries.

From January 1, 2021 onwards, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, or MHRA became the sovereign regulatory authority responsible for Great Britain (i.e. England, Wales and Scotland) medical device market according to the requirements provided in the Medical Devices Regulations 2002 (SI 2002 No 618, as amended) that sought to give effect to the three pre-existing EU directives governing active implantable medical devices, general medical devices and in vitro diagnostic medical devices whereas Northern Ireland continues to be governed by EU rules according to the Northern Ireland Protocol. Following the end of the Brexit transitional period on January 1, 2021, new regulations require medical devices to be registered with the MHRA (but manufacturers were given a grace period of four to 12 months to comply with the new registration process) before being placed on Great Britain market. The MHRA will only register devices where the manufacturer or their United Kingdom Responsible Person has a registered place of business in the United Kingdom. Manufacturers based outside the United Kingdom will need to appoint a U.K. Responsible Person that has a registered place of business in the United Kingdom to register devices with the MHRA. By July 1, 2023, in Great Britain, all medical devices will require a UKCA (UK Conformity Assessed) mark but CE marks issued by EU notified bodies will remain valid until this time. Manufacturers may choose to use the UKCA mark on a voluntary basis until June 30, 2023. However, UKCA marking will not be recognized in the EU.. Compliance with this legislation is a prerequisite to be able to affix the UKCA mark to our products, without which they cannot be sold or marketed in Great Britain. The rules for placing medical devices on the market in Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom, differ from those in the rest of the United Kingdom. Under the terms of the Northern Ireland Protocol, Northern Ireland will follow EU rules on medical devices and devices marketed in Northern Ireland will require assessment according to the EU regulatory regime. Such assessment may be conducted by an EU notified body, in which case a CE mark will be required before placing the device on the market in the EU or Northern Ireland. Alternatively, if a UK notified body conducts such assessment, a ‘UKNI’ mark will be applied and the device may only be placed on the market in Northern Ireland and not the EU.

The clinical trial process is lengthy and expensive with uncertain outcomes. Results of earlier studies may not be predictive of future clinical trial results.

Clinical testing is difficult to design and implement, can take many years, can be expensive and carries uncertain outcomes. The results of preclinical studies and clinical trials of our products conducted to date and ongoing or future studies and trials of our current, planned or future products may not be predictive of the results of later clinical trials, and interim results of a clinical trial do not necessarily predict final results. The data and results from our clinical trials do not ensure that we will achieve similar results in future clinical trials. In addition, preclinical and clinical data are often susceptible to various interpretations and analyses, and many companies that have believed their products performed satisfactorily in preclinical studies and earlier clinical trials have nonetheless failed to replicate results in later clinical trials, or have viewed such data in different ways than regulators do. Product candidates in later stages of clinical trials may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy despite having progressed through nonclinical studies and earlier clinical trials. Failure can occur at any stage of clinical testing. Our clinical studies or investigations may produce negative or

10

Table of Contents

inconclusive results, and we may decide, or regulators may require us, to conduct additional clinical and nonclinical testing in addition to those we have planned.

The initiation and completion of clinical studies may be prevented, delayed, or halted for numerous reasons. We may experience delays in our clinical trials for a number of reasons, which could adversely affect the costs, timing or successful completion of our clinical trials, including related to the following:

11

Table of Contents

Any of these occurrences may significantly harm our business, financial condition and prospects. In addition, many of the factors that cause, or lead to, a delay in the commencement or completion of clinical trials may also ultimately lead to the denial of marketing authorization or similar certification of any product candidate.

Patient enrollment in clinical trials and completion of patient follow-up depend on many factors, including the size of the patient population, the nature of the trial protocol, the proximity of patients to clinical sites, the eligibility criteria for the clinical trial, patient compliance, competing clinical trials and clinicians’ and patients’ perceptions as to the potential advantages of the product being studied in relation to other available therapies, including any new treatments that may be approved for the indications we are investigating. For example, patients may be discouraged from enrolling in our clinical trials if the trial protocol requires them to undergo extensive post-treatment procedures or follow-up to assess the safety and efficacy of a product candidate, or they may be persuaded to participate in contemporaneous clinical trials of a competitor’s product candidate. In addition, patients participating in our clinical trials may drop out before completion of the trial or experience adverse medical events unrelated to our product candidate. Delays in patient enrollment or failure of patients to continue to participate in a clinical trial may delay commencement or completion of the clinical trial, cause an increase in the costs of the clinical trial and delays, or result in the failure of the clinical trial.

Clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with the laws and regulations of the FDA and other applicable regulatory authorities’ legal requirements, regulations or guidelines, and are subject to oversight by these governmental agencies and IRBs, or other bodies at the medical institutions where the clinical trials are conducted. In addition, clinical trials must be conducted with supplies of our devices produced under current good manufacturing practice, or cGMP, and other regulations. Furthermore, we rely on CROs and clinical trial sites to ensure the proper and timely conduct of our clinical trials and while we have agreements governing their committed activities, we have limited influence over their actual performance. We depend on our collaborators and on medical institutions and CROs to conduct our clinical trials in compliance with good clinical practice, or GCP, requirements. To the extent our collaborators or the CROs fail to enroll participants for our clinical trials, fail to conduct the study to GCP standards or are delayed for a significant time in the execution of trials, including achieving full enrollment, we may be affected by increased costs, program delays or both. In addition, conducting clinical trials in various countries may subject us to further delays and expenses as a result of increased shipment costs, additional regulatory requirements and the engagement of non-U.S. CROs and other third party contractors, as well as expose us to risks associated with clinical investigators who are unknown to the FDA, and different standards of diagnosis, screening and medical care.

Even if our Alpha DaRT technology obtains marketing authorization in the United States, commercialization of our products in foreign countries would require similar authorization or certification by regulatory authorities or notified bodies in those countries. Marketing authorization and certification practices vary among jurisdictions and can involve requirements and administrative review periods different from, and greater than, those in the United States, including additional preclinical studies, clinical trials. Any of these occurrences could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Interim, “top-line” and preliminary data from our clinical trials that we announce or publish from time to time may change as more patient data become available and are subject to audit and verification procedures that could result in material changes in the final data.

From time to time, we may publicly disclose interim, top-line or preliminary data from our clinical trials, which is based on a preliminary analysis of then-available data, and the results and related findings and conclusions are subject to change following a more comprehensive review of the data related to the particular trial. We also make assumptions, estimations, calculations and conclusions as part of our analyses of data, and we may not have received or had the opportunity to fully and carefully evaluate all data. As a result, the interim, top-line or preliminary results that we report may differ from future results of the same trial, or different conclusions or considerations may qualify such results, once additional data have been received and fully evaluated. Interim, top-line or preliminary data also remain subject to audit and verification procedures that may result in the final data being materially different from the interim, top-line or preliminary data we previously announced. As a result, interim, top-line and preliminary data should be viewed with caution until the final data are available.

12

Table of Contents

In particular, we may disclose interim data from our preclinical studies and clinical trials. Interim data from clinical trials that we may complete are subject to the risk that one or more of the clinical outcomes may materially change as patient enrollment continues and more patient data become available. Adverse differences between interim data and final data could significantly harm our business prospects. Further, disclosure of interim data by us or by our competitors could result in volatility in our share price.

Further, others, including regulatory agencies or other bodies, may not accept or agree with our assumptions, estimates, calculations, conclusions or analyses or may interpret or weigh the importance of data differently, which could impact the value of the particular program, or the approvability or potential for commercialization of the particular product candidate. In addition, the information we choose to publicly disclose regarding a particular study, clinical trial is based on what is typically extensive information, and you or others may not agree with what we determine is material or otherwise appropriate information to include in our disclosure. If the interim, top-line or preliminary data that we report differ from actual results, or if others, including regulatory authorities and other bodies, disagree with the conclusions reached, our ability to obtain marketing authorization or certification for, and commercialize, our Alpha DaRT technology may be harmed, which could harm our business, operating results, prospects or financial condition.

Even if we obtain marketing authorization or certification, we will be subject to ongoing regulatory review and scrutiny. Failure to comply with post-marketing regulatory requirements could subject us to enforcement actions, including substantial penalties, and might require us to recall or withdraw a product from the market.

If we obtain marketing authorization or certification for a product candidate, we will remain subject to ongoing and pervasive regulatory requirements governing, among other things, the manufacture, marketing, advertising, medical device reporting, sale, promotion, import, export, registration, and listing of devices. For example, medical device manufacturers must submit periodic reports to the FDA as a condition of obtaining marketing authorization. These reports include information about failures and certain adverse events associated with the device after its marketing authorization. Failure to submit such reports, or failure to submit the reports in a timely manner, could result in enforcement action by the FDA. Following its review of the periodic reports, the FDA might ask for additional information or initiate further investigation.

Regulatory changes could result in restrictions on our ability to continue or expand our operations, higher than anticipated costs, or lower than anticipated sales. Even after we have obtained marketing authorization or certification, we have ongoing responsibilities under FDA regulations and applicable foreign laws and regulations. The FDA, state and foreign regulatory authorities have broad enforcement powers. Our failure to comply with applicable regulatory requirements could result in enforcement action by the FDA, state or foreign regulatory authorities, which may include any of the following sanctions:

13

Table of Contents

Any of these sanctions could result in higher than anticipated costs or lower than anticipated sales and have a material adverse effect on our reputation, business, financial condition and results of operations.

In addition, the FDA may change its marketing authorization policies, adopt additional regulations or revise existing regulations, or take other actions, which may prevent or delay marketing authorization of any product candidate under development or impact our ability to modify any products authorized for market on a timely basis. Such changes may also occur in foreign jurisdictions where we intend to market our products. Such policy or regulatory changes could impose additional requirements upon us that could delay our ability to obtain marketing authorizations or certifications, increase the costs of compliance or restrict our ability to maintain any marketing authorizations we have obtained. For example, in recent years, the FDA has announced plans to modernize the premarket notification pathway under Section 510(k) of the FDCA. For more information, see “Legislative or regulatory reforms in the United States or the EU may make it more difficult and costly for us to obtain marketing authorizations or certifications for any product candidate or to manufacture, market or distribute any product candidates after such marketing authorizations or certifications have been obtained.”

Any product candidates we develop must be manufactured in accordance with applicable laws and regulations, and we could be forced to recall our devices or terminate production if we fail to comply with these regulations.

In the United States, the methods used in, and the facilities used for, the manufacture of medical devices must comply with the FDA’s cGMPs for medical devices, known as the Quality System Regulation, or QSR, which is a complex regulatory scheme that covers the procedures and documentation of the design, testing, production, process controls, quality assurance, labeling, packaging, handling, storage, distribution, installation, servicing and shipping of medical devices. Furthermore, we will be required to verify that our suppliers maintain facilities, procedures and operations that comply with our quality standards and applicable regulatory requirements. The FDA enforces the QSR through periodic announced or unannounced inspections of medical device manufacturing facilities, which may include the facilities of subcontractors. Our product candidates are also subject to similar state regulations and various laws and regulations of foreign countries governing manufacturing.

Our third-party manufacturers may not take the necessary steps to comply with applicable regulations, which could cause delays in the delivery of product candidate. In addition, failure to comply with applicable FDA or foreign requirements or later discovery of previously unknown problems with our products or manufacturing processes could result in, among other things: warning letters or untitled letters; fines, injunctions or civil penalties; suspension or withdrawal of marketing authorizations or certifications; seizures or recalls of our products; total or

partial suspension of production or distribution; administrative or judicially imposed sanctions; the FDA’s refusal to grant pending or future clearances or approvals for our products or similar decisions by foreign regulatory authorities or notified bodies; clinical holds; refusal to permit the import or export of our products; and criminal prosecution of us, our suppliers, or our employees. Similar requirements may apply in foreign jurisdictions.

Any of these actions could significantly and negatively affect supply of our product candidates, if authorized for sale or certified by the FDA, foreign regulatory authorities or notified bodies. If any of these events occurs, our reputation could be harmed, we could be exposed to product liability claims and we could lose customers and experience reduced sales and increased costs.

Any product candidate we develop may cause or contribute to adverse medical events, which could interrupt, delay, or prevent their continued development. If certain events occur after marketing authorization or certification, we may be required to report them to the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities, and if we fail to do so, we would be subject to sanctions that could harm our reputation, business, financial condition and results of operations. In addition, the discovery of serious safety issues with our products, or a recall of our products either voluntarily or at the direction of the FDA, another governmental authority or foreign regulatory authorities, could have a negative impact on us.

As is the case with cancer therapies generally, it is likely that there may be side effects and adverse events associated with our Alpha DaRT technology or any future product or product candidate’s use. Results of our clinical trials could reveal a high and unacceptable severity and prevalence of side effects or unexpected characteristics. Undesirable side effects caused by our product candidates could cause us or regulatory authorities or other bodies to interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials or, may cause us to abandon their development or limit development to more narrow uses or subpopulations in which the undesirable side effects or other characteristics are less prevalent, less severe or more acceptable from a risk-benefit perspective. Undesirable side effects could also

14

Table of Contents

affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled patients to complete the trial or result in potential product liability claims. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly.

Patients treated with our product candidates may also be undergoing surgical, chemotherapy, immunotherapy or alternative radiation treatments, which can cause side effects or adverse events that are unrelated to our product candidate, but may still impact the success of our clinical trials. The inclusion of critically ill patients in our clinical trials may result in deaths or other adverse medical events due to other therapies or medications that such patients may be using or due to the gravity of such patients’ illnesses. Even if the side effects do not preclude the product candidate from obtaining or maintaining marketing authorization or certification, undesirable side effects may inhibit market acceptance due to its tolerability versus other therapies. Any of these developments could materially harm our business, financial condition and prospects.

Additionally, if our Alpha DaRT technology or any future product candidate receives marketing authorization from the FDA, the side effects observed in clinical studies could result in a more restrictive label and we will subject to the FDA’s medical device reporting regulations and similar foreign regulations, which require us to report to the FDA or to foreign regulatory authorities when we receive or become aware of information that reasonably suggests that one or more of our products may have caused or contributed to a death or serious injury or malfunctioned in a way that, if the malfunction were to recur, it could cause or contribute to a death or serious injury. The timing of our obligation to report is triggered by the date we become aware of the event as well as the nature of the event. We may fail to report events of which we become aware within the prescribed timeframe. We may also fail to recognize that we have become aware of a reportable event, especially if it is not reported to us as an adverse event or if it is an adverse event that is unexpected or removed in time from the use of the product. If we fail to comply with our reporting obligations, the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities could take action, including warning letters, untitled letters, administrative actions, criminal prosecution, imposition of civil monetary penalties, revocation of our marketing authorizations or certification, seizure of our products or delay in obtaining marketing authorizations or certification for our product candidates.

The FDA and foreign regulatory bodies have the authority to require the recall of commercialized products in the event of material deficiencies or defects in design or manufacture of a product or in the event that a product poses an unacceptable risk to health. The FDA’s authority to require a recall must be based on a finding that there is reasonable probability that the device could cause serious injury or death. We may also choose to voluntarily recall a product if any material deficiency is found. A government-mandated or voluntary recall by us could occur as a result of an unacceptable risk to health, component failures, malfunctions, manufacturing defects, labeling or design deficiencies, packaging defects or other deficiencies or failures to comply with applicable regulations. Product defects or other errors may occur in the future.

Depending on the corrective action we take to redress a product’s deficiencies or defects, the FDA or foreign regulatory bodies may require, or we may decide, that we will need to obtain new marketing authorizations or certifications for the device before we may market or distribute the corrected device. Seeking such clearances, certifications or approvals may delay our ability to replace the recalled devices in a timely manner. Moreover, if we do not adequately address problems associated with our devices, we may face additional regulatory enforcement action, including FDA warning letters, product seizure, injunctions, administrative penalties or civil or criminal fines or similar actions by the foreign regulatory bodies.

Companies are required to maintain certain records of recalls and corrections, even if they are not reportable to the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities. We may initiate voluntary withdrawals or corrections for our products in the future that we determine do not require notification of the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities. If the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities disagrees with our determinations, it could require us to report those actions as recalls and we may be subject to enforcement action. A future recall announcement could harm our reputation with customers, potentially lead to product liability claims against us and negatively affect our sales. Any corrective action, whether voluntary or involuntary, as well as defending ourselves in a lawsuit, will require the dedication of our time and capital, distract management from operating our business and may harm our reputation and financial results.

​

15

Table of Contents

The misuse or off-label use of our product candidates, if authorized or certified for marketing, may harm our reputation in the marketplace, result in injuries that lead to product liability suits or result in costly investigations, fines or sanctions by regulatory bodies if we are deemed to have engaged in the promotion of these uses, any of which could be costly to our business.

Any marketing authorization or certification we may receive for a product candidate will be limited to specified indications for use. We plan to train our sales and marketing personnel, as well as any direct sales force which may be hired in the future, to not promote our devices for uses outside of the FDA (or foreign regulatory authorities)- authorized indications for use, known as “off-label uses.” We cannot, however, prevent a physician from using our devices off-label, when in the physician’s independent professional medical judgment he or she deems it appropriate. There may be increased risk of injury to patients if physicians attempt to use our devices off-label, which could harm our reputation in the marketplace among physicians and patients.

If the FDA or any foreign regulatory body determines that our promotional materials or training constitute promotion of an off-label use, it could request that we modify our training or promotional materials or subject us to regulatory or enforcement actions, including the issuance or imposition of an untitled letter, which is used for violators that do not necessitate a warning letter, injunction, seizure, civil fine or criminal penalties. It is also possible that other federal, state or foreign enforcement authorities might take action under other regulatory authority, such as false claims laws, if they consider our business activities to constitute promotion of an off-label use, which could result in significant penalties, including, but not limited to, criminal, civil and administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, exclusion from participation in government healthcare programs and the curtailment of our operations.

In addition, physicians may misuse our products or use improper techniques if they are not adequately trained, potentially leading to injury and an increased risk of product liability. If our devices are misused or used with improper technique, we may become subject to costly litigation by our customers or their patients. As described above, product liability claims could divert management’s attention from our core business, be expensive to defend and result in sizeable damage awards against us that may not be covered by insurance.

If we do not obtain and maintain international regulatory registrations, marketing authorizations or certifications for any product candidates we develop, we will be unable to market and sell such product candidates outside of the United States.

Sales of our product candidates outside of the United States will remain subject to foreign regulatory requirements that vary widely from country to country. In addition, the FDA regulates exports of medical devices from the United States. While the regulations of some countries may not impose significant barriers to marketing and selling our products or only require notification to regulators or third parties, others require that we obtain affirmative marketing authorization or certification from a notified body. Complying with foreign regulatory requirements, including obtaining registrations, certifications, clearances or approvals, can be expensive and time-consuming, and we may not receive necessary marketing authorizations or certifications in each country in which we plan to market our products or we may be unable to do so on a timely basis. The time required to obtain registrations, certifications and marketing authorizations, if required by other countries, may

be longer than that required for FDA marketing authorizations, and requirements for such certifications, registrations or authorizations may significantly differ from FDA requirements. If we modify our products, we may need to apply for additional marketing authorizations or certifications before we are permitted to sell the modified product. In addition, we may not continue to meet the quality and safety standards required to maintain the authorizations or certifications that we have received. If we are unable to maintain our marketing authorizations or certifications in a particular country, we will no longer be able to sell the applicable product in that country.

Obtaining marketing authorization from the FDA does not ensure similar marketing authorization or certifications by regulatory authorities or notified bodies in other countries, and registration, marketing authorization or certification by one or more foreign regulatory authorities or notified bodies does not ensure registration, marketing authorization or certification by regulatory authorities or notified bodies in other foreign countries or by the FDA. However, a failure or delay in obtaining registration, marketing authorization or certification in one country may have a negative effect on the regulatory process in others.

16

Table of Contents

Legislative or regulatory reforms in the United States or the EU may make it more difficult and costly for us to obtain marketing authorizations or certifications for any product candidate or to manufacture, market or distribute any product candidates after such authorizations or certifications have been obtained.

From time to time, legislation is drafted and introduced in Congress that could significantly change the statutory provisions governing the regulation of medical devices. In addition, the FDA may change its policies, adopt additional regulations or revise existing regulations, or take other actions, which may prevent or delay marketing authorization of our future products under development or impact our ability to modify any products for which we have already obtained marketing authorizations on a timely basis. Over the last several years, the FDA has proposed reforms to its 510(k) clearance process, and such proposals could include increased requirements for clinical data and a longer review period, or could make it more difficult for manufacturers to utilize the 510(k) clearance process for their products. For example, in November 2018, FDA officials announced steps that the FDA intended to take to modernize the premarket notification pathway under Section 510(k) of the FDCA. Among other things, the FDA announced that it planned to develop proposals to drive manufacturers utilizing the 510(k) pathway toward the use of newer predicates. These proposals included plans to potentially sunset certain older devices that were used as predicates under the 510(k) clearance pathway, and to potentially publish a list of devices that have been cleared on the basis of demonstrated substantial equivalence to predicate devices that are more than 10 years old. These proposals have not yet been finalized or adopted, although the

FDA may work with Congress to implement such proposals through legislation. Accordingly, it is unclear the extent to which any proposals, if adopted, could impose additional regulatory requirements on us that could delay our ability to obtain 510(k) clearances in the future, increase the costs of compliance, or restrict our ability to maintain any marketing authorizations that we may obtain, or otherwise create competition that may negatively affect our business.

More recently, in September 2019, the FDA issued revised final guidance describing an optional “safety and performance based” premarket review pathway for manufacturers of “certain, well-understood device types” to demonstrate substantial equivalence under the 510(k) clearance pathway by showing that such device meets objective safety and performance criteria established by the FDA, thereby obviating the need for manufacturers to compare the safety and performance of their medical devices to specific predicate devices in the clearance process. The FDA maintains a list device types appropriate for the “safety and performance based” pathway and continues to develop product-specific guidance documents that identify the performance criteria for each such device type, as well as recommended testing methods, where feasible. The FDA may establish performance criteria for classes of devices similar to ours, and it is unclear the extent to which such performance standards, if established, could impact our ability to obtain marketing authorization or otherwise create competition that may negatively affect our business.

In addition, FDA regulations and guidance are often revised or reinterpreted by the FDA in ways that may significantly affect our business and our products. Any new statutes, regulations or revisions or reinterpretations of existing regulations may impose additional costs or lengthen review times of any product candidates or make it more difficult to obtain marketing authorizations for, manufacture, market or distribute any product candidate we are developing. We cannot determine what effect changes in regulations, statutes, legal interpretation or policies, when and if promulgated, enacted or adopted may have on our business in the future. Such changes could, among other things, require: additional testing prior to obtaining clearance or approval; changes to manufacturing methods; recall, replacement or discontinuance of our products; or additional record keeping.

The FDA’s and other regulatory authorities’ policies may change and additional government regulations may be promulgated that could prevent, limit or delay marketing authorization of any product candidates we develop. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may be subject to enforcement action and we may not achieve or sustain profitability.

In addition, the EU regulatory landscape concerning medical devices evolved and on May 26, 2021, the EU Medical Devices Regulation (Regulation 2017/745) became applicable, which repeals and replaces the EU Medical Devices Directive and the Active Implantable Medical Devices Directive (See – Regulation of Medical Devices in the European Union) and these modifications may have an effect on the way we conduct our business in the EU and the EEAFor example, as a result of the transition towards the new regime, notified body review times have lengthened, and product introductions or modifications could be delayed or canceled, which could adversely affect our ability to grow our business.

The EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement, or TCA, came into effect on January 1, 2021. The TCA does not specifically refer to medical devices. However, as a result of Brexit, the EU Medical Devices Regulation was not implemented in the UK. The regulatory regime for medical devices in Great Britain (England, Scotland and Wales) will continue to be based on the requirements

17

Table of Contents

derived from current EU legislation, and the UK may choose to retain regulatory flexibility or align with the EU Medical Devices Regulation going forward. CE markings will continue to be recognized in the UK, and certificates issued by EU-recognized notified bodies will be valid in the UK, until June 30, 2023. For medical devices placed on the market in Great Britain after this period, the UK Conformity Assessment, or UKCA, marking will be mandatory. In contrast, UKCA marking and certificates issued by UK notified bodies will not be recognized on the EU market. The TCA does provide for cooperation and exchange of information in the area of product safety and compliance, including market surveillance, enforcement activities and measures, standardization related activities, exchanges of officials, and coordinated product recalls (or other similar actions). For medical devices that are locally manufactured but use components from other countries, the “rules of origin” criteria will need to be reviewed. Depending on which countries products will be ultimately sold in, manufacturers may start seeking alternative sources for components if this would allow them to benefit from no tariffs. The rules for placing medical devices on the Northern Ireland market will differ from those in Great Britain. A public consultation by the MHRA was opened until end of November 2021 on the post-Brexit regulatory framework for medical devices and diagnostics in the UK. The consultation proposes amendments to the Medical Devices Regulations 2002, in particular to create a new access pathways to support innovation, create an innovative framework for regulating software and artificial intelligence as medical devices, reform in vitro diagnostic regulation, and foster sustainability through the reuse and remanufacture of medical devices. The regime is expected to come into force in July 2023, coinciding with the end of the acceptance period for EU CE marks in Great Britain, subject to appropriate transitional arrangements. The consultation indicated that the MHRA will publish guidance in relation to the changes to the regulatory framework and may rely more heavily on guidance to add flexibility to the regime. These modifications may have an effect on the way we intend to conduct our business in these countries.

Changes in funding for, or disruptions caused by global health concerns impacting, the FDA and other agencies or notified bodies could hinder their ability to hire and retain key leadership and other personnel, or otherwise prevent new medical device products from being developed, authorized, certified or commercialized in a timely manner, which could negatively impact our business.

The ability of the FDA, foreign regulatory authorities and notified bodies to review and authorize or certify the sale of new products can be affected by a variety of factors, including government budget and funding levels; its ability to hire and retain key personnel and accept the payment of user fees; statutory, regulatory, and policy changes; and other events that may otherwise affect the FDA’s, foreign regulatory authorities’ and notified bodies’ ability to perform routine functions. Average review times at the FDA, foreign regulatory authorities and notified bodies have fluctuated in recent years as a result. In addition, government funding of other government agencies that fund research and development activities is subject to the political process, which is inherently fluid and unpredictable. Disruptions at the FDA, other agencies and foreign bodies may also slow the time necessary for new devices to be reviewed and/or authorized or certified for marketing by necessary government agencies or foreign bodies, which would adversely affect our business. For example, over the last several years, the U.S. government has shut down several times and certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA, have had to furlough critical FDA employees and stop critical activities.

Separately, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, in March 2020, the FDA announced its intention to postpone most inspections of foreign manufacturing facilities, and on March 18, 2020, the FDA temporarily postponed routine surveillance inspections of domestic manufacturing facilities. Subsequently, in July 2020, the FDA resumed certain on-site inspections of domestic manufacturing facilities subject to a risk-based prioritization system. The FDA utilized this risk-based assessment system to assist in determining when and where it was safest to conduct prioritized domestic inspections. In May 2021, the FDA outlined a detailed plan to move toward a more consistent state of inspectional operations, and in July 2021, the FDA resumed standard inspectional operations of domestic facilities and was continuing to maintain this level of operation as of September 2021. More recently, the FDA has continued to monitor and implement changes to its inspectional activities to ensure the safety of its employees and those of the firms it regulates as it adapts to the evolving COVID-19 pandemic. Other regulatory authorities may have adopted similar restrictions or other policy measures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. If a prolonged government shutdown occurs, or if global health concerns continue to prevent the FDA, other regulatory authorities or notified bodiesfrom conducting business as usual or conducting inspections, reviews or other regulatory activities, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA, foreign regulatory authorities and notified bodies to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

In the EU, notified bodies must be officially designated to certify products and services in accordance with the MDR. While several notified bodies have been designated the COVID-19 pandemic has significantly slowed down their designation process and the current designated notified bodies are facing a large amount of requests with the new regulation as a consequence of which review times have lengthened. This situation could significantly impact the ability of notified bodies to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business in the EU and EEA.

18

Table of Contents

Our business operations and current and future relationships with investigators, healthcare professionals, consultants, third-party payors, and customers will be subject to applicable healthcare regulatory laws, which could expose us to penalties.

Our business operations and current and future arrangements with investigators, healthcare professionals, consultants, third-party payors, and customers, may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations. These laws may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we conduct our operations, including how we research, market, sell and distribute our product candidates, if approved or certified. Such laws include:

19

Table of Contents

Ensuring that our internal operations and future business arrangements with third parties comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations will involve substantial costs. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices, including our relationships with physicians and other healthcare providers, some of whom are compensated in the form of stock options for consulting services provided, may not comply with current or future statutes, regulations, agency guidance or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations.

If our operations are found to be in violation of any of the laws described above or any other governmental laws and regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant penalties, including civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, exclusion from government-funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid or similar programs in other countries or jurisdictions, integrity oversight and reporting obligations to resolve allegations of non-compliance, disgorgement, individual imprisonment, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations. If any of the physicians or other providers or entities with whom we expect to do business are found to not be in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government funded healthcare programs and imprisonment, which could affect our ability to operate our business. Further, defending against any such actions can be costly, time-consuming and may require significant personnel resources. Therefore, even if we are successful in defending against any such actions that may be brought against us, our business and our ability to sell our products may be materially harmed.

If in the future Alpha DaRT is approved or certified for commercial sale, but we are unable to obtain adequate reimbursement or insurance coverage from third-party payors, we may not be able to generate significant revenue.

Because the Alpha DaRT is still in the development stage, it is not yet approved for third-party payor coverage or reimbursement. Coding and coverage determinations as well as reimbursement levels and conditions are important to the commercial success of any product or offering. The future availability of insurance coverage and reimbursement for newly approved medical devices is highly uncertain, and our future business will be greatly impacted by the level of reimbursement provided by third-party payors.

In the United States, third-party payors decide which cancer treatment products and services they will cover, how much they will pay and whether they will continue reimbursement. Third-party payors may not cover or provide adequate reimbursement for the Alpha DaRT device, the Alpha DaRT sources or the procedures using the system, assuming we are able to fully develop and obtain all marketing authorizations to market it in the United States or similar certifications in other geographies. To date, we have not had any discussions with any third-party payors, including any regulatory agencies administering any government funded healthcare programs, regarding the coding, coverage or reimbursement for imaging services using the Alpha DaRT, which may vary depending on the specific application or indication of our technology. Accordingly, unless government and other third-party payors provide coverage and reimbursement for our products, patients and healthcare providers may choose not to use them, which would adversely impact our future revenues.

No uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement among payors in the United States exists and coverage and reimbursement for procedures can differ significantly from payor to payor. Some third-party payors must approve coverage for new or innovative devices or procedures before they will reimburse healthcare providers who use the products or therapies. Even though a new product may have been cleared for commercial distribution by the FDA, we may find limited demand for the product unless and until reimbursement approval has been obtained from governmental and private third-party payors. We can provide no assurances that we would be successful in obtaining coverage from Medicare or any other governmental or commercial third-party payor. In addition, while we believe that we may be able to rely on certain existing procedure codes for certain elements of the physician’s treatment efforts, we are not certain of this and as such may be required to seek new billing codes for our products, and regulatory authorities may not approve the creation of separate codes. Additionally, even if we are successful, these billing codes or the payment amounts associated with such codes may change in the future.

20

Table of Contents

In addition to uncertainties surrounding coverage policies, there are periodic changes to reimbursement levels. Third-party payors regularly update reimbursement amounts and also from time to time revise the methodologies used to determine reimbursement amounts. This includes routine updates to payments to physicians, hospitals and ambulatory surgery centers for procedures during which our products are used. These updates could directly impact the demand for our products. By way of example, in the United States, payment rates under the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule are regularly subject to updates to effectuate various policy goals. The Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 repealed the formula by which Medicare made annual payment adjustments to physicians and replaced the former formula with fixed annual updates and a new system of incentive payments that began in 2019 that are based on various performance measures and physicians’ participation in alternative payment models, such as accountable care organizations. The ongoing and future impact of these changes cannot be determined at this time.

A primary trend in the United States healthcare industry and elsewhere is cost containment. Government authorities and other third-party payors have attempted to control costs by limiting coverage and the amount of reimbursement for particular products and services. Reimbursement may not be available, or continue to be available, for the Alpha DaRT or the treatment services using the Alpha DaRT or any other products we may develop in the future, or even if reimbursement is available, such reimbursement may not be adequate. We also will be subject to foreign reimbursement policies in the international markets we expect to enter. Decisions by health insurers or other third-party payors in these markets not to cover, or to discontinue reimbursing, our products could materially and adversely affect our business. If such decisions are made, they could also have a negative impact on our ability to generate revenues.

On September 18, 2020, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, the federal agency responsible for administering the Medicare program, issued a final rule implementing a new mandatory payment model for radiation oncology services: the Radiation Oncology Alternative Payment Model, or the RO Model. Although the RO Model was originally intended to begin on January 1, 2022, recent legislation delayed its implementation until January 1, 2023. The RO Model significantly alters CMS’ payment methodology from a fee for service, or FFS, paradigm to a prospective payment for all radiotherapy services furnished during a 90-day episode of care for fifteen (15) different cancer types, regardless of the modality used or site of service. Under the RO Model, all providers of radiotherapy services, including physician group practices, hospital outpatient departments and free-standing radiation therapy centers located within a randomly selected Core Based Statistical Area, or CBSA are required to participate. The CBSAs selected for the RO Model will contain approximately 30% of all eligible Medicare FFS radiotherapy episodes in the U.S. Any provider outside of the CBSAs will continue to receive Medicare reimbursement based on a FFS methodology. It is uncertain the impact, if any, of the RO Model, if implemented, on the Medicare reimbursement to our customers when using our Alpha DaRT technology, if authorized for marketing, or our business, financial condition, or results of operations.

Outside of the United States, reimbursement levels vary significantly by country. For example, in the EU, member states impose controls on whether products are reimbursable by national or regional health service providers and on the prices at which medical devices are reimbursed under state-run healthcare schemes.

Healthcare policy changes, including recently enacted legislation reforming the U.S. healthcare system, could harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.

In the United States, there have been and continue to be a number of legislative initiatives to contain healthcare costs. Federal and state lawmakers regularly propose and, at times, enact legislation that would result in significant changes to the healthcare system, some of which are intended to contain or reduce the costs of medical products and services. Current and future legislative proposals to further reform healthcare or reduce healthcare costs may limit coverage of or lower reimbursement for our product candidates and the treatment associated with the use of our 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 product candidates, if approved or cleared.

By way of example, in the United States, the Affordable Care Act, or ACA, made a number of substantial changes in the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers. Among other ways in which it may affect our business, the ACA

21

Table of Contents

Since its enactment, there have been judicial, executive and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA. On June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the most recent judicial challenge to the ACA without specifically ruling on the constitutionality of the ACA. Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision, President Biden issued an executive order to initiate a special enrollment period from February 15, 2021 through August 15, 2021 for purposes of obtaining health insurance coverage through the ACA marketplace. The executive order also instructed certain governmental agencies to review and reconsider their existing policies and rules that limit access to healthcare, including among others, reexamining Medicaid demonstration projects and waiver programs that include work requirements, and policies that create unnecessary barriers to obtaining access to health insurance coverage through Medicaid or the ACA. It is unclear how other healthcare reform measures of the Biden administration will impact our business. Any expansion in the government’s role in the U.S. healthcare industry may result in decreased profits to us and/or lower reimbursement by payors for our product candidates, any of which may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted. The Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to providers by 2% per fiscal year, effective on April 1, 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, will remain in effect through 2030, with the exception of a temporary suspension from May 1, 2020, through March 31, 2022 and a 1% reduction from April 1, 2022 through June 30, 2022, unless additional Congressional action is taken. Additionally, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, among other things, further reduced Medicare payments to several providers, including hospitals, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. The Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015, or MACRA, enacted on April 16, 2015, repealed the formula by which Medicare made annual payment adjustments to physicians and replaced the former formula with fixed annual updates and a new system of incentive payments that are based on various performance measures and physicians’ participation in alternative payment models such as accountable care organizations. It is unclear what effect new quality and payment programs, such as MACRA, may have on our business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

We expect additional state, federal and foreign healthcare policies and reform measures to be adopted in the future, any of which could limit reimbursement for healthcare products and services or otherwise result in reduced demand for our product candidates or additional pricing pressure and have a material adverse effect on our industry generally and on our customers. We cannot predict what other healthcare programs and regulations will ultimately be implemented at the federal or state level or the effect of any future legislation or regulation in the United States may negatively affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. The continuing efforts of the government, insurance companies, managed care organizations and other payors of healthcare services to contain or reduce costs of healthcare may adversely affect our ability to set a price that we believe is fair for our product candidates, our ability to generate revenue and achieve or maintain profitability or the availability of capital.

For instance, in December 2021, the EU Regulation No 2021/2282 on Health Technology Assessment, or HTA, amending Directive 2011/24/EU, was adopted. This regulation which entered into force in January 2022 intends to boost cooperation among EU member states in assessing health technologies, including some medical devices, and providing the basis for cooperation at the EU level for joint clinical assessments in these areas. The regulation foresees a three-year transitional period and will permit EU member states to use common HTA tools, methodologies, and procedures across the EU, working together in four main areas, including joint clinical assessment of the innovative health technologies with the most potential impact for patients, joint scientific consultations whereby developers can seek advice from HTA authorities, identification of emerging health technologies to identify promising technologies early, and continuing voluntary cooperation in other areas. Individual EU member states will continue to be responsible for assessing non-clinical (e.g., economic, social, ethical) aspects of health technologies, and making decisions on pricing and reimbursement.

Any changes of, or uncertainty with respect to, future coverage or reimbursement rates could affect demand for our product candidates, which in turn could impact our ability to successfully commercialize these devices and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

22

Table of Contents

Actual or perceived failures to comply with applicable data protection, privacy and security laws, regulations, standards and other requirements could adversely affect our business, financial condition and prospects.

The global data protection landscape is rapidly evolving, and we are or may become subject to numerous state, federal and foreign laws, requirements and regulations governing the collection, use, disclosure, retention, and security of personal data, such as information that we may collect in connection with clinical trials in the U.S. and abroad. Implementation standards and enforcement practices are likely to remain uncertain for the foreseeable future, and we cannot yet determine the impact future laws, regulations, standards, or perception of their requirements may have on our business. This evolution may create uncertainty in our business, affect our ability to operate in certain jurisdictions or to collect, store, transfer use and share personal information, necessitate the acceptance of more onerous obligations in our contracts, result in liability or impose additional costs on us. The cost of compliance with these laws, regulations and standards is high and is likely to increase in the future. Any failure or perceived failure by us to comply with federal, state or foreign laws or regulation, our internal policies and procedures or our contracts governing our processing of personal information could result in negative publicity, government investigations, fines and enforcement actions, claims by third parties and damage to our reputation, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and prospects.

As our operations and business grow, we may become subject to or affected by new or additional data protection laws and regulations and face increased scrutiny or attention from regulatory authorities. For example, the State of Israel has implemented data protection laws and regulations, including the Israeli Protection of Privacy Law of 1981. Further, in the U.S., HIPAA imposes, among other things, certain standards relating to the privacy, security, transmission and breach reporting of individually identifiable health information. Certain states have also adopted comparable privacy and security laws and regulations, some of which may be more stringent than HIPAA. Such laws and regulations will be subject to interpretation by various courts and other governmental authorities, thus creating potentially complex compliance issues for us and our future customers and strategic partners. In addition, the CCPA went into effect on January 1, 2020. The CCPA creates individual privacy rights for California consumers and increases the privacy and security obligations of entities handling certain personal information. The CCPA provides for civil penalties for violations, as well as a private right of action for data breaches that is expected to increase data breach litigation. The CCPA may increase our compliance costs and potential liability, and many similar laws have been proposed at the federal level and in other states. Further, the CPRA recently passed in California. The CPRA will impose additional data protection obligations on covered businesses, including additional consumer rights processes, limitations on data uses, new audit requirements for higher risk data, and opt outs for certain uses of sensitive data. It will also create a new California data protection agency authorized to issue substantive regulations and could result in increased privacy and information security enforcement. The majority of the provisions will go into effect on January 1, 2023, and additional compliance investment and potential business process changes may be required. In the event that we are subject to or affected by Israeli data protection laws, HIPAA, the CCPA, the CPRA or other domestic or foreign privacy and data protection laws, any liability from failure to comply with the requirements of these laws could adversely affect our financial condition.

In Europe, the GDPR went into effect in May 2018 and imposes strict requirements for processing the personal data of individuals within the European Economic Area, or EEA. Companies that must comply with the GDPR face increased compliance obligations and risk, including providing detailed disclosures about how personal data is collected and processed (in a concise, intelligible and easily accessible form); demonstrating that an appropriate legal basis is in place or otherwise exists to justify data processing activities; granting rights for data subjects in regard to their personal data (including data access rights, the right to be “forgotten” and the right to data portability); introducing the obligation to notify data protection regulators or supervisory authorities (and in certain cases, affected individuals) of significant data breaches; imposing limitations on retention of personal data; maintaining a record of data processing; and complying with the principal of accountability and the obligation to demonstrate compliance through policies, procedures, training and audit. The GDPR also introduces more robust regulatory enforcement of data protection requirements and potential fines for noncompliance of up to €20 million or 4% of the annual global revenues of the noncompliant company, whichever is greater. Among other requirements, the GDPR regulates transfers of personal data subject to the GDPR to third countries that have not been found to provide adequate protection to such personal data, including the United States. In July 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union, or CJEU limited how organizations could lawfully transfer personal data from the EU/EEA to the United States by invalidating the Privacy Shield for purposes of international transfers and imposing further restrictions on the use of standard contractual clauses, or SCCs. The European Commission has published revised SCCs for data transfers from the EEA: the revised clauses became mandatory for relevant new data transfers on September 27, 2021; existing SCC arrangements had to be migrated to the revised clauses by December 27, 2022. The new SCCs apply only to the transfer of personal data outside of the EEA and not the UK; the UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office launched a public consultation on its draft revised data transfers mechanisms in August 2021 and laid its proposal before Parliament, with the UK SCCs expected to come into force in March 2022, with a two-year grace period. We are now required to implement the revised standard contractual clauses, in relation to relevant existing contracts and certain additional contracts and arrangements. There is some uncertainty around whether the revised clauses can be used for all types

23

Table of Contents

of data transfers, particularly whether they can be relied on for data transfers to non-EEA entities subject to the GDPR. These recent developments are likely to require us to review and amend the legal mechanisms by which we make and/or receive personal data transfers to/in the United States. As supervisory authorities issue further guidance on personal data export mechanisms, including circumstances where the standard contractual clauses cannot be used, and/or start taking enforcement action, we could suffer additional costs, complaints and/or regulatory investigations or fines, and/or if we are otherwise unable to transfer personal data between and among countries and regions in which we operate, it could affect the manner in which we provide our services, the geographical location or segregation of our relevant systems and operations, and could adversely affect our financial results.

Further, from January 1, 2021, companies have had to comply with the GDPR and also the United Kingdom GDPR, or UK GDPR, which, together with the amended UK Data Protection Act 2018, retains the GDPR in UK national law. The UK GDPR mirrors the fines under the GDPR, i.e., fines up to the greater of €20 million (£17.5 million) or 4% of global turnover. The European Commission has adopted an adequacy decision in favor of the United Kingdom, enabling data transfers from EU member states to the United Kingdom without additional safeguards. However, the United Kingdom adequacy decision will automatically expire in June 2025 unless the European Commission re-assesses and renews/extends that decision, and remains under review by the Commission during this period. The United Kingdom’s Information Commissioner’s Office has published new data transfer standard contracts for transfers from the UK under the UK GDPR. This new documentation will be mandatory for relevant data transfers from September 21, 2022; existing standard contractual clauses arrangements must be migrated to the new documentation by March 21, 2024. In September 2021, the UK government launched a consultation on its proposals for wide-ranging reform of UK data protection laws following Brexit. There is a risk that any material changes which are made to the UK data protection regime could result in the European Commission reviewing the UK adequacy decision, and the UK losing its adequacy decision if the European Commission deems the UK to no longer provide adequate protection for personal data. The relationship between the United Kingdom and the EU in relation to certain aspects of data protection law remains unclear, and it is unclear how UK data protection laws and regulations will develop in the medium to longer term, and how data transfers to and from the United Kingdom will be regulated in the long term. These changes will lead to additional costs and increase our overall risk exposure.

Although we work to comply with applicable laws, regulations and standards, our contractual obligations and other legal obligations, these requirements are evolving and may be modified, interpreted and applied in an inconsistent manner from one jurisdiction to another, and may conflict with one another or other legal obligations with which we must comply. Any failure or perceived failure by us or our employees, representatives, contractors, consultants, collaborators, or other third parties to comply with such requirements or adequately address privacy and security concerns, even if unfounded, could result in additional cost and liability to us, damage our reputation, and adversely affect our business, financial condition and prospects.

Risks Related to Our Reliance on Third Parties

We rely on a limited number of third-party suppliers and, in some cases, sole suppliers, for the majority of our components, subassemblies and materials and may not be able to find replacements or immediately transition to alternative suppliers.

We rely on several sole suppliers for certain components of our Alpha DaRT technology. These sole suppliers, and any of our other suppliers, may be unwilling or unable to supply components of these systems to us reliably and at the levels we anticipate or are required by us. For us to be successful, our suppliers must be able to provide us with products and components in substantial quantities, in compliance with regulatory requirements, in accordance with agreed upon specifications, at acceptable costs and on a timely basis. If we obtain marketing authorization or certification, and we encounter delays or difficulties in securing these components, an interruption in our commercial operations could occur if we cannot then obtain an acceptable substitute. If we are required to transition to new third-party suppliers for certain components of our Alpha DaRT technology or any future product or product candidates, we believe that there are a few other manufacturers that are currently capable of supplying the necessary components. In addition, the use of components or materials furnished by these alternative suppliers could require us to alter our operations. Any such interruption or change in supplier could harm our reputation, business, financial condition and results of operations.

Furthermore, if we are required to change the manufacturer of a critical component of our product candidates, we will be required to verify that the new manufacturer maintains facilities, procedures and operations that comply with our quality and applicable regulatory requirements, which could further impede our ability to manufacture our implant systems in a timely manner. We currently do not carry inventory for components for more than three months at any given time. Transitioning to a new supplier could be time- consuming and expensive, may result in interruptions in our operations and product delivery, could affect the performance specifications of our product candidates or could require that we modify their design. If the change in manufacturer results in a

24

Table of Contents

significant change to any product after its authorization or certification for marketing, a new 510(k) clearance from the FDA or similar international regulatory authorization or certification may be necessary before we implement the change, which could cause substantial delays. The occurrence of any of these events could harm our ability to meet the demand for our products in a timely manner or cost-effectively.

We cannot assure you that we will be able to secure alternative equipment and materials and utilize such equipment and materials without experiencing interruptions in our workflow. If we should encounter delays or difficulties in securing, reconfiguring or revalidating the equipment and components we require for our implant systems, our reputation, business, financial condition and results of operations could be negatively impacted.

We currently rely, and plan to rely in the future, on third parties to conduct and support our portions of our preclinical studies and clinical trials. If these third parties do not properly and successfully carry out their contractual duties or meet expected deadlines, we may not be able to obtain marketing authorization or certification of or commercialize our product candidates.

We have utilized and plan to continue to utilize and depend upon independent investigators and collaborators, such as medical institutions, CROs, contract manufacturing organizations, or CMOs, and strategic partners to conduct and support portions of our preclinical studies and clinical trials under agreements with us.

We expect to have to negotiate budgets and contracts with CROs, trial sites and CMOs and we may not be able to do so on favorable terms, which may result in delays to our development timelines and increased costs. We will rely heavily on these third parties over the course of our preclinical studies and clinical trials, and we control only certain aspects of their activities. As a result, we will have less direct control over the conduct, timing and completion of these preclinical studies and clinical trials and the management of data developed through preclinical studies and clinical trials than would be the case if we were relying entirely upon our own staff. Nevertheless, we are responsible for ensuring that each of our studies is conducted in accordance with applicable protocol, legal and regulatory requirements and scientific standards, and our reliance on third parties does not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities. We and these third parties are required to comply with GCP requirements, which are regulations and guidelines enforced by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities for product candidates in clinical development. Regulatory authorities enforce these GCP requirements through periodic inspections of trial sponsors, principal investigators and trial sites.

If we or any of these third parties fail to comply with applicable GCP regulations, the clinical data generated in our clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities or other bodies may require us to perform additional clinical trials before approving our marketing applications or certifications. We cannot assure you that, upon inspection, such regulatory authorities will determine that any of our clinical trials comply with the GCP regulations. In addition, our product candidates must be produced in accordance with cGMP requirements known as the QSR. Our failure or any failure by these third parties to comply with these regulations or to recruit a sufficient number of patients may require us to repeat clinical trials, which would delay the marketing authorization or certification process. Moreover, our business may be implicated if any of these third parties violates federal, state or foreign fraud and abuse or false claims laws and regulations or healthcare privacy and security laws.

Any third parties conducting or supporting portions of our clinical trials will not be our employees and, except for remedies available to us under our agreements with such third parties, we cannot control whether or not they devote sufficient time and resources to our product candidates. These third parties may also have relationships with other commercial entities, including our competitors, for whom they may also be conducting clinical trials, or other product development activities, which could affect their performance on our behalf. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or obligations or meet expected deadlines, if they need to be replaced or if the quality or accuracy of the clinical data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to our clinical protocols or regulatory requirements or for other reasons, our clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated and we may not be able to complete development of, obtain marketing authorizations or certifications for or successfully commercialize our product candidates. As a result, our financial results and the commercial prospects for our product candidates would be adversely affected, our costs could increase and our ability to generate revenue could be delayed.

Switching or adding third parties to conduct or support portions of our preclinical studies and clinical trials involves substantial cost and requires extensive management time and focus. In addition, there is a natural transition period when a new third party commences work. As a result, delays occur, which can materially impact our ability to meet our desired clinical development timelines.

25

Table of Contents

If we or third parties, such as CROs or trial sites, use hazardous and biological materials in a manner that causes injury or violates applicable law, we may be liable for damages.

Our research and development activities involves the controlled use of potentially hazardous substances, including radiological materials, by us or third parties, such as CROs and CMOs. Our use of radioactive materials is regulated by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission and specified agencies of certain states, as well as the Israeli Ministry for Environmental Protection, for the possession, transfer, import, export, use, storage, handling and disposal of radioactive materials. We are also subject to international laws and regulations that apply to manufacturers of radiation-emitting devices and products utilizing radioactive materials. These are often comparable to, if not more stringent than, the equivalent regulations in the United States. The use of Thorium-228 in our manufacturing processes, and Radium-224 in our Alpha DaRT technology, involves the inherent risk of exposure from alpha and beta particle emissions to the patient receiving the sources implanted, the clinicians administering the Alpha DaRT technology, our employees and others who may handle our products, which can alter or harm healthy cells in the body. Additionally, as we continue to develop our Alpha DaRT technology we may experiment with increased amounts of radiation in an attempt to increase the potential efficacy of our technology, which could heighten the potential risk of radiation exposure. We and such third parties are subject to the Israeli and U.S. federal, state, provincial and local laws and regulations governing the use, manufacture, storage, handling, and disposal of radiological, medical and hazardous materials. Although we believe that our and such third-parties’ procedures for using, handling, storing and disposing of these materials comply with legally prescribed standards, we cannot completely eliminate the risk of contamination or injury resulting from radiological, medical or hazardous materials. As a result of any such contamination or injury, we may incur liability or Israeli and U.S. local, city, state, provincial or federal authorities may curtail the use of these materials and interrupt our business operations. In the event of an accident, we could be held liable for damages or penalized with fines, and the liability could exceed our resources. Compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations is expensive, and current or future environmental regulations may impair our research, development and production efforts, which could harm our business, prospects, financial condition, or results of operations. We currently maintain insurance coverage for injuries resulting from the hazardous materials we use; however, future claims may exceed the amount of our coverage. Also, we do not have insurance coverage for pollution cleanup and removal. Currently the costs of complying with such Israeli and U.S. federal, state, provincial, local and foreign environmental regulations are not significant, and consist primarily of waste disposal expenses. However, they could become expensive, and current or future environmental laws or regulations may impair our research, development, production and commercialization efforts.

Additionally, our manufacture and distribution of devices utilizing radioactive material or emitting radiation also requires us to obtain a number of licenses and certifications for these devices and materials. Handling of these products must also be in accordance with a specific radioactive materials license. Obtaining licenses and certifications may be time consuming, expensive, and uncertain. If we fail to obtain such licenses and registrations or if substantial delays are incurred in obtaining such licenses and registrations, we may be unable to manufacture, distribute and ultimately sell our Alpha DaRT technology, if approved or certified. Additionally, any lapse in our licenses, or the licenses of our facilities, could increase our costs and adversely affect our operations and financial results.

We may be unable to obtain a sufficient or sufficiently pure supply of radioisotopes to support clinical development or at commercial scale.

Thorium-228 is a key component of our Alpha DaRT technology, as it naturally decays into Radium-224 that is collected onto the sources which comprise an integral part of our Alpha DaRT technology. We have entered into a multi-year supply contract with Eckert & Ziegler AG in Germany, and also acquire Thorium-228 from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory of the United States Department of Energy. We are also aware of or have spoken with other potential suppliers of Thorium-228, such that we anticipate a steady, unrestricted supply of thorium for the production of the Alpha DaRT. We will continually evaluate Thorium-228 manufacturers and suppliers and intend to have redundant suppliers prior to the commercial launch of the Alpha DaRT technology, if approved. While we consider Thorium-228 to be readily available, there can be no guarantee that we will be able to secure another Thorium-228 supplier or obtain on terms that are acceptable to us.

Our ability to conduct clinical trials to advance our Alpha DaRT technology is dependent on our ability to obtain the radioisotope Thorium-228 and other isotopes we may choose to utilize in the future. Currently, we are dependent on third-party manufacturers and suppliers for our isotopes. These suppliers may not perform their contracted services or may breach or terminate their agreements with us, or may provide a product not of sufficient quality to allow successful use in our manufacturing processes. Our suppliers are subject to regulations and standards that are overseen by regulatory and government agencies and we have no control over our suppliers’ compliance to these standards. Failure to comply with regulations and standards may result in their inability to supply isotope could

26

Table of Contents

result in delays in our clinical trials, which could have a negative impact on our business. We have developed intellectual property, know-how and trade secrets related to the manufacturing process of the Alpha DaRT technology.

We may form or seek collaborations or strategic alliances or enter into additional licensing arrangements in the future, and we may not realize the benefits of such collaborations, alliances or licensing arrangements.

We may form or seek strategic alliances, create joint ventures or collaborations, or enter into additional licensing arrangements with third parties that we believe will complement or augment our development and commercialization efforts with respect to our Alpha DaRT technology and any future products or product candidates that we may develop. Any of these relationships may require us to incur non-recurring and other charges, increase our near and long-term expenditures, issue securities that dilute our existing shareholders or disrupt our management and business.

In addition, we face significant competition in seeking appropriate strategic partners and the negotiation process is time-consuming and complex. We may not be successful in our efforts to establish a strategic partnership or other alternative arrangements for our product candidates because they may be deemed to be at too early of a stage of development for collaborative effort and third parties may not view our product candidates as having the requisite potential to demonstrate safety, potency and quality and obtain marketing authorization or certification.

Further, collaborations involving our product candidates are subject to numerous risks, which may include the following:

As a result, if we enter into collaboration agreements and strategic partnerships or license our product candidates, we may not be able to realize the benefit of such transactions if we are unable to successfully integrate them with our existing operations and company culture, which could delay our timelines or otherwise adversely affect our business. We also cannot be certain that,

27

Table of Contents

following a strategic transaction or license, we will achieve the revenue or specific net income that justifies such transaction. Any delays in entering into new collaborations or strategic partnership agreements related to our product candidates could delay the development and commercialization of our product candidates in certain geographies for certain indications, which would harm our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property

If we are unable to obtain and maintain patent or other intellectual property protection for our Alpha DaRT technology and for any other products or product candidates that we develop, or if the scope of the patent or other intellectual property protection obtained is not sufficiently broad, our competitors could develop and commercialize products and technology similar or identical to ours, and our ability to commercialize any product candidates we may develop, and our technology may be adversely affected.

Our success depends in large part on our ability to obtain and maintain patents, trademarks and other intellectual property rights in the United States and other countries with respect to our Alpha DaRT technology or other products or product candidates we may develop, their respective components, formulations, combination therapies, methods used to manufacture them and methods of treatment and development that are important to our business, as well as our ability to operate without infringing the proprietary rights of others. We rely on a combination of contractual provisions, patent protection, as well as a combination of trade secret and trademark laws, to protect our core technology and commercial products and prevent others from copying our treatment delivery devices and methods. However, these legal measures afford only limited protection, and competitors or others may gain access to or use of our intellectual property and proprietary information. For example, patent protection and intellectual property laws may not: (i) prevent competitors from obtaining access to our trade secrets, proprietary information, data, know-how and technology; (ii) prevent others from copying our systems and methods; or (iii) provide a sustained competitive advantage. If we do not adequately protect our intellectual property rights, competitors may be able to erode or negate any competitive advantage we may have, which could harm our business and ability to achieve profitability.

To protect our proprietary position, we file patent applications in the United States and abroad related to our novel product candidates that are important to our business. We may in the future also license or purchase patents and patent applications owned or controlled by others. As of December 31, 2021, our patent portfolio included 83 issued patents, and 76 pending patent applications including two allowed patent applications, in the United States, Europe, Canada, Japan, Australia, China, South Korea, Russia, Mexico, India, Hong Kong, Singapore, South Africa and the African Regional Intellectual Property Organization, or the ARIPO. Some of our earlier filed patents are expected to expire between 2024 and 2026, subject to patent term extensions and adjustments that may be available in certain jurisdictions. When key patents covering our core technology expire, competitors and other third parties may be able to make competing products and encroach on our market share.

It is possible that defects of form in the preparation or filing of our patents or patent applications may exist, or may arise in the future, for example with respect to proper priority claims, inventorship, claim scope, or requests for patent term adjustments. If we are unable to secure or maintain patent protection with respect to our Alpha DaRT technology and any proprietary products and technology we develop, our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects could be materially harmed. Our pending and future patent applications may not result in patents being issued or that issued patents will afford sufficient protection of our product candidates or their intended uses against competitors, nor can there be any assurance that the patents issued will not be infringed, designed around, invalidated by third parties, or effectively prevent others from commercializing competitive technologies, products or product candidates. Further, some of our pending patent applications may be allowed in the future, but we cannot be certain that an allowed patent application will become an issued patent. There may be events that cause withdrawal of the allowance of a patent application. For example, after a patent application has been allowed, but prior to being issued, material that could be relevant to patentability may be identified. In such circumstances, the applicant may pull the application from allowance in order for the USPTO to review the application in view of the new material. We cannot be certain that the USPTO will issue the application in view of the new material. We anticipate additional patent applications will be filed both in the United States and in other countries, as appropriate. However, we cannot predict: (i) if additional patent applications covering new technologies related to our product candidates will be filed; (ii) if and when patents will issue; (iii) the degree and range of protection any issued patents will afford us against competitors, including whether third parties will find ways to invalidate or otherwise circumvent our patents; (iv) whether any of our intellectual property will provide any competitive advantage; (v) whether any of our patents that may be issued may be challenged, invalidated, modified, revoked, circumvented, found to be unenforceable or otherwise provide any competitive advantage; (vi) whether others will obtain patents claiming inventions similar to those covered by our patents and patent applications; or (vii) whether we will need to initiate or defend litigation or administrative proceedings which may be costly regardless of whether we win or lose. The patent prosecution process is complex, expensive, time-consuming and inconsistent across jurisdictions. We may not

28

Table of Contents

be able to file, prosecute, maintain, enforce, or license all necessary or desirable patent rights at a commercially reasonable cost or in a timely manner. In addition, we may not pursue or obtain patent protection in all relevant markets. It is possible that we will fail to identify important patentable aspects of our research and development efforts in time to obtain appropriate or any patent protection. If we delay filing a patent application, and a competitor files a patent application on the same or a similar invention before we do, our ability to secure patent rights may be limited. We may not be able to patent the invention at all. Even if we can patent the invention, we may be able to patent only a limited scope of the invention, and the limited scope may be inadequate to protect our products, or to block competitor products that are similar or adjacent to ours. Our earliest patent filings have been published. A competitor may review our published patents and arrive at the same or similar technology advances for our products as we developed. If the competitor files a patent application on such an advance before we do, then we may no longer be able to protect that aspect of our products and we may require a license from the competitor. If the license is not available on commercially-viable terms, then we may not be able to launch our product.

Going forward, the growth of our business may depend in part on our ability to acquire or in-license additional proprietary rights. For example, our programs may involve additional product candidates that may require the use of additional proprietary rights held by third parties. We may be unable to acquire or in-license any relevant third-party intellectual property rights that we identify as necessary or important to our business operations. We may fail to obtain any of these licenses at a reasonable cost or on reasonable terms, if at all, which would adversely affect our business. We may need to cease use of, and may need to seek to develop alternative approaches that do not infringe on, such intellectual property rights which may entail additional costs and development delays and such alternative approaches may not be feasible. Even if we are able to obtain a license under such intellectual property rights, any such license may be non-exclusive, and may allow our competitors access to the same technologies licensed to us.

The patent positions of medical device companies may involve complex legal and factual questions and have been the subject of much litigation in recent years, and therefore, the scope, validity and enforceability of any patent claims that we have or may obtain cannot be predicted with certainty. Our pending and future patent applications may not result in patents being issued in the United States or in other jurisdictions that protect our technology or products or that effectively prevent others from commercializing competitive technologies and products. Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of the patent laws in the United States and other countries may diminish the value of our patents or narrow the scope of our patent protection. In addition, the laws of foreign countries may not protect our products and inventions to the same extent as the laws of the United States. While we enter into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to confidential or patentable aspects of our research and development efforts, including for example, our employees, corporate collaborators, external academic scientific collaborators, CROs, contract manufacturers, consultants, advisors and other third parties, any of these parties may breach the agreements and disclose such output before a patent application is filed, thereby endangering our ability to seek patent protection. In addition, publications of discoveries in the scientific and scholarly literature often lag behind the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the United States and other jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing, or in some cases not until issuance as a patent. Consequently, we cannot be certain that we were the first to file for patent protection on the inventions claimed in our patents or pending patent applications. In addition, the USPTO might require that the term of a patent issuing from a pending patent application be disclaimed and limited to the term of another patent that is commonly owned or names a common inventor. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our patent rights are highly uncertain.

Our competitors may be able to circumvent our owned or any future in-licensed patents by developing similar or alternative technologies or products in a non-infringing manner. The issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its scope, validity or enforceability, and our owned and future in-licensed patents may be challenged in the courts or patent offices in the United States and abroad. For example, we may become involved in opposition, interference, derivation, inter partes review or other proceedings challenging our patent rights, and the outcome of any proceedings are highly uncertain. Such challenges may result in the patent claims of our owned or any future in-licensed patents being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable, which could limit our ability to stop or prevent us from stopping others from using or commercializing similar or identical technology and products, or limit the duration of the patent protection of our technology and products.

In addition, given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidates are commercialized. As a result, our intellectual property may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing products similar or identical to ours. Moreover, some of our patents and patent applications are, and may in the future be, co-owned with third parties. If we are unable to obtain an exclusive license to any such third-party co-owners’ interest in such patents or patent applications, such co-owners may be able to license their rights to other third parties, including our competitors, and our competitors could market

29

Table of Contents

competing products and technology. In addition, we or our future licensors may need the cooperation of any such co-owners of our owned and in-licensed patents in order to enforce such patents against third parties, and such cooperation may not be provided to us or our future licensors. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial conditions, results of operations and prospects.

Patent terms may be inadequate to protect our competitive position on our product candidates for an adequate amount of time.

Patents have a limited lifespan. In the United States, if all maintenance fees are timely paid, the natural expiration of a patent is generally 20 years from its earliest U.S. non-provisional filing date. Various extensions may be available, but the life of a patent, and the protection it affords, is limited. Even if patents covering our products are obtained, once the patent life has expired for a product, we may be open to competition. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new products, patents protecting such products might expire before or shortly after such products are commercialized. As a result, our patent portfolio may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing products similar or identical to ours for a meaningful amount of time, or at all.

If we are unable to protect the confidentiality of our trade secrets, our business and competitive position would be harmed.

In addition to the protection afforded by patents, we seek to rely on trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect proprietary know-how that is not patentable, processes for which patents are difficult to enforce and any other elements of our product discovery and development processes that involve proprietary know-how, information, or technology that is not covered by our patents. Elements of our products, including processes for their preparation and manufacture, may involve proprietary know-how, information, or technology that is not covered by patents, and thus for these aspects we may consider trade secrets and know-how to be our primary intellectual property. Any disclosure, either intentional or unintentional, by our employees or third-party consultants and vendors that we engage to perform research, clinical trials or manufacturing activities, or misappropriation by third parties (such as through a cybersecurity breach) of our trade secrets or proprietary information could enable competitors to duplicate or surpass our technological achievements, thus eroding our competitive position in our market. Because we expect to rely on third parties in the development and manufacture of our products, we must, at times, share trade secrets with them. Our reliance on third parties requires us to share our trade secrets, which increases the possibility that a competitor will discover them or that our trade secrets will be misappropriated or disclosed.

Trade secrets and know-how can be difficult to protect. We require all of our employees to enter into written employment agreements containing provisions of confidentiality and obligations to assign any inventions generated in the course of their employment to us. Further, we enter into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with our corporate collaborators, outside scientific collaborators, contract research organizations, contract manufacturers, consultants, advisors and any other third parties who have access to our proprietary know-how, information, or technology. With our consultants, contractors, and outside scientific collaborators, these agreements typically include invention assignment obligations. We cannot guarantee that we have entered into such agreements with each party that may have or has had access to our trade secrets or proprietary technology and processes. We cannot be certain that our trade secrets and other confidential proprietary information will not be disclosed or that competitors will not otherwise gain access to our trade secrets or independently develop substantially equivalent information and techniques. Despite these efforts, any of these parties may breach the agreements and disclose our proprietary information, including our trade secrets, and we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for such breaches. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret is difficult, expensive and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, some courts inside and outside the United States are less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets.

We may need to share our proprietary information, including trade secrets, with future business partners, collaborators, contractors and others located in countries at heightened risk of theft of trade secrets, including through direct intrusion by private parties or foreign actors, and those affiliated with or controlled by state actors. Further, if any of our trade secrets were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor or other third-party, we would have no right to prevent them from using that technology or information to compete with us. If any of our trade secrets were to be disclosed to or independently developed by a competitor or other third-party, our competitive position would be harmed.

In addition, we take other appropriate precautions, such as physical and technological security measures, to guard against misappropriation of our proprietary technology by third parties. While we have confidence in these individuals, organizations and systems, agreements or security measures may be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies for any breach. We have also

30

Table of Contents

adopted policies and conduct training that provides guidance on our expectations, and our advice for best practices, in protecting our trade secrets. Despite these undertakings, we may not be able to effectively protect our trade secrets.

We may not identify relevant third-party patents or may incorrectly interpret the relevance, scope or expiration of a third-party patent, which might adversely affect our ability to develop and market our products.

The intellectual property landscape around our radiopharmaceutical product candidates is crowded, rapidly evolving and interdisciplinary, and it is difficult to conclusively assess our freedom to operate without infringing on third-party rights. We may analyze patents or patent applications of our competitors that we believe are relevant to our activities, and consider that we are free to operate in relation to our product candidates, but our competitors may obtain issued claims, including in patents we consider to be unrelated to our products or activities, which block our efforts or may potentially result in our product candidates or our activities infringing such claims. We cannot guarantee that any of our patent searches or analyses, including the identification of relevant patents, the scope of patent claims or the expiration of relevant patents, are complete or thorough, nor can we be certain that we have identified each and every third-party patent and pending application in the United States and abroad that is relevant to or necessary for the commercialization of our product candidates in any jurisdiction.

The scope of a patent claim is determined by an interpretation of the law, the written disclosure in a patent and the patent’s prosecution history. Our interpretation of the relevance or the scope of a patent or a pending application may be incorrect. For example, we may incorrectly determine that our products are not covered by a third-party patent or may incorrectly predict whether a third-party’s pending application will issue with claims of relevant scope. Our determination of the expiration date of any patent in the United States or abroad that we consider relevant may be incorrect. Our failure to identify and correctly interpret relevant patents may negatively impact our ability to develop and market our products.

Third parties may initiate legal proceedings alleging that we are infringing, misappropriating or otherwise violating their intellectual property rights, the outcome of which would be uncertain. Defending against such law suits will be costly and time consuming, and an unfavorable outcome in that litigation would have a material adverse effect on our business.

Our commercial success depends in part on our ability to avoid infringement of the patents and proprietary rights of third parties. There is a substantial amount of litigation involving the infringement of patents and other intellectual property rights in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries. We may be exposed to, or threatened with, future litigation by third parties having patent or other intellectual property rights and who allege that our product candidates, uses and/or other proprietary technologies infringe their intellectual property rights. Numerous United States and foreign issued patents and pending patent applications, which are owned by third parties, exist in the fields in which we are developing our product candidates. As the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries expand and more patents are issued, the risk that our product candidates may give rise to claims of infringement of the patent rights of others increases. Moreover, it is not always clear to industry participants, including us, which patents exist which may be found to cover various types of products or their methods of use or manufacture. Thus, because of the large number of patents issued and patent applications currently pending in our fields, there may be a risk that third parties may allege they have patent rights which are infringed by our product candidates, technologies or methods.

If a third party alleges that we infringe its intellectual property rights, we may face a number of issues, including, but not limited to:

31

Table of Contents

Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of complex patent litigation more effectively than we can because they have substantially greater resources. In addition, any uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of any litigation could have a material adverse effect on our ability to raise the funds necessary to continue our operations or could otherwise have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects.

Third parties may assert that we are employing their proprietary technology without authorization. Generally, conducting preclinical and clinical trials or investigations and other development activities in the United States is not considered an act of infringement. If our product candidate is approved by the FDA, a third party may then seek to enforce its patent by filing a patent infringement lawsuit against us. While we may believe that patent claims or other intellectual property rights of a third party would not have a materially adverse effect on the commercialization of our product candidates, we may be incorrect in this belief, or we may not be able to prove it in litigation. In this regard, patents issued in the United States by law enjoy a presumption of validity that can be rebutted only with evidence that is “clear and convincing,” a heightened standard of proof. There may be issued third-party patents of which we are currently unaware with claims to compositions, formulations, methods of manufacture or methods for treatment related to the use or manufacture of our product candidates. Patent applications can take many years to issue. There may be currently pending patent applications which may later result in issued patents that may be infringed by our product candidates. Moreover, we may fail to identify relevant patents or incorrectly conclude that a patent is invalid, not enforceable, exhausted, or not infringed by our activities. If any third-party patents, held now or obtained in the future by a third party, were found by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover the manufacturing process of our product candidates, constructs or molecules used in or formed during the manufacturing process, or any final product or methods use of the product, the holders of any such patents may be able to block our ability to commercialize the product candidate unless we obtained a license under the applicable patents, or until such patents expire or they are finally determined to be held invalid or unenforceable. Similarly, if any third-party patent were held by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover any aspect of our formulations, any combination therapies or patient selection methods, the holders of any such patent may be able to block our ability to develop and commercialize the product candidate unless we obtained a license or until such patent expires or is finally determined to be held invalid or unenforceable. In either case, such a license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all. If we are unable to obtain a necessary license to a third-party patent on commercially reasonable terms, or at all, our ability to commercialize our product candidates may be impaired or delayed, which could in turn significantly harm our business. Even if we obtain a license, it may be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors access to the same technologies licensed to us. In addition, if the breadth or strength of protection provided by our patents and patent applications is threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to license, develop or commercialize our current or future product candidates.

Parties making claims against us may seek and obtain injunctive or other equitable relief, which could effectively block our ability to further develop and commercialize our product candidates. Defense of these claims, regardless of their merit, could involve substantial litigation expense and would be a substantial diversion of employee resources from our business. In the event of a successful claim of infringement against us, we may have to pay substantial damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees for willful infringement, obtain one or more licenses from third parties, pay royalties or redesign our infringing products, which may be impossible or require substantial time and monetary expenditure. We cannot predict whether any such license would be available at all or whether it would be available on commercially reasonable terms. Furthermore, even in the absence of litigation, we may need or may choose to obtain licenses from third parties to advance our research or allow commercialization of our product candidates. We may fail to obtain any of these licenses at a reasonable cost or on reasonable terms, if at all. In that event, we would be unable to further develop and commercialize our product candidates, which could harm our business significantly.

We may not be successful in obtaining or maintaining necessary rights through acquisitions and in-licenses to product components and processes that may be required to complete development of and commercialize our Alpha DaRT Technology.

Presently we own various patents and patent applications related to our Alpha DaRT technology and we are not a party to any license agreements with third parties that enable us to utilize third-party technology. Because our Alpha DaRT technology, including the use in connection with other therapies, may require the use of proprietary rights held by third parties in the future, the growth of our business will likely depend in part on our ability to acquire, in-license or use such third-party proprietary rights.

The licensing and acquisition of third-party intellectual property rights is a competitive practice, and companies that may be more established, or have greater resources than we do, may also be pursuing strategies to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights that we may consider necessary or attractive for commercializing our product candidates. More established companies may have

32

Table of Contents

a competitive advantage over us due to their larger size and cash resources or greater clinical development and commercialization capabilities. There can be no assurance that we will be able to successfully complete such negotiations and ultimately acquire the rights to the intellectual property surrounding the additional product candidates that we may seek to acquire. We may be unable to acquire or in-license methods of use, processes or other intellectual property rights from third parties that we identify as necessary or important to our business operations. If we fail to obtain any of these licenses at a reasonable cost or on reasonable terms, if at all, it would harm our business. We may need to cease use of the compositions or methods covered by such third-party intellectual property rights, and/or may need to seek to develop alternative approaches that do not infringe on such intellectual property rights which may entail additional costs and development delays, even if it is possible and we were able to develop such alternatives.

Even if we are able to obtain a license, it may be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors access to the same technologies that we have licensed. In that event, we may be required to expend significant time and resources to develop or license replacement technologies. Moreover, we may need to rely on our future licensors to obtain, maintain and enforce patent rights for the licensed intellectual property; however, they may not successfully prosecute, maintain or enforce such licensed intellectual property. We may have limited control over the manner in which our future licensors initiate an infringement proceeding against a third-party infringer of the intellectual property rights, or defend certain of the intellectual property that is licensed to us. It is possible that the future licensors’ infringement proceeding or defense activities may be less vigorous than had we conducted them ourselves. Further, our future licensors may retain certain rights under their agreements with us, including the right to use the underlying technology for noncommercial academic and research use, to publish general scientific findings from research related to the technology, and to make customary scientific and scholarly disclosures of information relating to the technology. It would be difficult to monitor whether our future licensors limit their use of the technology to these uses, and we could incur substantial expenses to enforce our rights to our licensed technology in the event of misuse. Also, the United States federal government retains certain rights in inventions produced with its financial assistance under the Patent and Trademark Law Amendments Act, or the Bayh-Dole Act. The federal government retains a “nonexclusive, nontransferable, irrevocable, paid-up license” for its own benefit. The Bayh-Dole Act also provides federal agencies with “march-in rights.” March-in rights allow the government, in specified circumstances, to require the contractor or successors in title to the patent to grant a “nonexclusive, partially exclusive, or exclusive license” to a “responsible applicant or applicants.” If the patent owner refuses to do so, the government may grant the license itself. We sometimes collaborate with academic institutions to accelerate our preclinical research or development. While it is generally our policy to avoid engaging our university partners in projects in which there is a risk that federal funds may be commingled, we cannot be sure that any co-developed intellectual property will be free from government rights pursuant to the Bayh-Dole Act. If, in the future, we co-own or license in technology which is critical to our business that is developed in whole or in part with federal funds subject to the Bayh-Dole Act, our ability to enforce or otherwise exploit patents covering such technology may be adversely affected.

Additionally, we have and may continue to collaborate with academic institutions to accelerate our preclinical research or development under written agreements with these institutions. In certain cases, these institutions provide us with an option to negotiate a license to any of the institution’s rights in technology resulting from the collaboration. Regardless of such option, we may be unable to negotiate a license within the specified timeframe or under terms that are acceptable to us. If we are unable to do so, the institution may offer the intellectual property rights to others, potentially blocking our ability to pursue our program. If we are unable to successfully obtain rights to required third-party intellectual property or to maintain the existing intellectual property rights we have, we may have to abandon development of such program and our business and financial condition could suffer.

Further, our future intellectual property license agreements may impose on us various development, regulatory and/or commercial diligence obligations, payment of milestones, royalties or other amounts and other obligations. If we fail to comply with our obligations under these agreements (including as a result of COVID-19 impacting our operations), we use the licensed intellectual property in an unauthorized manner or we are subject to bankruptcy-related proceedings, the terms of the licenses may be materially modified, such as by rendering currently exclusive licenses non-exclusive, or it may give our future licensors the right to terminate their respective agreement with us, which could limit our ability to implement our current business plan and materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. In addition, disputes may arise between us and our future licensors regarding intellectual property subject to a license agreement, including: (i) the scope of rights granted under the license agreement and other interpretation-related issues; (ii) whether and the extent to which our technology and processes infringe on intellectual property of the licensor that is not subject to the license agreement; (iii) our right to sublicense patents and other rights to third parties; (iv) our diligence obligations with respect to the use of the licensed technology in relation to our development and commercialization of our product candidates, and what activities satisfy those diligence obligations; (v) our right to transfer or assign the license; and (vi) the ownership of inventions and know-how resulting from the joint creation or use of intellectual property by our future licensors and us and our partners. If disputes over intellectual property that we license in the future prevent or impair our ability

33

Table of Contents

to maintain our licensing arrangements on acceptable terms, we may not be able to successfully develop and commercialize the affected product candidates, which would have a material adverse effect on our business.

In addition, certain of our future agreements with third parties may limit or delay our ability to consummate certain transactions, may impact the value of those transactions, or may limit our ability to pursue certain activities. For example, we may in the future enter into license agreements that are not assignable or transferable, or that require the licensor’s express consent in order for an assignment or transfer to take place.

We may be involved in lawsuits or litigation to protect or enforce our patents or other intellectual property, which could result in substantial costs and liability and prevent us from commercializing our potential products.

Competitors may infringe our patents, trademarks or other intellectual property. To counter infringement or unauthorized use, we may be required to take legal action to enforce our patents against such infringing activity. Such enforcement proceedings against infringers can be expensive and time-consuming. Any such claims could provoke these parties to assert counterclaims against us, including claims alleging that we infringe their patents or other intellectual property rights. In addition, in an infringement proceeding, a court may decide that one or more of our patents is not valid or is unenforceable, or may refuse to stop the other party from using the technology at issue on the grounds that our patents do not cover the technology. Similarly, if we assert trademark infringement claims, a court may determine that the marks we have asserted are invalid or unenforceable or that the party against whom we have asserted trademark infringement has superior rights to the marks in question. In such a case, we could ultimately be forced to cease use of such marks. In any intellectual property litigation, even if we are successful, any award of monetary damages or other remedy we receive may not be commercially valuable. An adverse result in any litigation or defense proceedings could put one or more of our patents at risk of being invalidated, held unenforceable, or interpreted narrowly and could put our patent applications at risk of not issuing. Defense against these assertions, non-infringement, invalidity or unenforceability regardless of their merit, would involve substantial litigation expense and would be a substantial diversion of employee resources from our business. In the event of a successful claim of infringement against us, we may have to pay substantial damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees for willful infringement, obtain one or more licenses from third parties, pay royalties or redesign our infringing products, which may be impossible or require substantial time and monetary expenditure.

We may be required to protect our patents through procedures created to attack the validity of a patent at the USPTO. The USPTO hears post-grant proceedings, including post-grant review, inter partes review and derivation proceedings. Post-grant proceedings may be provoked by third parties or brought by the USPTO to determine the validity or priority of inventions with respect to our patents or patent applications. An adverse determination in any such submission or proceeding could reduce the scope or enforceability of, or invalidate, our patent rights, which could adversely affect our competitive position. Because of a lower evidentiary standard in USPTO proceedings compared to the evidentiary standard in United States federal courts necessary to invalidate a patent claim, a third party could potentially provide evidence in a USPTO proceeding sufficient for the USPTO to hold a claim invalid even though the same evidence would be insufficient to invalidate the claim if first presented in a district court action. Accordingly, a third party may attempt to use the USPTO procedures to invalidate our patent claims that would not have been invalidated if first challenged by the third party as a defendant in a district court action. An unfavorable outcome could result in a loss of our current patent rights and could require us to cease using the related technology or to attempt to license rights to it from the prevailing party. Our business could be harmed if the prevailing party does not offer us a license on commercially reasonable terms.

Even if resolved in our favor, litigation or other legal proceedings relating to our intellectual property rights may cause us to incur significant expenses, and could distract our technical and management personnel from their normal responsibilities. Such litigation or proceedings could substantially increase our operating losses and reduce the resources available for development activities or any future sales, marketing or distribution activities. We may not have sufficient financial or other resources to conduct such litigation or proceedings adequately. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of such litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their greater financial resources. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings could compromise our ability to compete in the marketplace. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation. In addition, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments. If securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a substantial adverse effect on the price of our common shares.

In addition, if our product candidates are found to infringe the intellectual property rights of third parties, these third parties may assert infringement claims against our licensees and other parties with whom we have business relationships, and we may be required

34

Table of Contents

to indemnify those parties for any damages they suffer as a result of these claims. The claims may require us to initiate or defend protracted and costly litigation on behalf of licensees and other parties regardless of the merits of these claims. If any of these claims succeed, we may be forced to pay damages on behalf of those parties or may be required to obtain licenses for the products they use.

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

Periodic maintenance fees on any issued patent are due to be paid to the USPTO and foreign countries may require the payment of maintenance fees or patent annuities during the lifetime of a patent application and/or any subsequent patent that issues from the application. The USPTO and various foreign governmental patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions during the patent application process and following the issuance of a patent. While an inadvertent lapse, including due to the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on us or our patent maintenance vendors, can in many cases be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules, there are situations in which noncompliance can result in abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application. Such noncompliance can result in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. Noncompliance events that could result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application include, but are not limited to, failure to respond to official actions within prescribed time limits, non-payment of fees and failure to properly legalize and submit formal documents. Such an event could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Any issued patents we own covering our product candidates could be narrowed or found invalid or unenforceable if challenged in court or before the administrative bodies in the United States or abroad, including the USPTO.

Any of our intellectual property rights could be challenged or invalidated despite measures we take to obtain patent and other intellectual property protection with respect to our product candidates and proprietary technology. For example, if we initiate legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent covering one of our product candidates, the defendant could counterclaim that the patent covering our product candidate, as applicable, is invalid and/or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the United States and in some other jurisdictions, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity and/or unenforceability are commonplace, and there are numerous grounds upon which a third party can assert invalidity or unenforceability of a patent. Grounds for a validity challenge could be an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, for example, lack of novelty, obviousness or non-enablement. Grounds for an unenforceability assertion could be an allegation that someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld material information from the USPTO or the applicable foreign counterpart, or made a misleading statement, during prosecution. A litigant or the USPTO itself could challenge our patents on this basis even if we believe that we have conducted our patent prosecution in accordance with the duty of candor and in good faith. The outcome following such a challenge is unpredictable.

Third parties may also raise similar claims before administrative bodies in the United States or abroad, even outside the context of litigation. Such mechanisms include re-examination, inter partes review, post-grant review and equivalent proceedings in foreign jurisdictions (such as opposition proceedings). Such proceedings could result in revocation or amendment to our patents in such a way that they no longer cover our product candidates.

The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. With respect to the validity question, for example, we cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior art, of which we, our patent counsel and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution. If a defendant were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity and/or unenforceability, or if we are otherwise unable to adequately protect our rights, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on our product candidates. Such a loss of patent protection could have a material adverse impact on our business and our ability to commercialize or license our technology and product candidates. Even if a defendant does not prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity and/or unenforceability, our patent claims may be construed in a manner that would limit our ability to enforce such claims against the defendant and others. The cost of defending such a challenge, particularly in a foreign jurisdiction, and any resulting loss of patent protection could have a material adverse impact on one or more of our product candidates and our business. Any efforts to enforce our intellectual property rights are also likely to be costly and may divert the efforts of our scientific and management personnel.

Changes to patent law in the United States and in foreign jurisdictions could diminish the value of patents in general, thereby impairing our ability to protect our products.

Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of the patent laws in the United States could increase the uncertainties and costs, and may diminish our ability to protect our inventions, obtain, maintain, and enforce our intellectual property rights and, more

35

Table of Contents

generally, could affect the value of our intellectual property or narrow the scope of our owned and licensed patents. Patent reform legislation in the United States and other countries, including the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (the Leahy-Smith Act), signed into law on September 16, 2011, could increase those uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents. The Leahy-Smith Act includes a number of significant changes to U.S. patent law. These include provisions that affect the way patent applications are prosecuted, redefine prior art and provide more efficient and cost-effective avenues for competitors to challenge the validity of patents. These include allowing third- party submission of prior art to the USPTO during patent prosecution and additional procedures to attack the validity of a patent by USPTO administered post-grant proceedings, including post-grant review, inter partes review, and derivation proceedings. Further, because of a lower evidentiary standard in these USPTO post-grant proceedings compared to the evidentiary standard in United States federal courts necessary to invalidate a patent claim, a third party could potentially provide evidence in a USPTO proceeding sufficient for the USPTO to hold a claim invalid even though the same evidence would be insufficient to invalidate the claim if first presented in a district court action. Accordingly, a third party may attempt to use the USPTO procedures to invalidate our patent claims that would not have been invalidated if first challenged by the third party as a defendant in a district court action. Thus, the Leahy-Smith Act and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

After March 2013, under the Leahy-Smith Act, the United States transitioned to a first inventor to file system in which, assuming that the other statutory requirements are met, the first inventor to file a patent application will be entitled to the patent on an invention regardless of whether a third-party was the first to invent the claimed invention. A third party that files a patent application in the USPTO after March 2013, but before we file an application covering the same invention, could therefore be awarded a patent covering an invention of ours even if we had made the invention before it was made by such third party. This will require us to be cognizant going forward of the time from invention to filing of a patent application. Since patent applications in the United States and most other countries are confidential for a period of time after filing or until issuance, we cannot be certain that we were the first to either (i) file any patent application related to our product candidates and other proprietary technologies we may develop or (ii) invent any of the inventions claimed in our or our licensor’s patents or patent applications. Even where we have a valid and enforceable patent, we may not be able to exclude others from practicing the claimed invention where the other party can show that they used the invention in commerce before our filing date or the other party benefits from a compulsory license. However, the Leahy-Smith Act and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Moreover, recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings have narrowed the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances and weakened the rights of patent owners in certain situations. In addition to increasing uncertainty with regard to our ability to obtain patents in the future, this combination of events has created uncertainty with respect to the value of patents, once obtained. Depending on decisions by the U.S. Congress, the federal courts, and the USPTO, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that would weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce our existing patents and patents that we might obtain in the future. We cannot predict how future decisions by the courts, Congress or the USPTO may impact the value of our patents. Changes in the laws and regulations governing patents in other jurisdictions could similarly have an adverse effect on our ability to obtain and effectively enforce our patent rights.

We may not be able to protect our intellectual property rights throughout the world, and different jurisdictions may grant patent rights of differing scope.

Certain of our key patent families have been filed in the United States; however, we have less robust intellectual property rights outside the United States, and, in particular, we may not be able to pursue patent coverage of our product candidates in certain countries outside of the United States. Filing, prosecuting and defending patents on product candidates in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and our intellectual property rights in some countries outside the United States may be less extensive than those in the United States. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as federal and state laws in the United States. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in all countries outside the United States, or from selling or importing products made using our inventions in and into the United States or other jurisdictions. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to develop their own products and further, may export otherwise infringing products to certain territories where we have patent protection, but enforcement is not as strong as that in the United States. These products may compete with our products and our patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing. Most of our

36

Table of Contents

patent portfolio is at the very early stage. We will need to decide whether and in which jurisdictions to pursue protection for the various inventions in our portfolio prior to applicable deadlines. We may decide to abandon national and regional patent applications before they are granted. The examination of each national or regional patent application is an independent proceeding. As a result, patent applications in the same family may issue as patents in some jurisdictions, such as in the United States, but may issue as patents with claims of different scope or may be refused in other jurisdictions. It is also quite common that depending on the country, the scope of patent protection may vary for the same product or technology. For example, certain jurisdictions do not allow for patent protection with respect to method of treatment.

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

Further, many countries have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner may be compelled to grant licenses to third parties. In addition, many countries limit the enforceability of patents against government agencies or government contractors. In these countries, the patent owner may have limited remedies, which could materially diminish the value of its patents. If we are forced to grant a license to third parties with respect to any patents relevant to our business, our competitive position in the relevant jurisdiction may be impaired and our business prospects may be materially adversely affected.

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

We may be subject to claims that former employees, collaborators or other third parties have an interest in our patents or other intellectual property as an inventor or co-inventor. The failure to name the proper inventors on a patent application can result in the patents issuing thereon being unenforceable. Inventorship disputes may arise from conflicting views regarding the contributions of different individuals named as inventors, the effects of foreign laws where foreign nationals are involved in the development of the subject matter of the patent, conflicting obligations of third parties involved in developing our product candidates or as a result of questions regarding co-ownership of potential joint inventions. Litigation may be necessary to resolve these and other claims challenging inventorship and/or ownership. Alternatively, or additionally, we may enter into agreements to clarify the scope of our rights in such intellectual property. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights, such as exclusive ownership of, or right to use, valuable intellectual property. Such an outcome could have a material adverse effect on our business. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management and other employees.

Our future licensors may have relied on third-party consultants or collaborators or on funds from third parties, such as the U.S. government, such that our future licensors are not the sole and exclusive owners of the patents we in-licensed. If other third parties have ownership rights or other rights to our future in-licensed patents, they may be able to license such patents to our competitors, and our competitors could market competing products and technology. This could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial conditions, results of operations, and prospects.

While it is our policy to require our employees and contractors who may be involved in the conception or development of intellectual property to execute agreements assigning such intellectual property to us, we may be unsuccessful in executing such an agreement with each party who, in fact, conceives or develops intellectual property that we regard as our own. The assignment of intellectual property rights may not be self-executing, or the assignment agreements may be breached, and we may be forced to bring claims against third parties, or defend claims that they may bring against us, to determine the ownership of what we regard as our intellectual property. Such claims could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

37

Table of Contents

We may be subject to claims that our employees, consultants or independent contractors have wrongfully used or disclosed confidential information or alleged trade secrets of third parties or competitors or are in breach of non-competition or non-solicitation agreements with our competitors or their former employers.

We have received confidential and proprietary information from third parties. In addition, as is common in the biotechnology, medical device and pharmaceutical industries, we employ individuals and engage the services of consultants who were previously employed or engaged at other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. Although no claims against us are currently pending, we may be subject to claims that we or our employees, consultants or independent contractors have inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed confidential information of these third parties or our employees’ former employers or our consultants’ or contractors’ current or former clients or customers. In addition, we may in the future be subject to claims that we caused an employee to breach the terms of his or her non-competition or non-solicitation agreement. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. Even if we are successful in defending against these claims, litigation could result in substantial cost and be a distraction to our management and employees. If we are not successful, in addition to paying monetary damages, we could lose access or exclusive access to valuable intellectual property rights or lose valuable personnel. Any litigation or the threat thereof may adversely affect our ability to hire employees. A loss of key personnel or their work product could hamper or prevent our ability to commercialize product candidates, which could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

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

We use and will continue to use registered and/or unregistered trademarks or trade names to brand and market ourselves and our products. Our trademarks or trade names may be challenged, infringed, circumvented or declared generic or determined to be infringing on other marks. We rely on both registration and common law protection for our trademarks. We may not be able to protect our rights to these trademarks and trade names or may be forced to stop using these names, which we need for name recognition by potential partners or customers in our markets of interest. During the trademark registration process, we may receive office actions from the USPTO objecting to the registration of our trademark. Although we would be given an opportunity to respond to those objections, we may be unable to overcome such rejections. In addition, in the USPTO and in comparable agencies in many foreign jurisdictions, third parties are given an opportunity to oppose pending trademark applications and/or to seek the cancellation of registered trademarks. Opposition or cancellation proceedings may be filed against our trademarks, and our trademarks may not survive such proceedings. If we are unable to establish name recognition based on our trademarks and trade names, we may not be able to compete effectively and our business may be adversely affected. Additionally, we may license our trademarks and trade names to third parties, such as distributors. Though these license agreements may provide guidelines for how our trademarks and trade names may be used, a breach of these agreements or misuse of our trademarks and tradenames by our licensees may jeopardize our rights in or diminish the goodwill associated with our trademarks and trade names.

Moreover, any name we have proposed to use with our product candidate in the United States must be approved by the FDA, regardless of whether we have registered it, or applied to register it, as a trademark. Similar requirements exist in Europe. The FDA typically conducts a review of proposed product names, including an evaluation of potential for confusion with other product names. If the FDA (or an equivalent administrative body in a foreign jurisdiction) objects to any of our proposed proprietary product names, it may be required to expend significant additional resources in an effort to identify a suitable substitute name that would qualify under applicable trademark laws, not infringe the existing rights of third parties and be acceptable to the FDA (or the relevant administrative body in a foreign jurisdiction). Furthermore, in many countries, owning and maintaining a trademark registration may not provide an adequate defense against a subsequent infringement claim asserted by the owner of a senior trademark.

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

The degree of future protection afforded by our intellectual property rights, whether owned or in-licensed, is uncertain because intellectual property rights have limitations, and may not adequately protect our business, provide a barrier to entry against our competitors or potential competitors, or permit us to maintain our competitive advantage. Moreover, if a third party has intellectual property rights that cover the practice of our technology, we may not be able to fully exercise or extract value from our intellectual property rights. The following examples are illustrative:

38

Table of Contents

Should any of these events occur, they could materially harm our business and the results of our operation.

Risks Related to Employee Matters and Managing Growth

We are highly dependent on our key personnel, and if we are not successful in attracting and retaining highly qualified personnel, we may not be able to successfully implement our business strategy.

Our ability to compete in the highly competitive biotechnology, medical device and pharmaceutical industries depends upon our ability to attract and retain highly qualified managerial, scientific and medical personnel. We are highly dependent on our management, scientific and medical personnel, including Uzi Sofer, our Chief Executive Officer. The loss of the services of any of our executive officers, other key employees and other scientific and medical advisors, and an inability to find suitable replacements, could result in delays in product development and harm our business.

We conduct the majority of our operations at our facility in Israel. The region is headquarters to many other biopharmaceutical and medical device companies and many academic and research institutions. Competition for skilled personnel in our market is intense and may limit our ability to hire and retain highly qualified personnel on acceptable terms or at all. Changes to Israeli or similar immigration and work authorization laws and regulations, including those that restrain the flow of scientific and professional talent, can be significantly affected by political forces and levels of economic activity. Our business may be materially adversely affected if legislative or administrative changes to Israeli or similar foreign immigration or visa laws and regulations, including as a result of the restrictions on international travel due to the global COVID-19 pandemic, impair our hiring processes and goals or projects involving personnel who are not Israeli citizens.

To encourage valuable employees to remain at our company, in addition to salary and cash incentives, we have provided stock options that vest over time. The value to employees of stock options that vest over time may be significantly affected by movements in our share price that are beyond our control, and may at any time be insufficient to counteract more lucrative offers from other companies. Despite our efforts to retain valuable employees, members of our management, scientific and development teams may terminate their employment with us on short notice. Although we have employment agreements with our key employees, these employment agreements provide for at-will employment, which means that any of our employees could leave our employment at any

39

Table of Contents

time, with or without notice. Our success also depends on our ability to continue to attract, retain and motivate highly skilled junior, mid-level and senior managers as well as junior, mid-level and senior scientific and medical personnel.

We will need to grow the size of our organization, and we may experience difficulties in managing this growth.

As our development and commercialization plans and strategies develop, and as we transition into operating as a public company, we expect to need additional managerial, operational, sales, marketing, financial and other personnel, as well as additional facilities to expand our operations. Future growth would impose significant added responsibilities on members of management, including:

Our future financial performance and our ability to commercialize our product candidates will depend, in part, on our ability to effectively manage any future growth, and our management may also have to divert a disproportionate amount of its attention away from day-to-day activities in order to devote a substantial amount of time to managing these growth activities.

We currently rely, and for the foreseeable future will continue to rely, in substantial part on certain independent organizations, advisors and consultants to provide certain services, including certain aspects of regulatory approval, clinical trial management and construction of manufacturing facilities. There can be no assurance that the services of independent organizations, advisors and consultants will continue to be available to us on a timely basis when needed, or that we can find qualified replacements. In addition, if we are unable to effectively manage our outsourced activities or if the quality or accuracy of the services provided by consultants is compromised for any reason, our clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated, and we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval or certification of our Alpha DaRT technology or other future products or product candidates or otherwise advance our business. There can be no assurance that we will be able to manage our existing consultants or find other competent outside contractors and consultants on economically reasonable terms, or at all. If we are not able to effectively expand our organization by hiring new employees and expanding our groups of consultants and contractors, or we are not able to effectively build out new facilities to accommodate this expansion, we may not be able to successfully implement the tasks necessary to further develop and commercialize our product candidates and, accordingly, may not achieve our research, development and commercialization goals.

Expectations relating to environmental, social and governance (ESG) programs may impose additional costs and expose us to new risks.

There is an increasing focus from certain investors, clients and other key stakeholders concerning corporate responsibility, specifically related to environmental, social and governance, or ESG, factors. As a result, there is an increased emphasis on corporate responsibility ratings and a number of third parties provide reports on companies in order to measure and assess corporate responsibility performance. In addition, the ESG factors by which companies’ corporate responsibility practices are assessed may change, which could result in greater expectations of us and cause us to undertake costly initiatives to satisfy such new criteria. Alternatively, if we are unable to satisfy such new criteria, investors may conclude that our policies with respect to corporate responsibility are inadequate. We risk damage to our brand and reputation if our corporate responsibility procedures or standards do not meet the standards set by various constituencies. We may be required to make investments in matters related to ESG, which could be significant and adversely impact our results of operations. Furthermore, if our competitors’ corporate responsibility performance is perceived to be greater than ours, potential or current investors may elect to invest with our competitors instead. In addition, if we communicate certain initiatives and goals regarding ESG matters, we could fail, or be perceived to fail, in our achievement of such initiatives or goals, or we could be criticized for the scope of such initiatives or goals. If we fail to satisfy the expectations of investors and other key stakeholders or our initiatives are not executed as planned, our reputation and financial results could be materially and adversely affected.

40

Table of Contents

We may explore strategic collaborations that may never materialize or we may be required to relinquish important rights to and control over the development and commercialization of our product candidates to any future collaborators.

Our business strategy includes broadening our platform by potentially exploring strategic partnerships that maximize the potential of our Alpha DaRT technology. As a result, we intend to periodically explore a variety of possible strategic partnerships in an effort to gain access to additional resources, indications or combination therapy opportunities, or development of supportive or complementary products. These strategic partnerships may include partnerships with large strategic partners. At the current time however, we cannot predict what form such a strategic collaboration might take. We are likely to face significant competition in seeking appropriate strategic collaborators, and strategic collaborations can be complicated and time consuming to negotiate and document. We may not be able to negotiate strategic collaborations on acceptable terms, if at all. If and when we collaborate with a third party for development and commercialization of a product candidate, we can expect to relinquish some or all of the control over the future success of our Alpha DaRT technology to the third party. We are unable to predict when, if ever, we will enter into any strategic partnerships because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with establishing them, including:

Strategic partners may also delay clinical trials, experience financial difficulties, provide insufficient funding, terminate a clinical trial or abandon an indication or combination therapy, which could negatively impact our development efforts. Additionally, strategic partners may not properly maintain, enforce or defend our intellectual property rights or may use our proprietary information in a manner that could jeopardize or invalidate our proprietary information or expose us to potential litigation, any of which could adversely affect our business, financial position and operations.

Our information technology systems, or those of any of our existing or potential future collaborators, trial sites, CROs or other contractors or consultants, may fail or suffer system failures and security breaches, which could result in a material disruption of our product development programs.

We collect and maintain information in digital form that is necessary to conduct our business, and we are increasingly dependent on information technology systems and infrastructure to operate our business. In the ordinary course of our business, we collect, store and transmit large amounts of confidential information, including intellectual property, proprietary business information and personal information of our customers, employees and other related third parties. It is critical that we do so in a secure manner to maintain the confidentiality and integrity of such confidential information.

Despite the implementation of security measures, our information technology systems and those of our current and any future trial sites, CROs and other contractors, consultants and collaborators are vulnerable to damage from cyberattacks, “phishing” attacks and other social engineering schemes, hacking, computer viruses and malware (e.g. ransomware), unauthorized access, natural disasters, terrorism, war and telecommunication and electrical failures, employee theft or misuse, human error, fraud, denial or degradation of service attacks, sophisticated nation-state and nation-state-supported actors, or unauthorized access or use by persons inside our organization, or persons with access to systems inside our organization. Attacks upon information technology systems are increasing in their frequency, levels of persistence, sophistication and intensity, and are being conducted by sophisticated and organized groups and individuals with a wide range of motives and expertise. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, we may also face increased cybersecurity risks due to our reliance on internet technology and the number of our employees and collaborators who are working remotely, which may create additional opportunities for cybercriminals to exploit vulnerabilities. Furthermore, because the techniques used to obtain unauthorized access to, or to sabotage systems change frequently and often are not recognized until launched against a target, we may be unable to anticipate these techniques or implement adequate preventative measures. We may also experience security breaches that may remain undetected for an extended period. Even if identified, we may be unable to adequately investigate or remediate incidents or breaches due to attackers increasingly using tools and techniques that are designed to circumvent controls, to avoid detection, and to remove or obfuscate forensic evidence.

41

Table of Contents

We and certain of our service providers are from time to time subject to cyberattacks and security incidents. While we do not believe that we have experienced any significant system failure, accident or security breach to date, if such an event were to occur and cause interruptions in our operations, it could result in a material disruption of our development programs, whether due to a loss of our trade secrets or other similar disruptions. For example, the loss of clinical trial data from completed or future clinical trials could result in delays in our efforts to obtain marketing authorization or certification and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data. In addition, such a breach may require notification to governmental agencies, the media or individuals pursuant to applicable data privacy and security law and regulations. We would also be exposed to a risk of loss, including financial assets or litigation and potential liability, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. We also rely on third parties to manufacture our product candidates, and similar events relating to their computer systems could also have a material adverse effect on our business. To the extent that any disruption or security breach were to result in a loss of, or damage to, our data or applications, or inappropriate disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, we could incur liability and the further development and commercialization of our product candidates could be delayed.

If our security measures are breached or unauthorized access to individually identifiable health information or other personally identifiable information is otherwise obtained, our reputation may be harmed, and we may incur significant liabilities.

Unauthorized access to, or security breaches of, our systems and databases could result in unauthorized access to data and information and loss, compromise or corruption of such data and information. Present and future trial sites, CROs, contractors and consultants also could experience breaches of security leading to the exposure of confidential and sensitive information. Such breaches of security could be caused by computer hacking, phishing attacks, ransomware, dissemination of computer viruses, worms and other destructive or disruptive software, denial of service attacks, and other malicious activity, which may be heretofore unknown. The number and complexity of these threats continue to increase over time.

Most healthcare providers, including research institutions from which we obtain patient health information, are subject to privacy and security regulations promulgated under HIPAA, as amended by the HITECH. We are not currently classified as a covered entity or business associate under HIPAA and thus are not directly subject to its requirements or penalties. However, any person may be prosecuted under HIPAA’s criminal provisions either directly or under aiding-and-abetting or conspiracy principles. Consequently, depending on the facts and circumstances, we could face substantial criminal penalties if we knowingly receive individually identifiable health information from a HIPAA-covered healthcare provider or research institution that has not satisfied HIPAA’s requirements for disclosure of individually identifiable health information. In addition, we may in the future maintain sensitive personally identifiable information, including health information, that we receive throughout the clinical trial process, in the course of our research collaborations, and directly from individuals (or their healthcare providers) who enroll in our patient assistance programs. As such, we may be subject to state laws requiring notification of affected individuals and state regulators in the event of a breach of personal information, which is a broader class of information than the health information protected by HIPAA.

Furthermore, certain health privacy laws, data breach notification laws, consumer protection laws and genetic testing laws may apply directly to our operations and/or those of our collaborators and may impose restrictions on our collection, use and dissemination of individuals’ health information. Patients about whom we or our collaborators obtain health information, as well as the providers who share this information with us, may have statutory or contractual rights that limit our ability to use and disclose the information. We may be required to expend significant capital and other resources to ensure ongoing compliance with applicable privacy and data security laws. Claims that we have violated individuals’ privacy rights or breached our contractual obligations, even if we are not found liable, could be expensive and time-consuming to defend and could result in adverse publicity that could harm our business.

In the event of a security breach, our company could suffer loss of business, severe reputational damage adversely affecting investor confidence, regulatory investigations and orders, litigation, indemnity obligations, damages for contract breach, penalties for violation of applicable laws or regulations, significant costs for remediation and other liabilities. For example, the loss of preclinical study or clinical trial data from completed or future preclinical studies or clinical trials could result in delays in our efforts to obtain marketing authorization or certification and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data. To the extent that any disruption or security breach were to result in a loss of, or damage to, our data or applications, or inappropriate disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, we could incur liability and the further development and commercialization of our product candidates could be delayed.

We have incurred and expect to incur significant expenses to prevent security breaches, including costs related to deploying additional personnel and protection technologies, training employees, and engaging third- party solution providers and consultants. Although we expend significant resources to create security protections that shield our data against potential theft and security

42

Table of Contents

breaches, such measures cannot provide absolute security. Moreover, given that we have outsourced our information systems to vendors and rely on cloud-based information systems, we face related security risks which require us to expend resources to protect our technology and information systems.

Business disruptions could seriously harm our future revenue and financial condition and increase our costs and expenses.

Our operations, and those of our CROs, CMOs and other contractors and consultants, could be subject to earthquakes, power shortages, telecommunications failures, water shortages, floods, hurricanes, typhoons, fires, extreme weather conditions, medical epidemics and other natural or man-made disasters or business interruptions, for which we are predominantly self-insured. The occurrence of any of these business disruptions could seriously harm our operations and financial condition and increase our costs and expenses. Our ability to obtain clinical supplies of our product candidates could be disrupted if the operations of these suppliers are affected by a man-made or natural disaster or other business interruption.

We are an international business, and we are exposed to various global risks that could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

As an international business, which operates in multiple jurisdictions, we are exposed to trends and financial risks of international markets, and are also required to comply with varying legal and regulatory requirements in such multiple jurisdictions. Profitability from international operations may be limited by risks and uncertainties related to regional and global economic conditions, regulatory clearances, approvals or certifications and reimbursement approvals, and our ability to implement our overall business strategy in various jurisdictions. We expect these risks will increase as we pursue our strategy to expand operations into new geographic markets. We may not succeed in developing and implementing effective policies and strategies in each location where we conduct business. Any failure to do so may harm our business, results of operations and financial condition.

International sales and operations are subject to a variety of risks, including:

43

Table of Contents

International markets are also affected by economic pressure to contain reimbursement levels and healthcare costs. Profitability from international operations may be limited by risks and uncertainties related to regional economic conditions, regulatory clearances and approvals and reimbursement approvals, competing products, infrastructure development, intellectual property rights protection and our ability to implement our overall business strategy. We expect these risks will increase as we pursue our strategy to expand operations into new geographic markets. We may not succeed in developing and implementing effective policies and strategies in each location where we conduct business. Any failure to do so may harm our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Further, as a result of escalating tensions and the subsequent invasion of Ukraine by Russia, the United States and other countries have imposed sanctions on Russia, including its major financial institutions and certain other businesses and individuals. Russia may respond in kind, and the continuation of the conflict may result in additional sanctions being enacted by the United States, other North Atlantic Treaty Organization member states, or other countries. We cannot predict the impact of Russian activities in Ukraine and any heightened military conflict or geopolitical instability that may follow, including heightened operating risks and production disruptions in Russia and Europe, additional sanctions or counter-sanctions, heightened inflation, cyber disruptions or attacks, higher energy costs, higher manufacturing costs, disruptions in raw materials supplies, increased raw material costs and higher supply chain costs. Although we do not presently foresee direct material adverse effects upon our business, financial condition, or results of operations as a result of developments in Ukraine and the consequent controls and sanctions, these factors may affect companies in many sectors and could lead to increased market volatility and uncertainty, which could affect us in turn.

If product liability lawsuits are brought against us, we may incur substantial liabilities and may be required to limit commercialization of our product candidates.

We face an inherent risk of product liability as a result of the planned clinical testing of our product candidates and will face an even greater risk if we commercialize any products. For example, we may be sued if our Alpha DaRT technology or any future products or product candidates we develop, cause or are perceived to cause injury or are found to be otherwise unsuitable during clinical trials, manufacturing, marketing or sale. Any such product liability claims may include allegations of defects in manufacturing, defects in design, a failure to warn of dangers inherent in the product (which may include inherent dangers in the use of radioactive materials), negligence, strict liability or a breach of warranties. Claims could also be asserted under state consumer protection acts. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against product liability claims, we may incur substantial liabilities or be required to limit commercialization of our product candidates. Even successful defense would require significant financial and management resources. Regardless of the merits or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in:

44

Table of Contents

Failure to obtain or retain sufficient product liability insurance at an acceptable cost to protect against potential product liability claims could prevent or inhibit the commercialization of products we develop, alone or with corporate collaborators. Although we have clinical trial insurance, our insurance policies also have various exclusions, and we may be subject to a product liability claim for which we have no coverage. We may have to pay any amounts awarded by a court or negotiated in a settlement that exceed our coverage limitations or that are not covered by our insurance, and we may not have, or be able to obtain, sufficient capital to pay such amounts. Even if our agreements with any future corporate collaborators entitle us to indemnification against losses, such indemnification may not be available or adequate should any claim arise.

The increasing use of social media platforms presents new risks and challenges.

Social media is increasingly being used to communicate about our clinical development programs for our Alpha DaRT technology and the diseases our technology is being developed to treat, and we intend to utilize appropriate social media in connection with our commercialization efforts following marketing authorization or certification of our Alpha DaRT technology or other future products or product candidates, if any. Social media practices in the medical device, biotechnology and biopharmaceutical industries continue to evolve and regulations and regulatory guidance relating to such use are evolving and not always clear. This evolution creates uncertainty and risk of noncompliance with regulations applicable to our business, resulting in potential regulatory actions against us, along with the potential for litigation related to off-label marketing or other prohibited activities and heightened scrutiny by the FDA, the SEC and other regulators. For example, patients may use social media channels to comment on their experience in a future blinded clinical trial or to report an alleged adverse event. If such disclosures occur, there is a risk that trial enrollment may be adversely impacted, that we may fail to monitor and comply with applicable adverse event reporting obligations or that we may not

be able to defend our business or the public’s legitimate interests in the face of the political and market pressures generated by social media due to restrictions on what we may say about our Alpha DaRT technology or other future products or product candidates. There is also a risk of inappropriate disclosure of sensitive information or negative or inaccurate posts or comments about us on any social networking website. In addition, we may encounter attacks on social media regarding our company, management, our Alpha DaRT technology or other future products or product candidates. If any of these events were to occur or we otherwise fail to comply with applicable regulations, we could incur liability, face regulatory actions or incur other harm to our business.

Our business could be disrupted by catastrophic events.

Occurrence of any catastrophic event, including a global pandemic like the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, earthquake, fire, flood, tsunami or other weather event, power loss, telecommunications failure, software or hardware malfunction, cyber-attack, war or terrorist attack, explosion or pandemic could impact our business. Our insurance coverage may not compensate us for losses that may occur in the event of an earthquake or other significant natural disaster. If any disaster were to occur, our ability to operate our business at our facilities could be impaired and we could incur significant losses, require substantial recovery time and experience significant expenditures in order to resume operations. If we are unable to develop adequate plans to ensure that our business functions continue to operate during and after a disaster and to execute successfully on those plans in the event of a disaster or emergency, our business would be harmed.

Risks Related to Being a Public Company

We are incurring increased costs as a result of operating as a newly public company, and our management will devote substantial time to new compliance initiatives.

As a newly public company subject to reporting requirements in the United States, we are incurring significant legal, accounting and other expenses that we did not incur as a private company, and these expenses may increase even more after we are no longer an emerging growth company, as defined in Section 2(a) of the Securities Act. As a public company, we are subject to the reporting requirements of the Exchange Act, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, as well as rules adopted, and to be adopted, by the SEC and Nasdaq. Our management and other personnel will need to devote a substantial amount of time to these compliance initiatives. Moreover, these rules and regulations have substantially increased our legal and financial compliance costs and to make some activities more time-consuming and costly. The increased costs will increase our net loss. For example, we expect these rules and regulations to make it more difficult and more expensive for us to obtain director and officer liability insurance and we may be forced to accept reduced policy limits or incur substantially higher costs to maintain the

45

Table of Contents

same or similar coverage. We cannot predict or estimate the amount or timing of additional costs we may incur to respond to these requirements. The impact of these requirements could also make it more difficult for us to attract and retain qualified persons to serve on our board of directors, our board committees or as executive officers.

A market for our securities may not develop or be sustained, which would adversely affect the liquidity and price of our securities.

The price of our securities may fluctuate significantly due to general market and economic conditions. An active trading market for our securities may never develop or, if developed, it may not be sustained. In addition, the price of our securities can vary due to general economic conditions and forecasts, our general business condition and the release of our financial reports. Additionally, if our securities become delisted from Nasdaq and are quoted on the OTC Bulletin Board (an inter-dealer automated quotation system for equity securities that is not a national securities exchange) or the combined company’s securities are not listed on Nasdaq and are quoted on the OTC Bulletin Board, the liquidity and price of our securities may be more limited than if we were quoted or listed on the NYSE, Nasdaq or another national securities exchange. You may be unable to sell your securities unless a market can be established or sustained.

Our internal controls over financial reporting may not be effective and our independent registered public accounting firm may not be able to certify as to their effectiveness, which could have a significant and adverse effect on our business and reputation.

We are subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Act, the Exchange Act, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the rules and regulations of Nasdaq. We expect that the requirements of these rules and regulations will continue to increase our legal, accounting and financial compliance costs, make some activities more difficult, time-consuming and costly, and place significant strain on our personnel, systems and resources.

The applicable provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act require, among other things, that we maintain effective disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting. We are continuing to develop and refine our disclosure controls, internal control over financial reporting and other procedures that are designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed by us in the reports that we will file with the SEC is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in SEC rules and forms, and that information required to be disclosed in reports under the Exchange Act is accumulated and communicated to our principal executive and financial officers.

Our current controls and any new controls that we develop may become inadequate because of changes in conditions of our business. Further, weaknesses in our internal controls may be discovered in the future. Any failure to develop or maintain effective controls, or any difficulties encountered in their implementation or improvement, could adversely affect our operating results or cause us to fail to meet reporting obligations and may result in a restatement of our financial statements for prior periods. Any failure to implement and maintain effective internal controls also could adversely affect the results of periodic management evaluations and annual independent registered public accounting firm attestation reports regarding the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting that is required to include in the periodic reports we will file with the SEC under Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Ineffective disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting could also cause investors to lose confidence in our reported financial and other information.

In order to maintain and improve the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting, we have expended and anticipate that we will continue to expend significant resources, including accounting-related costs, and provide significant management oversight. Any failure to maintain the adequacy of our internal controls, or consequent inability to produce accurate financial statements on a timely basis, could increase our operating costs and could materially and adversely affect our ability to operate our business. In the event that our internal controls are perceived as inadequate or that we are unable to produce timely or accurate financial statements, investors may lose confidence in our operating results and the share price of the combined company could decline. In addition, if we are unable to continue to meet these requirements, we may not be able to maintain listing on Nasdaq.

Our independent registered public accounting firm is not required to formally attest to the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting until after we are no longer an emerging growth company. At such time, our independent registered public accounting firm may issue a report that is adverse in the event it is not satisfied with the level at which our controls are documented, designed or operating. Any failure to maintain effective disclosure controls and internal control over financial reporting could have a material and adverse effect on our business and operating results.

46

Table of Contents

Risks Related to Ownership of Our Ordinary Shares

Our Articles and Israeli law could prevent a takeover that shareholders consider favorable and could also reduce the market price of our ordinary shares.

Certain provisions of Israeli law and our Articles could have the effect of delaying or preventing a change in control and may make it more difficult for a third party to acquire us or for our shareholders to elect different individuals to its board of directors, even if doing so would be beneficial to its shareholders, and may limit the price that investors may be willing to pay in the future for the our ordinary shares. Among other things:

Furthermore, under the Encouragement of Research, Development and Technological Innovation in the Industry Law 5744-1984 (formerly known as the Law for the Encouragement of Research and Development in Industry 5744-1984), and the regulations and guidelines promulgated thereunder, or the Innovation Law, to which we are subject due to our receipt of grants from the Israel Innovation Authority, or IIA (formerly known as the Office of the Chief Scientist of the Ministry of Economy and Industry, or the OCS), a recipient of IIA grants such as us must report to the IIA regarding any change of control of the company or regarding any change in the holding of the means of control of the company which results in any non-Israeli citizen or entity becoming an “interested party”, as defined in the Innovation Law, in the company, and in the latter event, the non-Israeli citizen or entity will be required to execute an undertaking in favor of IIA, in a form prescribed by IIA, acknowledging the restrictions imposed by such law and agreeing to abide by its terms.

Further, Israeli tax considerations may make potential transactions undesirable to us or to some of our shareholders whose country of residence does not have a tax treaty with Israel granting tax relief to such shareholders from Israeli tax. See the section titled “Certain Material Israeli Tax Considerations—Taxation of Our shareholders.”

47

Table of Contents

We do not intend to pay dividends for the foreseeable future. Accordingly, you may not receive any return on investment unless you sell your ordinary shares for a price greater than the price you paid for such shares.

We have never declared or paid any cash dividends on our shares. We currently intend to retain all available funds and any future earnings for use in the operation of our business and do not anticipate paying any dividends on our ordinary shares in the foreseeable future. Consequently, you may be unable to realize a gain on your investment except by selling such shares after price appreciation, which may never occur.

Our board of directors has sole discretion whether to pay dividends. If our board of directors decides to pay dividends, the form, frequency, and amount will depend upon its future, operations and earnings, capital requirements and surplus, general financial condition, contractual restrictions and other factors that its directors may deem relevant. The Israeli Companies Law, 1999 (the “Companies Law”) imposes restrictions on our ability to declare and pay dividends. See the section titled "Dividend and Liquidation Rights" in Exhibit 2.1 to this Annual Report. Payment of dividends may also be subject to Israeli withholding taxes. See the section titled “Certain Material Israeli Tax Considerations” for additional information.

The market price and trading volume of our ordinary shares may be volatile and could decline significantly.

The stock markets, including Nasdaq on which we have listed our ordinary shares and our warrants under the symbol “DRTS,” and “DRTSW,” respectively, have from time to time experienced significant price and volume fluctuations. Even if an active, liquid and orderly trading market develops and is sustained for our ordinary shares and our warrants, the market price of our ordinary shares and our warrants may be volatile and could decline significantly. In addition, the trading volume in our ordinary shares and our warrants may fluctuate and cause significant price variations to occur. If the market price of our ordinary shares and our warrants declines significantly, you may be unable to resell your shares or warrants at or above the market price of the ordinary shares and warrants as of the date immediately following the date of this Annual Report. We cannot assure you that the market price of our ordinary shares and our warrants will not fluctuate widely or decline significantly in the future in response to a number of factors, including, among others, the following:

48

Table of Contents

In the past, securities class-action litigation has often been instituted against companies following periods of volatility in the market price of their shares. This type of litigation could result in substantial costs and divert our management’s attention and resources, which could have a material adverse effect on us.

Our quarterly operating results may fluctuate significantly and could fall below the expectations of securities analysts and investors due to seasonality and other factors, some of which are beyond our control, resulting in a decline in its stock price.

Our quarterly operating results may fluctuate significantly because of several factors, including:

If securities or industry analysts do not publish or cease publishing research or reports about us, our business, or our market, or if they change their recommendations regarding our ordinary shares adversely, then the price and trading volume of our ordinary shares could decline.

The trading market for the ordinary shares will be influenced by the research and reports that industry or financial analysts publish about its business. Alpha Tau does not control these analysts, or the content and opinions included in their reports. As a new public company, Alpha Tau may be slow to attract research coverage and the analysts who publish information about the ordinary shares will have had relatively little experience with Alpha Tau, which could affect their ability to accurately forecast Alpha Tau’s results and make it more likely that Alpha Tau fails to meet their estimates. In the event Alpha Tau obtains industry or financial analyst coverage, if any of the analysts who cover Alpha Tau issues an inaccurate or unfavorable opinion regarding it, Alpha Tau’s share price would likely decline. If one or more of these analysts cease coverage of Alpha Tau or fail to publish reports on it regularly, Alpha Tau’s visibility in the financial markets could decrease, which in turn could cause its share price or trading volume to decline.

Our failure to meet the continued listing requirements of Nasdaq could result in a delisting of its

Securities.

If we fail to continue to satisfy the continued listing requirements of Nasdaq such as the corporate governance requirements or the minimum closing bid price requirement, Nasdaq may take steps to delist its securities. Such a delisting would likely have a negative effect on the price of the securities and would impair your ability to sell or purchase the securities when you wish to do so. In the event of a delisting, Alpha Tau can provide no assurance that any action taken by it to restore compliance with listing requirements would allow its securities to become listed again, stabilize the market price or improve the liquidity of its securities, prevent its securities from dropping below the Nasdaq minimum bid price requirement or prevent future non-compliance with Nasdaq’s listing requirements. Additionally, if Alpha Tau’s securities are not listed on, or become delisted from, Nasdaq for any reason, and are quoted on the OTC Bulletin Board, an inter-dealer automated quotation system for equity securities that is not a national securities exchange, the liquidity and price of Alpha Tau’s securities may be more limited than if it were quoted or listed on Nasdaq or another national securities exchange. You may be unable to sell your securities unless a market can be established or sustained.

49

Table of Contents

We are eligible to be treated as an emerging growth company, as defined in the Securities Act, and we cannot be certain if the reduced disclosure requirements applicable to emerging growth companies will make our ordinary shares less attractive to investors because we may rely on these reduced disclosure requirements.

We qualify as an emerging growth company within the meaning of the Securities Act, and we take advantage of certain exemptions from disclosure requirements available to emerging growth companies, which could make our securities less attractive to investors and may make it more difficult to compare our performance with other public companies.

We are eligible to be treated as an emerging growth company, as defined in Section 2(a) of the Securities Act, as modified by the JOBS Act. Under the JOBS Act, emerging growth companies can delay adopting new or revised financial accounting standards until such time as those standards apply to private companies. Alpha Tau intends to take advantage of this extended transition period under the JOBS Act for adopting new or revised financial accounting standards.

For as long as we continue to be an emerging growth company, we may also take advantage of certain exemptions from various reporting requirements that are applicable to other public companies that are not emerging growth companies, including presenting only limited selected financial data and not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. As a result, its shareholders may not have access to certain information that they may deem important. Alpha Tau could be an emerging growth company for up to five years, although circumstances could cause it to lose that status earlier, including if its total annual gross revenue exceeds $1.07 billion, if it issues more than $1.0 billion in non-convertible debt securities during any three-year period, or if before that time it is a “large accelerated filer” under U.S. securities laws.

Alpha Tau cannot predict if investors will find ordinary shares less attractive because it may rely on these exemptions. If some investors find ordinary shares less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for ordinary shares and Alpha Tau’s share price may be more volatile. Further, there is no guarantee that the exemptions available to Alpha Tau under the JOBS Act will result in significant savings. To the extent that Alpha Tau chooses not to use exemptions from various reporting requirements under the JOBS Act, it will incur additional compliance costs, which may impact Alpha Tau’s financial condition.

We are a foreign private issuer and, as a result, we will not be subject to U.S. proxy rules and will be subject to Exchange Act reporting obligations that, to some extent, are more lenient and less frequent than those of a U.S. domestic public company.

We report under the Exchange Act as a non-U.S. company with foreign private issuer status. We qualify as a foreign private issuer under the Exchange Act, we are exempt from certain provisions of the Exchange Act that are applicable to U.S. domestic public companies, including (1) the sections of the Exchange Act regulating the solicitation of proxies, consents or authorizations in respect of a security registered under the Exchange Act, (2) the sections of the Exchange Act requiring insiders to file public reports of their share ownership and trading activities and liability for insiders who profit from trades made in a short period of time and (3) the rules under the Exchange Act requiring the filing with the SEC of quarterly reports on Form 10-Q containing unaudited financial and other specified information, although it is subject to Israeli laws and regulations with regard to certain of these matters and intend to furnish comparable quarterly information on Form 6-K. In addition, foreign private issuers are not required to file their annual report on Form 20-F until 120 days after the end of each fiscal year, while U.S. domestic issuers that are accelerated filers are required to file their annual report on Form 10-K within 75 days after the end of each fiscal year and U.S. domestic issuers that are large accelerated filers are required to file their annual report on Form 10-K within 60 days after the end of each fiscal year. Foreign private issuers are also exempt from Regulation FD, which is intended to prevent issuers from making selective disclosures of material information. As a result of all of the above, you may not have the same protections afforded to shareholders of a company that is not a foreign private issuer.

We may lose our foreign private issuer status in the future, which could result in significant additional costs and expenses.

As discussed above, Alpha Tau is a foreign private issuer, and therefore is not required to comply with all of the periodic disclosure and current reporting requirements of the Exchange Act. The determination of foreign private issuer status is made annually on the last business day of an issuer’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter, and, accordingly, the next determination will be made with respect to Alpha Tau on June 30, 2022. In the future, Alpha Tau would lose its foreign private issuer status if (1) more than 50% of its outstanding voting securities are owned by U.S. residents and (2) a majority of its directors or executive officers are U.S. citizens or residents, or it fails to meet additional requirements necessary to avoid loss of foreign private issuer status. If Alpha Tau loses its foreign private issuer status, it will be required to file with the SEC periodic reports and registration statements on U.S. domestic issuer forms, which are more detailed and extensive than the forms available to a foreign private issuer. Alpha Tau would

50

Table of Contents

also have to mandatorily comply with U.S. federal proxy requirements, and its officers, directors and principal shareholders will become subject to the short-swing profit disclosure and recovery provisions of Section 16 of the Exchange Act. In addition, it would lose its ability to rely upon exemptions from certain corporate governance requirements under the listing rules of Nasdaq. As a U.S. listed public company that is not a foreign private issuer, Alpha Tau would incur significant additional legal, accounting and other expenses that it will not incur as a foreign private issuer.

As we are a “foreign private issuer” and follow certain home country corporate governance practices, our shareholders may not have the same protections afforded to shareholders of companies that are subject to all Nasdaq corporate governance requirements.

As a foreign private issuer we have the option to follow certain home country corporate governance practices rather than those of Nasdaq, provided that we disclose the requirements we are not following and describes the home country practices we are following. We intend to rely on this “foreign private issuer exemption” with respect to the Nasdaq rules for shareholder meeting quorums and Nasdaq rules requiring shareholder approval. We may in the future elect to follow home country practices with regard to other matters. As a result, our shareholders may not have the same protections afforded to shareholders of companies that are subject to all Nasdaq corporate governance requirements.

Our Amended and Restated Articles of Association provide that unless we consent to an alternate forum, the federal district courts of the United States shall be the exclusive forum of resolution of any claims arising under the Securities Act.

Our Amended and Restated Articles of Association (the “Articles”) provide that, unless Alpha Tau consents in writing to the selection of an alternative forum, the federal district courts of the United States shall be the sole and exclusive forum for any claim asserting a cause of action arising under the Securities Act (for the avoidance of any doubt, such provision does not apply to any claim asserting a cause of action arising under the Exchange Act). Section 22 of the Securities Act creates concurrent jurisdiction for federal and state courts over all such Securities Act actions. Accordingly, both U.S. state and federal courts have jurisdiction to entertain such claims. This choice of forum provision may limit a shareholder’s ability to bring a claim in a judicial forum that it finds favorable for disputes with Alpha Tau or our directors, officers or other employees and may increase the costs associated with such lawsuits, which may discourage such lawsuits against Alpha Tau and our directors, officers and employees. Alternatively, if a court were to find these provisions of the Articles inapplicable to, or unenforceable in respect of, one or more of the specified types of actions or proceedings, Alpha Tau may incur additional costs associated with resolving such matters in other jurisdictions, which could adversely affect Alpha Tau’s business and financial condition. Any person or entity purchasing or otherwise acquiring any interest in Alpha Tau’s share capital shall be deemed to have notice of and to have consented to the choice of forum provisions of the Articles described above. This provision would not apply to suits brought to enforce a duty or liability created by the Exchange Act or any other claim for which the U.S. federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction.

The listing of our securities on Nasdaq did not benefit from the process undertaken in connection with an underwritten initial public offering, which could result in diminished investor demand, inefficiencies in pricing and a more volatile public price for Alpha Tau’s securities.

Alpha Tau’s ordinary shares and warrants are listed on Nasdaq under the symbols “DRTS” and “DRTSW,” respectively. Unlike an underwritten initial public offering of the Alpha Tau securities, the initial listing of Alpha Tau’s securities as a result of the Business Combination did not benefit from the following:

Underwriters have liability under the U.S. securities laws for material misstatements or omissions in a registration statement pursuant to which an issuer sells securities. Section 11 of the Securities Act (“Section 11”) imposes liability on parties, including

51

Table of Contents

underwriters, involved in a securities offering if the registration statement contains a materially false statement or material omission. To effectively establish a due diligence defense against a cause of action brought pursuant to Section 11, a defendant, including an underwriter, carries the burden of proof to demonstrate that he or she, after reasonable investigation, believed that the statements in the registration statement were true and free of material omissions. In order to meet this burden of proof, underwriters in a registered offering typically conduct extensive due diligence of the registrant and vet the registrant’s disclosure. Due diligence entails engaging legal, financial and/or other experts to perform an investigation as to the accuracy of an issuer’s disclosure regarding, among other things, its business, prospects and financial results. In making their investment decision, investors have the benefit of such diligence in underwritten public offerings. HCCC’s investors must rely on the information in this Annual Report and will not have the benefit of an independent review and investigation of the type normally performed by an independent underwriter in a public securities offering. While sponsors, private investors and management in a business combination undertake a certain level of due diligence, it is not necessarily the same level of due diligence undertaken by an underwriter in a public securities offering and, therefore, there could be a heightened risk of an incorrect valuation of Alpha Tau’s business or material misstatements or omissions in this Annual Report.

In addition, because there were no underwriters engaged in connection with the Transactions, prior to the opening of trading on the trading day immediately following the Closing Date, there was be no traditional “roadshow” or book building process, and no price at which underwriters initially sold shares to the public to help inform efficient and sufficient price discovery with respect to the initial post-closing trades. Therefore, buy and sell orders submitted prior to and at the opening of initial post-closing trading of Alpha Tau’s securities did not have the benefit of being informed by a published price range or a price at which the underwriters initially sold shares to the public, as would be the case in an underwritten initial public offering. There were be no underwriters assuming risk in connection with an initial resale of Alpha Tau’s securities or helping to stabilize, maintain or affect the public price of Alpha Tau’s securities following the closing. Moreover, neither Alpha Tau nor HCCC engaged in, nor will they, directly or indirectly, request financial advisors to engage in, any special selling efforts or stabilization or price support activities in connection with the Alpha Tau’s securities that will be outstanding immediately following the closing. In addition, since we became public through a merger, securities analysts of major brokerage firms may not provide coverage of Alpha Tau since there is no incentive to brokerage firms to recommend the purchase of its ordinary shares. No assurance can be given that brokerage firms will, in the future, want to conduct any offerings on Alpha Tau’s behalf. All of these differences from an underwritten public offering of Alpha Tau’s securities could result in a more volatile price for the Alpha Tau’s securities.

Such differences from an underwritten public offering may present material risks to unaffiliated investors that would not exist if we became a publicly listed company through an underwritten initial public offering instead of upon completion of the merger. Further, the lack of such processes in connection with the listing of our securities could result in diminished investor demand, inefficiencies in pricing and a more volatile public price for Alpha Tau’s securities during the period immediately following the listing than in connection with an underwritten initial public offering.

Risks Related to Our Incorporation and Location in Israel

Conditions in Israel could materially and adversely affect Alpha Tau’s business.

Many of Alpha Tau’s employees, including certain management members operate from its offices that are located in Jerusalem, Israel. In addition, a number of Alpha Tau’s officers and directors are residents of Israel. Accordingly, political, economic, and military conditions in Israel and the surrounding region may directly affect Alpha Tau’s business and operations. Recently, there has been an unprecedented degree of political instability in Israel, with four sets of elections for the Israeli parliament, or Knesset, in a two-year period. While a new government was formed in June 2021, there is no guarantee that it will last for a significant portion of its full four-year term and provide political stability. On the military front, in recent years, Israel has been engaged in sporadic armed conflicts with Hamas, an Islamist terrorist group that controls the Gaza Strip, with Hezbollah, an Islamist terrorist group that controls large portions of southern Lebanon, and with Iranian-backed military forces in Syria. In addition, Iran has threatened to attack Israel and may be developing nuclear weapons. Some of these hostilities were accompanied by missiles being fired from the Gaza Strip, Lebanon and Syria against civilian targets in various parts of Israel, including areas in which Alpha Tau’s employees are located, which negatively affected business conditions in Israel. Any hostilities involving Israel, regional political instability or the interruption or curtailment of trade between Israel and its trading partners could materially and adversely affect Alpha Tau’s operations and results of operations.

Alpha Tau’s commercial insurance does not cover losses that may occur as a result of events associated with war and terrorism. Although the Israeli government currently covers the reinstatement value of direct damages that are caused by terrorist attacks or acts of war, Alpha Tau cannot assure you that this government coverage

52

Table of Contents

will be maintained or that it will sufficiently cover Alpha Tau’s potential damages. Any losses or damages incurred by Alpha Tau could have a material adverse effect on its business. Any armed conflicts or political instability in the region would likely negatively affect business conditions and could harm Alpha Tau’s results of operations.

Further, in the past, the State of Israel and Israeli companies have been subjected to economic boycotts. Several countries still restrict business with the State of Israel and with Israeli companies. These restrictive laws and policies may have an adverse impact on Alpha Tau’s results of operations, financial condition or the expansion of its business. A campaign of boycotts, divestment, and sanctions has been undertaken against Israel, which could also adversely affect Alpha Tau’s business. Actual or perceived political instability in Israel or any negative changes in the political environment, may individually or in the aggregate adversely affect the Israeli economy and, in turn, Alpha Tau’s business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

In addition, many Israeli citizens are obligated to perform several weeks of annual military reserve duty each year until they reach the age of 40 (or older, for reservists who are military officers or who have certain occupations) and, in the event of a military conflict, may be called to active duty. In response to increases in terrorist activity, there have been periods of significant call-ups of military reservists. It is possible that there will be military reserve duty call-ups in the future. Alpha Tau’s operations could be disrupted by such call-ups, which may include the call-up of members of its management. Such disruption could materially adversely affect its business, prospects, financial condition, and results of operations.

Alpha Tau may become subject to claims for remuneration or royalties for assigned service invention rights by Alpha Tau’s employees, which could result in litigation and adversely affect Alpha Tau’s business.

A significant portion of Alpha Tau’s intellectual property has been developed by its employees in the course of their employment by Alpha Tau. Under the Israeli Patents Law, 5727-1967 (the “Patents Law”), inventions conceived by an employee during and as a result of his or her employment with a company are regarded as “service inventions,” which belong to the employer, absent an agreement between the employee and employer providing otherwise. The Patents Law also provides that if there is no agreement between an employer and an employee determining whether the employee is entitled to receive consideration for service inventions and on what terms, this will be determined by the Israeli Compensation and Royalties Committee (the “Committee”), a body constituted under the Patents Law. Case law clarifies that the right to receive consideration for “service inventions” can be waived by the employee and that in certain circumstances, such waiver does not necessarily have to be explicit. The Committee will examine, on a case-by-case basis, the general contractual framework between the parties, using interpretation rules of the general Israeli contract laws. Further, the Committee has not yet determined one specific formula for calculating this remuneration, but rather uses the criteria specified in the Patents Law. Although Alpha Tau generally enters into agreements with its employees pursuant to which such individuals assign to it all rights to any inventions created during and as a result of their employment with Alpha Tau, Alpha Tau may face claims demanding remuneration in consideration for assigned inventions. As a consequence of such claims, Alpha Tau could be required to pay additional remuneration or royalties to its current and/or former employees, or be forced to litigate such monetary claims (which will not affect Alpha Tau’s proprietary rights), which could negatively affect its business.

Certain tax benefits that may be available to Alpha Tau, if obtained by Alpha Tau, would require it to continue to meet various conditions and may be terminated or reduced in the future, which could increase Alpha Tau’s costs and taxes.

Alpha Tau may be eligible for certain tax benefits provided to “Preferred Technological Enterprises” under the Israeli Law for the Encouragement of Capital Investments, 5719-1959, referred to as the Investment Law. If Alpha Tau obtains tax benefits under the “Preferred Technological Enterprises” regime then, in order to remain eligible for such tax benefits, it will need to continue to meet certain conditions stipulated in the Investment Law and its regulations, as amended. If these tax benefits are reduced, cancelled or discontinued, Alpha Tau’s Israeli taxable income may be subject to Israeli corporate tax rates of 23% in 2018 and thereafter. Additionally, if Alpha Tau increases its activities outside of Israel through acquisitions, for example, its activities might not be eligible for inclusion in future Israeli tax benefit programs. See “Certain Material Israeli Tax Considerations.”

It may be difficult to enforce a U.S. judgment against Alpha Tau, its officers and directors and the Israeli experts named in this Annual Report in Israel or the United States, or to assert U.S. securities laws claims in Israel or serve process on Alpha Tau’s officers and directors and these experts.

Most of Alpha Tau’s directors or officers are not residents of the United States and most of their and Alpha Tau’s assets are located outside the United States. Service of process upon Alpha Tau or its non-U.S. resident directors and officers and enforcement of judgments obtained in the United States against Alpha Tau or its non-U.S. directors and executive officers may be difficult to

53

Table of Contents

obtain within the United States. Alpha Tau have been informed by its legal counsel in Israel that it may be difficult to assert claims under U.S. securities laws in original actions instituted in Israel or obtain a judgment based on the civil liability provisions of U.S. federal securities laws. Israeli courts may refuse to hear a claim based on a violation of U.S. securities laws against Alpha Tau or its non-U.S. officers and directors because Israel may not be the most appropriate forum to bring such a claim. In addition, even if an Israeli court agrees to hear a claim, it may determine that Israeli law and not U.S. law is applicable to the claim. If U.S. law is found to be applicable, the content of applicable U.S. law must be proved as a fact, which can be a time-consuming and costly process. Certain matters of procedure will also be governed by Israeli law. There is little binding case law in Israel addressing the matters described above. Israeli courts might not enforce judgments rendered outside Israel, which may make it difficult to collect on judgments rendered against Alpha Tau or its non-U.S. officers and directors.

Moreover, an Israeli court will not enforce a non-Israeli judgment if (among other things) it was given in a state whose laws do not provide for the enforcement of judgments of Israeli courts (subject to exceptional cases), or if its enforcement is likely to prejudice the sovereignty or security of the State of Israel, or if it was obtained by fraud or in absence of due process, or if it is at variance with another valid judgment that was given in the same matter between the same parties, or if a suit in the same matter between the same parties was pending before a court or tribunal in Israel, at the time the foreign action was brought. For more information, see “Enforceability of Civil Liabilities.”

Your rights and responsibilities as a shareholder of Alpha Tau will be governed by Israeli law, which may differ in some respects from the rights and responsibilities of shareholders of U.S. corporations.

Alpha Tau is incorporated under Israeli law. The rights and responsibilities of holders of the ordinary shares are governed by the Articles and the Companies Law. These rights and responsibilities differ in some respects from the rights and responsibilities of shareholders in typical U.S. corporations. In particular, pursuant to the Companies Law each shareholder of an Israeli company has to act in good faith and in a customary manner in exercising his or her rights and fulfilling his or her obligations toward the company and other shareholders and to refrain from abusing his or her power in the company, including, among other things, in voting at the general meeting of shareholders and class meetings, on amendments to a company’s articles of association, increases in a company’s authorized share capital, mergers, and transactions requiring shareholders’ approval under the Companies Law. In addition, a controlling shareholder of an Israeli company or a shareholder who knows that it possesses the power to determine the outcome of a shareholder vote or who has the power to appoint or prevent the appointment of a director or officer in the Company, or has other powers toward the Company has a duty of fairness toward the Company. However, Israeli law does not define the substance of this duty of fairness. There is limited case law available to assist in understanding the implications of these provisions that govern shareholder behavior.

We may issue additional ordinary shares or other equity securities without seeking approval of our shareholders, which would dilute your ownership interests and may depress the market price of the ordinary shares.

As of March 7, 2022, following the closing of the Business Combination, we had warrants outstanding to purchase up to an aggregate of 3,970,693 ordinary shares as well had granted options to our employees to purchase a total of 6,162,660 ordinary shares and 1,031,250 RSUs. Further, we may choose to seek third party financing to provide additional working capital for our business, in which event we may issue additional equity securities. We may also issue additional ordinary shares or other equity securities of equal or senior rank in the future for any reason or in connection

If Alpha Tau or any of its subsidiaries are characterized as a Passive Foreign Investment Company (“PFIC”) for U.S. federal income tax purposes, U.S. Holders may suffer adverse tax consequences.

A non-U.S. corporation generally will be treated as a PFIC for U.S. federal income tax purposes, in any taxable year if either (1) at least 75% of its gross income for such year is passive income or (2) at least 50% of the value of its assets (generally based on an average of the quarterly values of the assets) during such year is attributable to assets that produce or are held for the production of passive income. Alpha Tau believes it was not a PFIC in 2021. Based on the current and anticipated composition of the income, assets and operations of Alpha Tau and its subsidiaries, there is a risk that Alpha Tau may be treated as a PFIC for future taxable years. Moreover, the application of the PFIC rules is subject to uncertainty in several respects, and Alpha Tau cannot assure you that the IRS will not take a contrary position or that a court will not sustain such a challenge by the IRS.

54

Table of Contents

Whether Alpha Tau or any of its subsidiaries are a PFIC for any taxable year is a factual determination that depends on, among other things, the composition of Alpha Tau’s income and assets, and the market value of its and its subsidiaries’ shares and assets. Changes in the composition of our income or composition of Alpha Tau or any of its subsidiaries assets may cause us to be or become a PFIC for the current or subsequent taxable years. Whether Alpha Tau is treated as a PFIC for U.S. federal income tax purposes is a factual determination that must be made annually at the close of each taxable year and, thus, is subject to significant uncertainty.

If Alpha Tau is a PFIC for any taxable year, a U.S. Holder of Alpha Tau ordinary shares may be subject to adverse tax consequences and may incur certain information reporting obligations. For a further discussion, see “Certain Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Considerations—U.S. Holders—Passive Foreign Investment Company Rules.” U.S. Holders of Alpha Tau ordinary shares and Alpha Tau warrants are strongly encouraged to consult their own advisors regarding the potential application of these rules to Alpha Tau and the ownership of Alpha Tau ordinary shares and/or Alpha Tau warrants.

If a U.S. Holder is treated as owning at least 10% of the Alpha Tau stock, such U.S. Holder may be subject to adverse U.S. federal income tax consequences.

For U.S. federal income tax purposes, if a U.S. Holder is treated as owning (directly, indirectly or constructively) at least 10% of the value or voting power of the Alpha Tau stock, such person may be treated as a “United States shareholder” with respect to Alpha Tau, or any of its subsidiaries, if Alpha Tau or such subsidiary is a “controlled foreign corporation.” If Alpha Tau has one or more U.S. subsidiaries, certain of Alpha Tau’s non-U.S. subsidiaries could be treated as a controlled foreign corporation regardless of whether Alpha Tau is treated as a controlled foreign corporation (although there are recently promulgated final and currently proposed Treasury regulations that may limit the application of these rules in certain circumstances).

Certain United States shareholders of a controlled foreign corporation may be required to report annually and include in their U.S. federal taxable income their pro rata share of the controlled foreign corporation’s “Subpart F income” and, in computing their “global intangible low-taxed income,” “tested income” and a pro rata share of the amount of certain U.S. property (including certain stock in U.S. corporations and certain tangible assets located in the United States) held by the controlled foreign corporation regardless of whether such controlled foreign corporation makes any distributions. The amount includable by a United States shareholder under these rules is based on a number of factors, including potentially, but not limited to, the controlled foreign corporation’s current earnings and profits (if any), tax basis in the controlled foreign corporation’s assets, and foreign taxes paid by the controlled foreign corporation on its underlying income. Failure to comply with these reporting obligations (or related tax payment obligations) may subject such United States shareholder to significant monetary penalties and may extend the statute of limitations with respect to such United States shareholder’s U.S. federal income tax return for the year for which reporting (or payment of tax) was due. Alpha Tau cannot provide any assurances that it will assist U.S. Holders in determining whether Alpha Tau or any of its subsidiaries are treated as a controlled foreign corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes or whether any U.S. Holder is treated as a United States shareholder with respect to any of such controlled foreign corporations or furnish to any holder information that may be necessary to comply with reporting and tax paying obligations if Alpha Tau, or any of its subsidiaries, is treated as a controlled foreign corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

As a result of the Business Combination, the IRS may not agree that Alpha Tau should be treated as a non-U.S. corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

Under current U.S. federal income tax law, a corporation generally will be considered to be a U.S. corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes if it is created or organized in the United States or under the law of the United States or of any State. Accordingly, under generally applicable U.S. federal income tax rules, Alpha Tau, which is incorporated and tax resident in Israel, would generally be classified as a non-U.S. corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Section 7874 of the Code and the Treasury regulations promulgated thereunder, however, contain specific rules that may cause a non-U.S. corporation to be treated as a U.S. corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes. If it were determined that Alpha Tau is treated as a U.S. corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes under Section 7874 of the Code and the Treasury regulations promulgated thereunder, Alpha Tau would be liable for U.S. federal income tax on its income in the same manner as any other U.S. corporation and certain distributions made by Alpha Tau to Non-U.S. Holders (as defined in “Certain Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Considerations”) of Alpha Tau may be subject to U.S. withholding tax.

55

Table of Contents

Based on the terms of the Business Combination and certain factual assumptions, Alpha Tau does not currently expect to be treated as a U.S. corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes under Section 7874 of the Code after the Business Combination. However, the application of Section 7874 of the Code is complex, subject to detailed regulations (the application of which is uncertain in various respects and would be impacted by changes in such U.S. Treasury regulations with possible retroactive effect) and subject to certain factual uncertainties. Accordingly, there can be no assurance that the IRS will not challenge the status of Alpha Tau as a non-U.S. corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes under Section 7874 of the Code or that such challenge would not be sustained by a court.

If the IRS were to successfully challenge under Section 7874 of the Code Alpha Tau’s status as a non-U.S. corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes, Alpha Tau and certain Alpha Tau shareholders may be subject to significant adverse tax consequences, including a higher effective corporate income tax rate on Alpha Tau and future withholding taxes on certain Alpha Tau shareholders, depending on the application of any applicable income tax treaty that may apply to reduce such withholding taxes.

You should consult your own advisors regarding the application of Section 7874 of the Code to the Business Combination and the tax consequences if the classification of Alpha Tau as a non-U.S. corporation is not respected.

The Articles provide that unless Alpha Tau consents otherwise, the competent courts of Tel Aviv, Israel shall be the sole and exclusive forum for substantially all disputes between Alpha Tau and its shareholders under the Companies Law and the Israeli Securities Law.

The competent courts of Tel Aviv, Israel shall, unless Alpha Tau consents otherwise in writing, be the exclusive forum for (i) any derivative action or proceeding brought on behalf of Alpha Tau, (ii) any action asserting a claim of breach of fiduciary duty owed by any director, officer or other employee of Alpha Tau to Alpha Tau or Alpha Tau’s shareholders, or (iii) any action asserting a claim arising pursuant to any provision of the Companies Law or the Israeli Securities Law, 5728-1968 (the “Israeli Securities Law”). This exclusive forum provision is intended to apply to claims arising under Israeli law and would not apply to claims brought pursuant to the Securities Act or the Exchange Act or any other claim for which federal courts would have exclusive jurisdiction. Such exclusive forum provision in the Articles will not relieve Alpha Tau of its duties to comply with federal securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder, and shareholders of Alpha Tau will not be deemed to have waived Alpha Tau’s compliance with these laws, rules and regulations. This exclusive forum provision may limit a shareholders ability to bring a claim in a judicial forum of its choosing for disputes with Alpha Tau or its directors or other employees which may discourage lawsuits against Alpha Tau, its directors, officers and employees.

56

Table of Contents

Recent Developments

On July 7, 2021, we entered into the Merger Agreement with HCCC and Merger Sub. Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub merged with and into HCCC, with HCCC surviving the merger. Upon consummation of the Business Combination and the other transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement on March 7, 2022, HCCC became a wholly owned subsidiary of Alpha Tau.

B. Business Overview

Company Overview

We are a clinical-stage oncology therapeutics company focused on harnessing the innate relative biological effectiveness and short range of alpha particles for use as a localized radiation therapy for solid tumors. Our proprietary Alpha DaRT technology is designed to utilize the specific therapeutic properties of alpha particles while aiming to overcome, and even harness for potential benefit, the traditional shortcomings of alpha radiation’s limited range. We believe that our Alpha DaRT technology has the potential to be broadly applicable across multiple targets and tumor types. We evaluated the feasibility, safety and efficacy of the Alpha DaRT technology in a first-in-human study of locally advanced and recurrent squamous cell carcinoma, or SCC, cancers of the skin and head and neck. Efficacy was evaluated in 28 tumors, and results showed that Alpha DaRT achieved 100% overall response rate and over 78% complete response rate. The Alpha DaRT was generally well-tolerated, with limited local toxicity and no systemic toxicity. On the basis of this clinical trial as well as some of our further clinical trials, we received marketing approval in Israel in August 2020 for the treatment of SCC of the skin or oral cavity using the Alpha DaRT in August 2020. In June 2021, the FDA granted the Alpha DaRT Breakthrough Device Designation for the treatment of patients with SCC of the skin or oral cavity without curative standard of care. In October 2021, the FDA granted the Alpha DaRT a second Breakthrough Device Designation, in treating recurrent Glioblastoma Multiforme, or GBM, as an adjunct to standard medical therapies or as a standalone therapy after standard medical therapies have been exhausted. If approved, we expect to commercialize our Alpha DaRT technology first in the United States before other markets, including Israel, notwithstanding our existing marketing authorization in Israel (under which we have not yet commercialized the product). To support our U.S. strategy, we are conducting a multi-center pilot feasibility trial to explore the feasibility of delivering radiotherapy for malignant skin and superficial soft tissue tumors using Alpha DaRT at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and up to five other clinical sites around the United States. All ten patients in this trial were treated in the second half of 2021. The study met its primary feasibility endpoint, as all patients had successful delivery of radiation by Alpha DaRT. At approximately 12 weeks, all ten lesions treated demonstrated a complete response to the treatment, with no product-related serious adverse events observed. We hold exclusive rights to our proprietary Alpha DaRT technology in our core markets, including the United States and Europe.

While local radiation therapy has been a mainstay of cancer therapy for years, it has been mostly limited to modalities utilizing beta or gamma emissions, which primarily destroy cells through an indirect mechanism relying on oxygen and the generation of free radicals to cause single-strand DNA breaks. By contrast, alpha radiation has hundreds of times the linear energy transfer rate of beta-emitters. Additionally, alpha particles’ heavier mass and far shorter particle paths (less than 100 μm) relative to beta’s lighter mass and lengthier (up to 12 mm) path, have been shown to destroy radioresistant cells in clinical studies – causing multiple, irreparable, double-strand DNA breaks and other cellular damage upon direct impact – within a very short distance. Accordingly, we believe that alpha radiation has several significant potential advantages for use in cancer radiotherapy, including a high relative biological efficiency (potentially enabling it to destroy tumor cells with administration of lower levels of radiation), imperviousness to factors such as hypoxia, and a very well-defined range of travel with limited collateral damage. Nonetheless, its use has also been limited precisely due to alpha’s extremely short particle range in living tissue, as the range of less than 100 μm is insufficient to provide meaningful clinical utility.

The Alpha DaRT technology employs a series of radioactive sources that are embedded with Radium-224 to enable a controlled, intratumoral release of alpha-emitting atoms which diffuse and decay throughout the tumor, seeking to kill cancerous cells with localized precision, while penetrating deeper into the tumor than can otherwise be reached by the limited ranges of the alpha particles themselves. Due to the inherent limited range of the alpha particles, we believe that the Alpha DaRT technology has the potential to deliver powerful and localized precise killing impact to the tumor without damage to surrounding healthy tissue. By combining the innate relative biological effectiveness and short range of alpha particles in a single-use disposable form, we believe that the Alpha DaRT could address tumors that have otherwise demonstrated poor response to radiation therapy or other standards of care, with the potential to apply to a wide range of tumors and clinical settings.

We evaluated the feasibility, safety and efficacy of the Alpha DaRT technology in a first-in-human study of locally advanced and recurrent SCC cancers of the skin and head and neck, the results of which were subsequently published in the International Journal for

57

Table of Contents

Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics and which elicited a positive editorial reaction in the same journal. Efficacy was evaluated in 28 tumors of the skin and head and neck, and results showed that Alpha DaRT achieved a >78% complete response rate. The trial was conducted in an elderly (median age = 80.5 years) and largely pre-treated patient population, with 42% of the target lesions, including non-evaluated lesions, having already received radiation therapy. The Alpha DaRT was generally well-tolerated, with limited local toxicity and no systemic toxicity. Following these initial positive results, we substantially expanded our clinical evaluations in later trials to a much wider patient population. Specifically, we initiated follow-on studies at multiple clinical sites in Israel and around the world, to evaluate Alpha DaRT in cancers of the skin, superficial soft tissue, or oral cavity, regardless of cell type, which includes SCC as well as basal cell carcinoma, melanoma, skin metastases, and others. As of February 28, 2022, across our clinical trials involving superficial lesions, i.e. tumors of the skin, head or neck, Alpha DaRTs have been administered to over 100 lesions, with no treatment-related severe adverse events, and in a pooled analysis evaluating those lesions that reached the evaluation endpoint per the treatment protocol of the applicable clinical trial, we have observed an overall response rate of 98%, including a complete response rate of 74%. The supportive data from these first trials also led to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, granting Breakthrough Device Designation to the Alpha DaRT for the treatment of patients with SCC of the skin or oral cavity without curative standard of care.

In parallel, we are pursuing a similar approach towards seeking FDA marketing authorization for other uses for the Alpha DaRT technology in other indications by conducting feasibility studies and then generating potentially registrational data in other indications, such as breast, pancreas and prostate cancers, or applications such as combinations with immunotherapies.

We have engaged with a number of prestigious medical and educational institutions and, as of March 21, 2022, have nine clinical studies ongoing worldwide across these two parallel strategies, of generating data in superficial tumors as well as conducting studies in other indications.

Additionally, in our pre-clinical studies, we evaluated the Alpha DaRT on 19 tumor models (both human and mouse). Alpha DaRT sources were observed to have killed multiple types of mouse and human tumors in vivo. The intensity of the killing activity varied between tumor types, and was dependent on the ability of the radioactive atoms to diffuse inside the tumor and on the intrinsic sensitivity of the tissue to DNA damage induced by the radiation, but all tumor types showed responsiveness to Alpha DaRT, i.e., there was no observed resistance. We therefore believe that our technology may potentially be relevant for treatment across a broad range of tumors. We are currently focused on developing the Alpha DaRT for use in a number of potential applications, particularly in refractory or unresectable localized tumors which are not being adequately addressed by standard of care, tumor types with a high unmet need (such as pancreatic adenocarcinoma or glioblastoma multiforme), and metastatic tumors in combination with systemic therapies such as checkpoint inhibitors. We are also investigating the potential of the Alpha DaRT to elicit an immune response as observed in previous pre-clinical data, as well as anecdotal evidence of response from untreated tumors, or abscopal effects, which may have the potential to inhibit or even reduce metastases.

The Company was founded in November 2015 by Uzi Sofer, our Chief Executive Officer and Chairman, along with the inventors of the Alpha DaRT technology including Professor Itzhak Kelson and Professor Yona Keisari of Tel Aviv University, our Chief Physics Officer and Chief Scientific Officer, respectively. Together, they founded Alpha Tau with the goal of bringing this innovative technology out of the laboratory and into patients, in order to bring hope to cancer patients around the world.

We have also devoted a significant amount of time and resources establishing a robust patent portfolio so as to gain a strong scientific and commercial foothold worldwide. As of December 31, 2021, our patent portfolio included 83 issued patents, and 76 pending patent applications including two allowed patent applications, in the United States, Europe, Canada, Japan, Australia, China, South Korea, Russia, Mexico, India, Hong Kong, Singapore, South Africa and ARIPO.

Our Therapeutic Focus

While we believe the Alpha DaRT has the potential to revolutionize the treatment of nearly all solid tumors, we have identified three initial areas of therapeutic focus for the development of our Alpha DaRT technology:

58

Table of Contents

Development Pipeline

We have a number of active clinical programs targeting a range of different tumor types. Our global clinical trial strategy involves progressing our lead program in superficial tumors, particularly in the United States, while conducting feasibility studies in order to evaluate the potential of the Alpha DaRT in other tumor areas of high unmet need or metastatic disease. As of February 28, 2022, we have administered Alpha DaRT treatment to over 110 tumors across eight clinical trials. The following table summarizes our development pipeline:

Potential Advantages of the Alpha DaRT Technology

We believe the Alpha DaRT technology may offer the following potential advantages:

​

59

Table of Contents

Our Strategy

Our mission is to use our proprietary Alpha DaRT technology to transform the treatment of solid tumors and broaden the potential scope of local radiotherapy delivery across multiple clinical settings. Key elements of our strategy include:

60

Table of Contents

Background of Radiation-Based Cancer Treatment

Solid Tumors

Tumors develop as an accumulation of mutated cells that are unable to regulate their growth, moving through the cell cycle uncontrollably and dividing excessively with properties that enable them to invade and destroy surrounding tissue. Cancer cells are able to co-opt the microenvironment, which enables the tumors to bypass the immune system and promote further growth and spread. Cancer cells can break away from the original tumor via the blood stream or the lymphatic system to form new cells elsewhere, called metastasis, and cause the growth of new blood vessels, a process called angiogenesis, which gives tumor cells a source of oxygen, nutrients and a mechanism to release waste products. In 2020 alone, there were over 19 million new cancer diagnoses and 10 million cancer-related deaths worldwide, of which over 90% related to solid tumors, according to the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer.

Radioactive Decay

Radioactive decay, the process by which a source emits energy that can penetrate certain materials, is well known for its extreme potency and capacity to destroy living cells when the radiation generated is at a sufficiently high intensity. Such sources include elements that possess an excess or imbalance of energy and consequently lack internal stability. As a result, such elements, termed radionuclides or radioisotopes, will naturally and spontaneously emit, or radiate, the excess energy in order to stabilize, in a random process which cannot be predicted. However, it is possible to define certain parameters such as the nature of the decay and its likelihood over a specified period of time. Amid the process of radioactive decay, the original element, with the excess energy stripped, will spin off into a new element, or a daughter atom. If this daughter atom is itself unstable, it, too, will shed its excess energy and generate its own daughter atom, setting into motion a decay chain until full stability is ultimately reached. While it remains unknown how long it will take an individual atom to fully stabilize, we can quantify how long it will take, on average, for half of a given quantity of an element to decay: known as a half-life, which can range among different radioisotopes from as little as infinitesimal fractions of a second, to billions of years.

Alpha, Beta, and Gamma Radiation

Specific radioactive elements will consistently undergo one or more types of radioactive decay with their own, fixed characteristics, and can result in the release of particles or photons. For example, the element Radium-224 will undergo decay by shedding two protons and two neutrons (alpha particle), generating the element Radon-220, and in so doing, emit energy during the release of the alpha particle. This process is known as alpha radiation or alpha decay, and the alpha particle, bearing the mass-heavy, sloughed-off protons and neutrons, will itself be heavy (with an atomic mass of 4). By comparison, one form of beta decay occurs when an element emits an electron, with a negative charge and a relatively low mass. Alpha particles are far bulkier and slower than beta particle electrons: over 7,000 times heavier with approximately 200 times the linear energy transfer rate.

Alpha and beta particles, being charged, interact with the charges of every atom they encounter and continually slow down as they travel. Because alpha particles have such a high mass and linear energy transfer rate, they dissipate their energy quickly and are unable to penetrate most surfaces, even as thin as a piece of paper. Alpha particles therefore have no clinical impact when delivered externally, since they cannot penetrate the skin. On the other hand, beta particles are more nimble than their alpha counterparts and can penetrate further into matter; however, because they have equally low mass as the electrons they encounter, beta particles transfer their energy and also fade quickly when encountering a surface of some thickness, such as being stopped by a sheet of aluminum.

Gamma decay, by contrast, does not involve any transfer of charge but rather a reconfiguration of the existing subatomic particles, triggering the emission of high-energy photons in the form of gamma rays that can pass longer distances and are attenuated over lengths, depending on the medium being traversed.

Radioactivity involves spontaneity, with high radioactivity corresponding to high likelihood of sporadic emissions towards stabilization. Clinical application of the emitted energy – the alpha particles, beta particles and gamma rays – from a radioactive source therefore demands the controlled harnessing of a spontaneous phenomenon, but with some predictable, key parameters, towards a specific desired outcome.

61

Table of Contents

Mechanisms of Alpha, Beta, and Gamma Radiotherapy

Radiation, when aimed towards the destruction of cancerous or other damaged cells in the body, is known as radiotherapy. Depending on the patient’s particular condition, radiotherapy can be either an alternative or a complement to surgery or systemic therapies for the treatment of cancer.

Cell death induced by radiotherapy can occur either through direct or indirect DNA damage. Alpha particles generate direct DNA damage, while beta particles and gamma rays destroy cancer cells primarily when they encounter oxygen: specifically, they rely on the presence of oxygen which, upon impact from the beta or gamma radiation, forcefully ejects electrons in a process known as ionization, wherein these atoms, now excited with unpaired electrons, become free radicals which are highly reactive. While the beta or gamma radiation will have little direct impact on the cells, the highly reactive free radicals will react with cellular machinery, including a strand of DNA should they encounter one, generating a single-strand break in the DNA. This is often a short- lived success, however, as the cancer cell may be able to reconstitute or repair the DNA damage after single- strand breaks, depending on its current position in the cell cycle. By contrast, alpha-emitters, with hundreds of times the linear energy transfer rate of beta-emitters, and alpha particles’ heavier mass and far shorter particle paths (less than 100 μm) relative to beta particles’ lighter mass and lengthier (up to 12 mm) path, have destroyed radioresistant cells more effectively than other forms of radiation such as photons (e.g. X-rays) in pre-clinical studies – causing multiple, irreparable, DNA double-strand breaks and other cellular damage upon direct impact – within a very short distance. Alpha radiotherapy has approximately 500x more concentrated cytotoxic potency than beta particles, with radioactive potency that attenuates as they travel. Beta and gamma radiation are inherently limited in their use in radiotherapy, as their weaker potency and their reliance on multiple interactions demand significantly higher levels of radiation to destroy cancer cells, and these modalities have shown limited efficacy in hypoxic tumor tissue due to the lack of oxygen to generate free radicals. In addition, the relatively long range of beta and gamma increases the risk of greater imprecision, dissipation of potency, and potential collateral tissue damage. By contrast, we believe that alpha radiotherapy, owing to the nature of its high strength and very tightly controlled range, as well as the direct cellular impact not reliant on oxygen, has the potential to overcome treatment resistance to beta and gamma radiotherapy, and to offer a highly conformal and effective source of radiotherapy with very limited damage to surrounding tissues.

We believe that alpha radiation may also have the potential to generate an immune-modulated systemic effect in the body when being used for localized treatment, given that it possesses several unique properties:

(a)its high linear energy transfer, (b) rapid tumor cell destruction while sparing the surrounding lymphatic tissue, nearby tissues and blood vessels, and (c) the potential to release large amounts of tumor antigens and attract inflammatory and immune cells into the tumor vicinity.

Systemic vs. Local Radiotherapies

Radiotherapy can be deployed as both a systemic agent and as a localized therapy. Systemic therapies are those which treat the entire body, and in the context of cancer therapies generally utilize pharmaceutical products, such as chemotherapy or immunotherapy drugs, injected into the body to damage (or stimulate the body to damage) cancer cells throughout the body preferentially over other cells. Local therapies, such as surgical excision, are those which address a disease or injury at a specific point, and in the context of cancer therapies will generally target a specific tumor or set of tumors to be treated.

Localized radiotherapy is commonly performed by External Beam Radiotherapy, or EBRT, directing external beams of gamma radiation powerful enough to penetrate the body and damage or destroy cancer cells’ DNA if such cells are in the process of division. EBRT remains a widely used form of radiotherapy, but due to the high doses required for tumor control, results in normal tissue toxicity. While toxicity has been reduced due to technologic improvements such as Intensity-modulated radiation therapy, or IMRT, which allow for a more conformal treatment, significant side effects have continued to be observed in the clinic.

Developments in the field of nuclear medicine have introduced the use of radiopharmaceuticals or radio- labeled antibodies, drugs containing a radiation-emitting radionuclide that is naturally absorbed into specific organs or binds to specific molecules to target specific organs, tissues or cells within the body. Systemic radiotherapy involves the use of isotopes such as beta emitting Iodine-131, Strontium-89, Samarium-153, and Radium-223, alone or attached to targeting molecules and injected in liquid form into the body intravenously to travel through the bloodstream to kill cancerous cells, and are then ejected from the body via urine, sweat, and saliva.

62

Table of Contents

Limitations of Systemic Radiotherapy

Systemic radiotherapy is beset by certain significant limitations. Although the radiopharmaceuticals or radio-labeled antibodies are armed with targeting mechanisms, certain amounts of radionuclide may still damage healthy tissue. Additionally, certain tumors may be beyond the reach of intravenously administered radiopharmaceuticals. Given the need for sufficient concentration of radiation at the tumor site to have an effect, systemic therapy has the potential to generate systemic toxicity and collateral damage to healthy tissue, critical organs and blood vessels, without sufficiently addressing the targeted tumor if the local concentration of radiation on site is insufficient.

Limitations of Local Radiotherapy

In contrast to systemic radiotherapies, local radiotherapies are targeted directly to the cancer and therefore may avoid the shortcomings of systemic treatment. By focusing on the tumor and sparing the healthy cells, there may be fewer debilitating side effects, and the cancerous cells may be destroyed while allowing healthy cells to utilize their superior repair mechanisms to recover from the impact of localized radiation.

Local radiotherapy can be performed either externally, by directing one or more beams of EBRT, such as high-energy X-rays or gamma rays, towards the primary tumor and its immediate surroundings, or internally, through the insertion into the body of radiation in solid form, a procedure known as brachytherapy. EBRT and related therapies can be an effective method of destroying the tumor by irradiation but are prone to causing spillover damage in the surrounding healthy tissue and are therefore not practicable in every situation, as certain tumors may be unable to receive a sufficient therapeutic dose due to the surrounding normal tissue tolerance. Recent innovations in the field, such as IMRT, stereotactic radiosurgery and stereotactic body radiation therapy, have focused on improving the precision of gamma rays to concentrate more radiation in a tighter area, but ultimately face similar limitations from the innate characteristics of gamma rays.

In brachytherapy, small capsules containing a therapeutic dose of radiation, or seeds, are placed in or as close as possible to the tumor. By hewing closely to the tumor and utilizing the sharp dose falloff beyond the seed, physicians may more ably navigate around the healthy surrounding tissue. Brachytherapy, in being based on beta or gamma radiation, has similar concerns with respect to spillover damage in the surrounding healthy tissue.

A less common form of internal radiotherapy is radioembolization, or selective internal radiation therapy, via tiny radioactive beads. The ability of these radioactive beads to adhere to small blood vessels has led to their use in the treatment of liver cancer. Given the unique differential blood supply of the liver, irradiating the tumor and concurrently blocking the blood supply may deprive the tumor of vital oxygen and nutrients.

In any instance of radiotherapy, the total exposure must be carefully calibrated, as the human body has a fixed, maximum level of radiation tolerance before the onset of irreversible toxicity and debilitating side effects, such as impaired brain, spinal cord, kidney and bone marrow function and immune deficiency. With its higher relative biological efficiency enabling lower dose levels for anti-tumor activity, and very limited range, we believe alpha radiotherapy may offer an attractive treatment modality against this backdrop.

Uses of Alpha Radiation in Radiotherapy

We believe alpha radiation has several significant advantages for use in cancer radiotherapy, including having a high relative biological efficiency (potentially enabling it to destroy tumor cells with administration of lower levels of radiation); it is impervious to factors such as hypoxia, and it has a very well-defined range of travel with limited collateral damage. Nonetheless, its use has also been limited precisely due to alpha’s extremely short particle range of less than 100 μm in living tissue, well below the threshold of clinical utility. For this reason, traditional attempts to deliver alpha radiation locally have failed to generate a clinically useful killing effect.

The limited use to date of alpha radiation in radiotherapy has been in systemic therapies using radiopharmaceuticals. For example, Xofigo, a salt of radium that naturally localizes to regions where cancer cells are infiltrating bone, has been approved by the FDA for the treatment of bone metastases associated with prostate cancer. Other experimental systemic alpha applications often rely on the conjugation of an alpha-emitting radioisotope with a targeting mechanism such as an antibody (creating an antibody-radionuclide conjugate), with the aim of preferential attachment to cancer cells throughout the body before the radionuclide decays. No solution has

63

Table of Contents

been approved that delivers local alpha particles able to penetrate into the depth of tumors, which we believe has hindered the local radiotherapeutic utility of alpha emitters.

Our Solution: Alpha DaRT Technology

Mechanism of Action of the Alpha DaRT Technology

The Alpha DaRT technology is designed to act through the controlled release of alpha-emitting atoms directly into a tumor, relying on the innate decay chain of Radium-224 to release and propel multiple alpha emitters deeper into the tumor than can be achieved by the limited (less than 100 μm) ranges of the alpha particles themselves. Radium-224, with a decay chain releasing four alpha particles, has a half-life of approximately 3.7 days, while the remaining decay chain has a total half-life of approximately 12 hours, before eventually stabilizing in inert form.

The Alpha DaRT utilizes stainless steel sources that are embedded with Radium-224. The Alpha DaRT source is designed to be injected into the tumor using one of the proprietary applicators we have developed. Once injected, the radium remains attached to the source, while its daughter atoms detach, spontaneously decay and recoil in succession, with the goal of emitting potentially cytotoxic alpha particle payloads as they move deeper into the tumor until eventually stabilizing. The sources are designed to be placed a few millimeters apart from each other in the tumor to fully utilize the range of each source, and the Alpha DaRT’s localized action is designed to kill the cancer cells while sparing the neighboring healthy cells.

The illustration below depicts the decay chain process of Radium-224, which is affixed to the Alpha DaRT source while its daughter atoms are designed to diffuse inside a tumor.

The graphics below illustrate the radioactivity seen in a cross-section of a tumor grown in a mouse with a single Alpha DaRT source through the center, as well as the impact on the tumor from an adjacent slice under a histological stain. As illustrated, the Alpha DaRT delivered a high dose of radiation in a very conformal form, with near zero radiation detected outside of the 5mm range surrounding the source. This result is also seen clearly under histological stain, where the corresponding section of the tumor was destroyed while the surrounding environs continued to be unaffected by radiation.

64

Table of Contents

The radioisotopes are designed to disperse in the cancerous medium by diffusion and convection due to the tumor chaotic vascularity, as well as from ongoing recoil during the repeated alpha decays. Moreover, the blood vessels formed in tumors tend to have leaky walls, which we believe increases the chance of the radioactive isotopes staying in the tumor and potentially prolonging killing activity. The net result is that the potential range of cell killing in the tumor is up to five millimeters, which is up to 100 times the range of the alpha particles themselves. By contrast, healthy tissue has a highly organized vascular structure, with numerous, well-ordered blood vessels through which a radioisotope can be easily washed out..

In our animal studies, the range of the Alpha DaRT was meaningfully more extensive in tumor tissue than it was in healthy tissue, as shown in the two images below comparing radioactivity visible on a radiograph when inserting the Alpha DaRT into SCC tissue and healthy tissue.

​

​

Our Programs

Clinical Development Plan

Our development strategy is focused on evaluating the safety and efficacy of the Alpha DaRT technology across multiple solid tumor types through broad-ranging pre-clinical studies and into clinical trials. We have successfully completed a first-in-human trial of Alpha DaRT in patients with superficial and skin tumors and are focused on further developing Alpha DaRT for purposes of seeking FDA marketing authorization in this indication. We are also generating additional clinical evidence regarding the Alpha DaRT technology in superficial and skin tumors from clinical sites around the world, to provide further support for a potential FDA marketing authorization and third-party payor coverage and reimbursement in the United States and around the world. In parallel, we are pursuing a similar approach towards developing the Alpha DaRT technology for other uses by conducting feasibility studies and then generating potentially registrational data in other indications, such as breast, pancreas and prostate cancers, or applications such as combinations with immunotherapies. We have engaged with a number of prestigious medical and educational institutions and, as of March 21, 2022, we have nine clinical studies ongoing worldwide.

Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Skin, Head and Neck

SCCs are cancers which grow out of squamous epithelial cells, commonly found on the skin or in the lining of bodily organs or respiratory and upper digestive tracts. According to the American Cancer Society and the Skin Cancer Foundation, more than one million cases of SCC of the skin are diagnosed every year in the United States. Over 50,000 cases of SCC of the head and neck are diagnosed every year in the United States, with SCC making up approximately 90% of head and neck cancers. In the more difficult cutaneous SCC cases, we estimate that approximately 10% are treated by radiotherapy, and nearly 20% of cutaneous SCC will recur within five years after treatment by superficial radiotherapy. We selected SCC of the skin, head and neck as an initial target for the Alpha DaRT because of the relative simplicity of delineation and delivery to superficial solid tumors, as well as the ability to easily

65

Table of Contents

assess the Alpha DaRT’s effects on the tumors and the surrounding tissue on an ongoing basis and to monitor for any potential serious adverse events.

Rabin Medical Center, Israel, and ISRT, Italy (Completed; 2017 – 2019)

We evaluated the feasibility, safety and efficacy of the Alpha DaRT technology in a first-in-human study of locally advanced and recurrent squamous cell carcinoma cancers of the skin and head and neck, the results of which were subsequently published in the International Journal for Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics and which elected a positive editorial reaction in the same journal. The trial was conducted in an elderly (median age = 80.5 years) and largely pre-treated patient population, with 42% of the treated lesions having already received radiation therapy. Efficacy was evaluated in 28 tumors of the skin and head and neck, and results showed that Alpha DaRT achieved a >78% complete response rate. The Alpha DaRT was generally well-tolerated, with limited local toxicity and no systemic toxicity.

Study Design

This prospective, first-in-human, multi-center clinical study initially included 31 lesions across 27 patients. Four patients were enrolled at first to evaluate feasibility, which was defined as the ability to implant Alpha DaRT into a tumor without generating Grade 3 toxicity after three months on treatment. Once feasibility was established, an additional 23 patients were enrolled to further evaluate toxicity and preliminary efficacy, namely, the tumor response and local progression-free survival, or PFS. Eligibility criteria included patients with biopsy- proven squamous cancers of the skin and head and neck with either primary tumors or recurrent/previously treated disease by either surgery or prior external beam radiation therapy; 13 of 31 lesions (42%) received prior radiation therapy. Safety was evaluated according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, or CTCAE, version 4.03. Tumor response was assessed at 30 to 45 days at a follow-up visit using the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1, or RECIST. Median follow-up time was 6.7 months when the trial ended in March 2019.

The Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group, or ECOG, Performance Status scale was also evaluated at baseline. Lesions were photographed and measured physically. Additional baseline (pre-insertion) examinations included complete blood test, liver and kidney function tests, urinalysis, and radioactivity measurements in blood and urine. After enrollment, eligible patients underwent a computed tomography, or CT, scan to obtain pretreatment tumor volume. These values were used to determine the appropriate number of Alpha DaRT sources required to encompass tumor volume. Before treatment, an experienced head and neck surgeon evaluated all patients to assess feasibility for further salvage surgery.

Thirty-one lesions in 27 patients were evaluated in this study, including 22 patients from Rabin Medical Center, Israel, and five from Instituto Scientifico Romagnolo per Lo Studio e la Cura dei Tumori, Italy. Of the 31 lesions, efficacy evaluations were conducted on 28 lesions from patients who met the study eligibility criteria, received the protocol-specified Alpha DaRT treatment, and completed the minimum follow-up at 6 weeks after treatment. The average number of Ra-224 DaRT sources inserted into these 31 tumors was 27.7 sources (range, 3-169 sources) of two μCi each, with an average treatment duration of 16.3 days. The average radioactivity of the sources on the day of insertion was 55.4 μCi.

Biosafety Evaluation

Radioactivity measurements (at insertion site, at different body areas, and in blood and urine samples), vital signs, and general assessments of the patients’ medical condition were recorded at baseline and during follow-up visits. There was no measurable radioactivity from the treatment in the blood and urine in patients 30 days after treatment. The values of alpha doses were well within the maximum tolerable doses of radiation for the lungs, kidneys, and bone marrow at 1500, 500, and 100 centiGy (a unit of measuring absorbed radiation dose), respectively.

Study follow-up examinations included repeat blood tests and urinalysis, additional blood and urine radiation measurements, and assessment of ECOG Performance Status scale at four, nine, and 30 days post- Alpha DaRT insertion. Tumor size was measured again at 30 to 45 days following Alpha DaRT insertion. Change in tumor size was assessed by physical examination when possible, or in most cases, by radiological imaging, including PET-CT or CT scans. Tumor response was assessed during a 30-to-45 day follow-up visit using RECIST. Only the irradiated tumor was considered a target lesion for response assessment. Response criteria were defined as follows: complete response, disappearance of the irradiated tumor, or CR; partial response, at least a 30% decrease in the longest dimension of the irradiated tumor, or PR; progressive disease, at least a 20% increase in the longest dimension of the irradiated tumor, taking as reference the smallest longest dimension recorded in radiotherapy, or PD; stable disease, neither sufficient shrinkage to

66

Table of Contents

qualify for PR nor sufficient increase to qualify for PD, taking as reference the smallest sum since the treatment started. Four to six weeks following Alpha DaRT insertion, a biopsy was obtained if there was clinical suspicion of residual disease. Patients were subsequently evaluated every two months.

Efficacy Results

Twenty-eight target lesions were evaluable to determine tumor response. All evaluable target lesions responded to treatment, with CRs observed in 22 lesions (78.6%), and a PR (tumor reduction between 30% and 100%) was observed in the other six lesions (21.4%). An example of a CR observed in a patient with a newly diagnosed scalp tumor is shown in the figure below.

​

​

​

Fifteen of the 16 evaluable lesions (94%) that did not receive prior radiotherapy demonstrated a CR and, among the lesions that were previously treated with radiotherapy, 7 of 12 (58%) had a CR. Among the 22 lesions that achieved a CR, 5 developed a local relapse at the site of DaRT implantation at a median of 4.9 months (range, 2.43-5.52 months) after treatment. The Kaplan-Meier estimated local PFS rate for all patients at one year was 44% (CI, 20.3-64.3%). Among patients with an initial CR to treatment, the Kaplan-Meier estimated local PFS rate at one year was 60%. Only 32% of the patients had a full year of follow-up. Patients who

67

Table of Contents

achieved an initial CR had significantly higher local PFS and overall survival rates at one year compared with those who achieved a PR (60.1% and 93% compared with 0% and 0%, respectively) (Fig).

Local Progression-Free Survival Stratified by Response Status

Overall survival rates to 12 months post-DaRT implantation were 75% (95% CI, 46.14-89.99%) among all patients and 93% (95% CI, 59.08-98.96%) among complete responders. The median follow-up was 6.7 months (range, 1.45-23.36 months).

One patient who was treated twice for skin SCC exhibited a unique response, as each time a lesion was treated, a second, non-target lesion responded as well, manifesting as CR to the treatment. The details of this patient’s unique response were published in a 2019 case report in the Journal of Contemporary Brachytherapy. The publication concluded that DaRT treatment may play a very important role because it could stimulate an anti-tumor immune reactivity with more ease than low-LET radiation that is used with conventional EBRT.

Furthermore, the destruction of the tumor by DaRT maintains an intact vasculature around the tumor, enabling an influx of immune cells to recognize and destroy tumor cells.

There was no statistically significant difference in local PFS between primary (newly diagnosed) and recurrent lesions at one year. Median local PFS among patients with recurrent tumors was 5.5 months and was 5.09 months for those with primary tumors. There was also no statistically significant difference in local PFS between recurrent or primary lesions. There was no significant difference in initial response rates and toxicity outcomes between patients who received prior radiotherapy and those who did not. Median local PFS among patients with prior radiation was 5.2 months and was 5.1 months for those without previous radiation.

Following these initial positive results, we expanded our clinical evaluations to a wider patient population and initiated follow-on trials at multiple clinical sites in Israel and around the world. These trials are designed to evaluate Alpha DaRT in cancers of the skin, superficial soft tissue, or oral cavity, regardless of cell type, which includes SCC as well as basal cell carcinoma, melanoma, skin

68

Table of Contents

metastases, and others. We also initiated a trial to evaluate the retreatment of patients who previously were treated with the Alpha DaRT. As of February 28, 2022, across our clinical trials involving superficial lesions, i.e., tumors of the skin, head or neck, Alpha DaRTs have been administered to over 100 lesions, with no treatment-related SAEs, and in a pooled analysis of patients who were treated per the applicable trial protocol, we identified an overall response rate of 98% observed among those lesions that reached the evaluation endpoint, including a complete response rate of 74%. The data from these first trials led to the FDA granting Breakthrough Device Designation to the Alpha DaRT for the treatment of patients with SCC of the skin or oral cavity without curative standard of care.

Safety Results

Treatment-related adverse events generally included local pain and erythema at the implant site, followed by swelling and mild skin ulceration, and were limited to Grade 1 (mild) or Grade 2 (moderate) adverse events. For pain and Grade 2 skin ulcerations, 90% of patients showed resolution of these adverse events within three to five weeks. In general, these acute toxicities were resolved within a median time of 15 days. In eight patients, the Alpha DaRT sources were inserted adjacent (less than 5 mm) to bone and teeth, and none developed osteoradionecrosis. Two serious adverse events, or SAEs, were reported, both of which were determined to be unrelated to the study treatment. No device-related SAEs were observed during the course of treatment or at follow-up. The incidence rate of device-related SAEs was 0% over time (95% confidence interval, or CI, 0-12.06%) and the incidence rate of unrelated SAEs was 7.14% (95% CI, 1.98-22.65%). Two SAEs were reported, both of which were determined to be unrelated to the protocol therapy. One patient developed pneumonia after therapy and subsequently expired owing to their underlying poor performance status and multiple comorbidities. In a second patient treated with the Alpha DaRT for a SCC confined to the nose, cerebral edema was attributed to a prior course of radiation therapy to the base of skull and posterior orbit. No device- related SAEs were observed during the course of treatment or follow-up. No subsequent toxicities were observed during follow-up visits.

Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, NY / Multi-Center (Ongoing)

We have received approval of an investigational device exemption, or IDE, from the FDA to evaluate Alpha DaRT in a clinical study designed to collect preliminary safety and efficacy data that may be required to support an application for marketing authorization. The IDE permits us to conduct a clinical study to evaluate the feasibility of Alpha DaRT in treating malignant skin and superficial soft tissue tumors. This trial was initially opened in 2020 at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, but recruitment was delayed due to the impact of COVID-19 in New York City. The FDA recently approved our request to convert the study into a multi-center study via the addition of up to five other clinical sites around the United States. Following completion of this trial, and pending further discussion with the FDA, we plan to conduct a single pivotal trial to support U.S. marketing authorization. All ten patients in this trial were treated in the second half of 2021. The study met its primary feasibility endpoint, as all patients had successful delivery of radiation by Alpha DaRT. At approximately 12 weeks, all ten lesions treated demonstrated a complete response to the treatment, with no product-related serious adverse events observed.

Study Design

The initial IDE study is a pilot feasibility trial in which 10 subjects will be enrolled, with an interim read-out planned after the first five subjects administered with the Alpha DaRT have been evaluated. The primary objectives are to explore the feasibility of delivering radiotherapy for malignant skin and superficial soft tissue tumors using Alpha DaRT, with a goal of achieving successful delivery in at least 7 of the 10 patients, as well as to determine the frequency and severity of acute adverse events. Secondary objectives will include assessments of radiotherapy-related adverse events, tumor response, radiation safety, stability of device placement, and quality of life measures. Eligible patients will have a malignant skin or superficial soft tissue tumor 1-5 cm in size that is suitable for percutaneous interstitial brachytherapy, a form of radiotherapy. The minimum longest dimension for the tumor is 1 cm. The minimum tumor thickness is 4 mm.

After enrolling in the trial, eligible subjects will undergo a volumetric assessment of the tumor by a CT planning scan. Volumetric images will be used to generate the plan for delivering Alpha DaRT by defining the optimal number, size and location for Alpha DaRT source placement. After radiation planning is completed, the Alpha DaRT source will be inserted using pre-planned radiotherapy parameters (with a specified number and size of Alpha DaRT sources). Immediately after placement of the Alpha DaRT sources, a standard planning CT will be performed to assess source positions within the tumor. A physical dose of 10 Gy will be prescribed, which is equivalent to a weighted radiation dose of 200 CGyE.

69

Table of Contents

Approximately two to three weeks after placement of the Alpha DaRT sources, the placement of the sources will be reassessed by volumetric imaging, and then they will be removed. Tumor response will be assessed periodically three months after removal of the Alpha DaRT source.

Combination Study: DaRT + Checkpoint Inhibitor (Recruiting)

As part of our clinical development program for the Alpha DaRT in SCC, in November 2021 we initiated a combination study of the Alpha DaRT and pembrolizumab (Keytruda) for the treatment of HNSCC, in Israel. We chose to evaluate the Alpha DaRT in combination with pembrolizumab for the treatment of HNSCC because in our pre-clinical studies (discussed below), the combined use of Alpha DaRT with immunomodulators resulted in decreased metastatic burden and improved survival in treated animals. Further, the results indicated that this activity was modulated by activation of the immune system. Both pembrolizumab, a humanized antibody targeting the PD-1 receptor of lymphocytes, and Alpha DaRT have shown positive results in clinical studies in the treatment of HNSCC. Consequently we are aiming to explore the combination of these interventions as a potential treatment for metastatic or recurrent HNSCC.

Study Objectives and Design

The primary objectives of this study are to evaluate efficacy of Alpha DaRT in combination with pembrolizumab via the Confirmed Best Overall Response as defined by RECIST. Secondary objectives include assessments of the frequency, severity and causality of acute adverse events related to the Alpha DaRT treatment in combination with pembrolizumab. Patients enrolled in the trial will receive pembrolizumab cycles every three weeks both before and after receiving Alpha DaRT treatment. The study uses a two-stage adaptive design and can recruit up to 48 patients, with a planned interim analysis after the first 18 patients have been treated. Adverse events will be assessed and graded according to CTCAE version 5.0. PFS will be defined as the time from embrolizumab treatment start date to progressive disease according to RECIST or death due to any cause, whichever occurs first. Overall Survival is defined as the time from pembrolizumab treatment start date to death due to any cause or lost to follow up. Duration of Response is defined as the interval from the time measurement criteria are first met for CR, PR, or stable disease (whichever is first recorded) until the first date recurrent or progressive disease is objectively documented. Exploratory objectives include the assessment of immunological parameters as a result of Alpha DaRT administration in combination with pembrolizumab. The image below illustrates the trial design for this combination study:

France Multi-Center– Skin Cancer (Open)

We have initiated a multi-center study at six cancer centers in France to investigate the safety and efficacy of Alpha DaRT for the treatment of malignant cutaneous tumors. The target population will consist of two cohorts: newly diagnosed patients (up to 49 subjects), and patients with recurrent disease or aggressive pathology (i.e., melanoma) (36 subjects). The primary effectiveness endpoint is the assessment of the overall response rate, or ORR, using RECIST criteria, 9 to 11 weeks after Alpha DaRT source insertion. The secondary effectiveness endpoints include assessment of the reduction in tumor volume based on CT / ultrasound / physical examination- measured tumor volume at 9 to 11 weeks, assessment of Alpha DaRT source placement using CT imaging on the day of Alpha DaRT insertion, patient-reported health-related Quality of Life, or QoL, outcomes, and Disease- Free Survival at 12- and 24-months post-Alpha DaRT source insertion. Safety objectives include assessment of acute AEs both related and unrelated to Alpha DaRT administration, according to CTCAE version 5.0, all vital signs, blood and urine tests, and subject external radiation levels, and assessment of chronic AEs related to Alpha DaRT at 12- and 24-months post-source insertion.

70

Table of Contents

Breast Cancer

We selected breast cancer as the next target for clinical evaluation of the Alpha DaRT given the potential for percutaneous access using similar applicators to those we have used in clinical studies evaluating skin, head & neck tumors, as well as the high worldwide incidence of the disease. In the United States, the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program of the National Cancer Institute estimates there will be over 280,000 new female breast cancer diagnoses in 2021, and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that breast cancer is the second most common cancer in US women, after skin cancer.

Japan – Head and Neck Cancer and Breast Cancer (Recruiting)

According to the Japanese Cancer Information Service, in 2013 there were approximately 25,000 new diagnoses of skin cancers, 19,000 new diagnoses of cancers of the oral cavity & pharynx, and 77,000 new diagnoses of female breast cancer in Japan.

In Japan, we are conducting a clinical study at three cancer centers, in which we plan to recruit a total of 18 patients: 12 with head or neck cancer and six breast cancer patients. The study is designed as a prospective, single arm open-label study. Patients with a history of radiation therapy with cancer of the head and neck or breast which is recurrent and non-responsive or non-indicative for medical treatment are included in the study.

The primary objective and endpoint of this study is to assess the efficacy of Alpha DaRT, and the rate of reduction in tumor size 9 to 11 weeks after the source insertion is evaluated based on RECIST. The secondary objective of this study is to assess the safety of Alpha DaRT, including as measured by the incidence, severity, and frequency of AEs, including during the observation period.

On January 3, 2022, we announced the completion of patient recruitment for the head and neck tumors section of the trial. If the results from the head and neck tumors section of the trial are positive, we may engage with Japan’s Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency regarding potential review later in 2022. We are continuing to recruit breast cancer patients.

A. Tsyb Medical Radiological Research Center, Russia (Recruiting)

In 2019, we initiated a trial at the A. Tsyb Medical Radiological Research Center in Obninsk, Russia, to investigate the safety and efficacy of Alpha DaRT for the treatment of 30 newly diagnosed breast carcinoma patients with distant metastases.

The primary efficacy endpoint of the study is the assessment of tumor response using RECIST 9 to 11 weeks after Alpha DaRT source insertion. The primary safety endpoint is to assess the frequency, severity and causality of acute AEs related to Alpha DaRT sources insertion, assessed and graded according to CTCAE version 5.0. Other safety endpoints include all AEs related and unrelated to the study treatment, vital signs, blood and urine tests, and subject and personnel radiation levels.

The secondary endpoints include: assessment of the reduction in tumor volume and maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) in CT/PET-CT and any pathological remissions, assessment of the Alpha DaRT source placement using CT imaging on the day of placement, patient-reported QoL measures, any abscopal effect on existing distant metastases at the time of Alpha DaRT removal, and PFS for 6 months after Alpha DaRT source insertion.

As of December 31, 2021, one patient had been recruited and treated in this trial. We understand from the clinicians treating her that this patient showed a response following treatment as well as a potential abscopal effect, although we do not expect that this patient will be included in the per-protocol population due to insufficient ongoing imaging.

Pancreatic Cancer

Pancreatic cancer is the fourth leading cause of cancer-related mortality, responsible for 7% of all cancer- related deaths in both men and women. It is associated with an extremely poor prognosis, reflected by a median survival of five to eight months and a five-year survival probability of less than 5% when all stages are combined. Pancreatic cancer is particularly deadly due to the fact that there are no unique symptoms in its early stages, and, since the pancreas is obscured by other organs in the abdomen and is difficult to visualize clearly on imaging tests, it is therefore typically not detected before having already metastasized to regional lymph nodes, the liver, the lungs or other visceral organs such as the stomach or colon. We selected pancreatic cancer as a target for the Alpha DaRT technology in light of the poor prognosis associated with this particular cancer, as well as our pre-clinical research in which the Alpha DaRT showed activity against pancreatic adenocarcinoma cells.

71

Table of Contents

Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal, Canada (Recruiting)

We have initiated a single-site clinical study at Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal, or CHUM, to investigate the feasibility, safety and preliminary efficacy of Alpha DaRT for the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer. No patients have been recruited as of December 31, 2021 due to COVID-19. Recruitment is open for 30 patients with locally advanced (Stage II or Stage III) or metastatic (Stage IV) pancreatic adenocarcinoma which has been histologically and/or cytologically proven and which is not amenable to surgery, with a tumor lesion of less than four cm.

There are two short-term objectives of this study: to evaluate the feasibility and safety of Alpha DaRT as assessed by the incidence of device-related AEs and SAEs, and to evaluate the preliminary efficacy of Alpha DaRT for pancreatic cancer patients, as measured by ORR following the insertion of the sources, and any observable change in CA19-9 as a marker of tissue damage. The long-term objectives include evaluating overall survival following Alpha DaRT sources insertion, stent durability after Alpha DaRT sources insertion, and change in quality of life as measured by patient questionnaires.

The primary endpoints of the study are: feasibility, as measured by the successful placement of the Alpha DaRT sources within the tumor or less than 5 mm from the tumor, to be determined based on CT scan performed immediately following the insertion procedure; and safety, by assessing the frequency, severity and causality of acute AEs and SAEs related to Alpha DaRT sources insertion. AEs and SAEs will be assessed and graded according to CTCAE version 5.0. Other safety endpoints include all AEs and SAEs related and unrelated to the study treatment, vital signs, blood and urine tests, and subject and personnel radiation levels. For the first five patients, only one patient will be recruited on a four-week basis to allow for assessment of AEs and SAEs before the next patient is recruited, and an interim analysis will be conducted after five patients have been enrolled. Secondary endpoints include: preliminary efficacy, measured by assessing the ORR four to six weeks after Alpha DaRT sources insertion as assessed by CT scan, changes in CA19-9, which serves as a marker of tissue damage (elevation during treatment, and reduction as a result of tumor ablation), and assessments of overall survival, local control, regional control, distal metastases following DaRT sources insertion for 24 months, or until patients are lost to follow-up or disease progression, stents durability (assessed by the time elapsed from DaRT insertion to the need for follow up referral for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatograph, or ERCP, for stent change due to tumor ingrowth), and change in patient-reported quality of life measures 35 and 60 days after Alpha DaRT source insertion.

We are also in advanced stages of drafting a protocol for another trial evaluating the Alpha DaRT technology in the treatment of pancreatic adenocarcinoma, which we expect to open in Israel in the second half of 2022.

Prostate Cancer

Prostate cancer is the second most frequently diagnosed cancer in men worldwide, with approximately 1.3 million new cases diagnosed each year. We believe there are several potential benefits to delivering neoadjuvant radiation therapy specifically with Alpha DaRT in patients with prostate cancer. First, we believe that Alpha DaRT may be able to elicit an immune response, as suggested by previous pre-clinical data that showed immune activity, as well as data from our clinical studies that showed anecdotal evidence of a potential abscopal effect, which we believe would have the potential to inhibit the development of future metastases. Second, while prostate cancer is a heterogeneous disease, it appears that local recurrences emanate from the dominant lesion. Therefore, we believe treating these lesions with Alpha DaRT could decrease the risk of recurrence. Third, these dominant lesions can create hypoxic microenvironments which is associated with worse outcomes for traditional radiation therapy. Alpha radiation cytotoxic activity has been observed to be independent of oxygen levels and therefore we believe may be better suited to treating these lesions. While our first planned study will focus on evaluating neoadjuvant use of Alpha DaRT in treating prostate cancer, we plan to evaluate Alpha DaRT in the future for focal treatment of radiation recurrent tumors or in combination with external beam radiation therapy.

Rambam Health Care Campus, Israel (Planning)

Our first planned study will focus on evaluating neoadjuvant use of Alpha DaRT in treating prostate cancer at the Rambam Health Care Campus in Israel. The primary objective of the study is to evaluate the feasibility and the safety of intratumoral insertion of Alpha DaRT sources into prostate adenocarcinoma in the neoadjuvant setting. The secondary objectives are to evaluate the pathological ORR at 35 days (+/-7) following Alpha DaRT source insertion through the examination of the pathology of the tumor after prostatectomy, the radiological ORR based on imaging (change in standard uptake value and T2 weighting) within one week of surgery and the

72

Table of Contents

change in disease-related QoL. The exploratory objectives are to assess DNA damage and repair and immune infiltration (biomarker analysis: CD34, TILs) from baseline to surgery and within one week of surgery, and the biochemical response evaluation based on PSA levels.

Liver Metastasis – Clinical Trial (Planning)

We are currently designing a clinical study to evaluate the feasibility and safety of intratumoral Alpha DaRT for the treatment of liver metastases in approximately 10 patients. The liver is the most common site for metastatic disease from the gastrointestinal tract. It is also one of the most commons sites for metastases of other malignancies such as breast cancer, lung cancer, and melanoma. In colorectal cancer, about two thirds of 600,000 annual deaths are related to liver metastases. Liver metastases are diagnosed in more than 50% of colorectal cancer patients during the course of their disease. During the last two decades, treatment paradigms of metastatic disease have changed dramatically. While surgical resection of metastases was once considered futile, today surgical resection of liver metastases is a well-established therapeutic strategy and offers the best chance for long term survival for suitable patients. Colorectal liver metastases are the most common indication for liver resection, but selected patients with neuroendocrine, breast, lung and melanoma also benefit from resection of liver metastases. Other common indications for liver resection include primary liver tumors such as hepatocellular carcinoma and intra-hepatic cholangiocarcinoma.

We plan to test the effect of the Alpha DaRT technology on liver metastases during a two-staged hepatectomy. This unique clinical scenario is designed to allow us to implant Alpha DaRT sources in right-sided liver metastases during the first operation and resect the right liver containing the sources during the second operation. Thus, we believe a complete histopathological evaluation of liver metastases following Alpha DaRT administration can be performed, after which we will be able to evaluate the effect of Alpha DaRT sources on liver metastases with different histopathological growth patterns.

The rationale for evaluating Alpha DaRT with this approach is multi-fold. First, we believe Alpha DaRT may elicit an immunological response, thus through treatment of a single liver metastasis, we believe there could be reduction in metastases throughout the remaining liver. We believe a reduction in metastases may also reduce the risk of future metastases from arising. Secondly, during the time between the two stages of the hepatectomy, patients are normally not receiving metastasis-directed therapy, but in this study their remaining lesions will be receiving Alpha DaRT during the period between surgical procedures. Third, we believe there may be synergy between Alpha DaRT and chemotherapy, which could further improve outcomes.

We expect that this study’s primary objectives will be to evaluate the safety and feasibility of Alpha DaRT implanted in liver metastases. We expect the secondary objectives will be to evaluate the pathological and radiological response of liver metastases to DaRT and to stratify the differences in response to Alpha DaRT by histopathological growth patterns. We expect that the exploratory objective will be to evaluate the immunological effects of Alpha DaRT treatment.

SCC of the Vulva – Cambridge University Addenbrooke’s Hospital (Planning)

We are currently planning, in collaboration with the Cambridge University Hospital, a study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the Alpha DaRT technology for the treatment of primary and recurrent SCC of the vulva. We expect that ten patients will be evaluated in this study, with the primary objective being the safety, feasibility and tolerability, and the secondary objective being the effectiveness of the treatment. We also plan to measure the immunological response.

Additional Pipeline Indications

In addition to the trials and clinical pathways described above, we are currently planning a number of other clinical studies, both to generate additional data from the tumor types we are already exploring in humans, as well as to test the use of Alpha DaRT in additional tumor types, including prostate cancer, glioblastoma multiforme, and lung cancer.

Summary of Our Pre-Clinical Findings

We consider pre-clinical research as a source of strong and ongoing support for our core thesis and for potential expansion into a wide range of proposed indications. To that end, we continue to invest, both internally and with leading universities and academic centers around the world, in conducting robust pre-clinical research with particular focus on potential supra-additive combinations of Alpha DaRT with other therapies such as immunotherapies and chemotherapies. Among other things, we are currently constructing our own pre-clinical laboratory at our headquarters in Jerusalem, Israel to facilitate our own examination of such combinations.

73

Table of Contents

The extensive pre-clinical research conducted on Alpha DaRT has generally focused on three core areas: (1) evaluating the potency of Alpha DaRT in destroying tumors, measured across a broad range of cell lines, (2) evaluating combinational treatments with standard of care / FDA approved therapies such as chemotherapy and antiangiogenic agents, and (3) evaluating the immunostimulatory potential of the Alpha DaRT and optimizing the combination of Alpha DaRT and immunotherapy. Pre-clinical research, including both in vitro and in vivo experiments as well as physical, biological and computational modeling of the diffusion or biokinetic properties of Alpha DaRT, have led to the publication of 18 articles in peer-reviewed journals.

DaRT is Designed to Efficiently Destroy a Tumor

Pre-clinical studies were performed in vitro and in vivo with mouse tumor models and human derived tumors, to evaluate the diffusion properties and potential therapeutic activity of Alpha DaRT:

​

In vitro studies were performed to evaluate the impact of alpha particles on tumor cell viability. Cell lines investigated in vitro included squamous cell, lung, colon, prostate, breast, pancreatic and cervical carcinomas, glioblastoma and melanoma. All cell lines were sensitive to alpha particles (typically dying within days after exposure), with a mean lethal dose in the range 0.7-1.5 Gy. In vivo studies using various tumor types were consistent with the in vitro findings, and showed that Alpha DaRT sources destroyed tumors and achieved a high degree of local control.

As shown in the figure below regarding observed tumor growth in mice, in a pre-clinical study using a sealed Alpha DaRT source designed to prevent radon recoil, no ablative effect was observed, suggesting that the ablation was caused primarily by alpha radiation from the recoiling alpha emitters, rather than the low level of gamma/beta radiation emitted from the source, which had a minor effect.

74

Table of Contents

Alpha DaRT sources were observed to have killed multiple types of mouse and human tumors in vivo. The extent of the tumor killing varied between tumor types, and was dependent on the ability of the radioactive atoms to diffuse inside the tumor and on the intrinsic sensitivity of the cancer cells to DNA damage induced by the radiation, but all tumor types showed responsiveness to Alpha DaRT, i.e., there was no observed resistance. The figure below compares the growth of tumors in groups of mice who received a Radium-224-loaded Alpha DaRT vs. an inert wire (control), in athymic mice bearing colonic HCT15 (A), prostatic PC3 (B) or glioblastoma U87 (C) tumors, as well as representative mice in the HCT15 group treated with a Radium-224-loaded Alpha DaRT (D) and an inert source (E).

The complex DNA damage induced by alpha radiation, namely clustered double-strand breaks, is nearly impossible to repair and is largely unaffected by the presence of oxygen or by cell cycle phase, which may indicate the potential for alpha particles to kill hypoxic cells which might otherwise be resistant to conventional radiation treatments based on photons or electrons. Consistent with this understanding, mouse and human cells showed lower survival following treatment with alpha radiation compared to x-ray in the

75

Table of Contents

same dose. The figure below demonstrates in vitro survival curves for Panc1 (A) and FaDu (B) cancer cell lines after exposure to X-rays or to alpha particles generated from Thorium-228.

​

76

Table of Contents

​

Alpha DaRT was evaluated in combination with chemotherapy (e.g., cisplatin), locally and systemically, which extended host survival. The figure below shows the development of tumor growth (A) and survival curve (B) for BALB/c mice bearing SQ2 tumors who were each treated with two sources that were either loaded with Radium-224 or inert, where some received Cisplatin and others did not.

77

Table of Contents

​

The figure below demonstrates the metastatic lung burden using hematoxylin-eosin-stained lung cross- sections from this experiment, comparing representative mice from the Inert group (A) and Radium-224 + Cisplatin group (B), as well as a graph (C) of the ratio of total average gray pixel value for each group vs. normal healthy lungs from mice without tumors, when images were analyzed with Image J software.

In human xenografts in nude mice of Glioblastoma Multiforme, or GBM, Alpha DaRT was combined with the chemotherapy drug Temozolomide. As seen in Figure A below, the combination led to significantly increased tumor growth retardation compared to each of the treatments alone. Moreover, as seen in Figure B below, the rate of animals that reached the maximal allowed tumor size

78

Table of Contents

before sacrifice was significantly decreased in Alpha DaRT-treated mice and in the combination-treated mice, which may indicate a potential of Alpha DaRT to extend lifespan.

​

Notably, in our combination pre-clinical experiments only a single Alpha DaRT source was used for the treatment of a tumor, despite that the alpha-emitting atoms released from this single source would not be expected to cover the whole tumor. The purpose of using a single source is to avoid a complete response of the tumor only by virtue of the direct impact of the alpha radiation. Deliberately under-dosing Alpha DaRT enables the investigation of the combination and potential synergy between Alpha DaRT and the drug.

GBM-bearing mice were also treated with Alpha DART in combination with the anti-angiogenic agent Avastin (bevacizumab), where Avastin was injected 3 times per week for 3 weeks from day 5 after insertion of the Alpha DaRT. The combination treatment prevented tumor regrowth following treatment, and tumor size was stable for a longer period than in either of the treatments alone. Additionally, in the mice treated with the combination or with Alpha DaRT, 2 of 6 or 2 of 7 mice, respectively, saw their tumors disappear completely without late relapse, potentially indicating an ability to prevent GBM recurrence. We are investigating a hypothesis that this effect may be mediated by the Avastin-induced changes in the tumor vasculature that may affect alpha particle dispersion in the tumor or leakage rate.

79

Table of Contents

Alpha DaRT as a Potential Immunostimulator

Radiation is traditionally considered to produce damage-associated molecular patterns, or DAMPs, that activate dendritic cells; in the presence of an antigen this may lead to specific T cell responses. During the escape phase, melanoma cells acquire deficient antigen presentation machinery, masking them from the immune system.

A published third-party study recently reported that, apart from the potential to efficiently kill tumor cells relative to other radiation types, alpha-emitting radium significantly enhanced T cell-mediated tumor lysis that was accompanied by augmented protein expression of MHC-I and calreticulin, molecules that are essential for efficient antigen presentation and immune activation.

The figure below illustrates the potential effect of irradiation to release antigens from the tumor, which, in turn, may be able to harness the dendritic cells to generate T cell response to detect and target the specific tumor cells for destruction. Tumor antigens released by irradiated tumor cells can be taken up by antigen-presenting cells, or APCs, such as dendritic cells and phagocytic cells. The APCs may then interact with tumor antigens and then migrate to the lymph nodes where they present antigens to T cells, a process that is mediated by the MHC pathway and other co-stimulatory signals, such as CD80 and CD28. After activation by multiple signals, T cells, especially the CD8+ T cells, may be activated and begin to propagate. As a result, activated effector T cells may exit the lymph nodes and home to tumors, including primary tumors and non-irradiated tumor metastases, to exert their effect of killing tumor cells. However, cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) competitively combines with CD80/86 and inhibits the activation of T cells. Following T cell activation, programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) receptors that are expressed on the T cell surface bind primarily to PD-L1 and inhibit immune responses. Hence, we believe the administration of immune checkpoint blockades of CTLA-4, PD-1, and PD-L1 may be able to enhance the anti-tumor immunity induced by radiotherapy.

Source: Journal of Hematology & Oncology available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30115069/

Previously reported studies have demonstrated that ablation treatments, such as radiotherapy, have the potential to expose the body to large amounts of tumor antigens and danger signals and thus may trigger anti- tumor immunity. Consistent with this thesis, we observed that Alpha DaRT rendered studied animals resistant to a second tumor challenge in two tumor models, colon carcinoma and breast carcinoma. In the immunogenic colon carcinoma tumor model CT26, mice that were treated with Alpha DaRT developed resistance to tumor re-challenge in the opposite lateral side of the back or to experimental metastases in the lungs, suggesting that a systemic immune memory was induced following treatment. The figure below demonstrates the tumor development (A) and survival (B) of mice who were challenged with CT26 cancer cells, where those mice were previously treated for CT26 tumors with Alpha DaRT or with inert sources, compared to naïve mice that did not previously have tumors.

​

80

Table of Contents

​

​

Inhibition of regulatory T cells by low-dose cyclophosphamide, inhibition of Myeloid-derived Suppressor Cells, or MDSCs, by sildenafil, or immuno-stimulation by CpG further enhanced the tumor retardation induced by Alpha DaRT, providing further evidence of immune response.

As seen in the figure below, mice bearing breast DA3 tumors demonstrated the least tumor development when treated with the Alpha DaRT together with CpG (as compared to phosphate-buffered saline, or PBS).

In addition, as seen in the figures below, the combination of sildenafil (A) or cyclophosphamide (B) with Alpha DaRT, led to greater tumor growth inhibition compared to any of the monotherapy groups.

​

81

Table of Contents

As can be seen in the figure below showing survival curves for the different groups, the combination of cyclophosphamide, sildenafil, CpG and Alpha DaRT led to 51% long-term tumor rejection of the CT26 bearing mice, while the combination of cyclophosphamide, sildenafil, CpG and an inert source in lieu of Alpha DaRT mostly led to tumor recurrence.

In addition, as shown in the figure below, when repeating the previously described challenge tests four months after a previous treatment, the previous treatment that included Alpha DART and immunomodulation (CpG, cyclophosphamide and sildenafil) led to the most meaningful tumor inhibition.

It was observed that the anti-tumor immune memory evidenced following combination treatment (Alpha DaRT and immunomodulators) was specific to CT26 tumor cells and did not provide any protection against other tumor cell lines. In addition, this specific anti-tumor immune memory was transferable to naïve mice, as splenocytes isolated from treated mice were able to protect naïve mice from the CT26 tumor cells, yet not from other tumor cells.

In a range of tumors, including triple negative breast cancer, pancreatic and squamous cell carcinoma, a synergy in tumor/metastases development was observed between Alpha DaRT and the delivery of viral dsRNA into the cytoplasm of tumor cells by intratumoral injection of polyIC complexed with polyethylenimine, or PEI.

82

Table of Contents

As shown in the figure below, under neoadjuvant settings and following long-term follow-up in mice with 4T1 breast tumors, it was observed that metastases were not formed in the lungs of 75% of studied mice which underwent the combined before surgery treatment, while metastases-related death was observed in the other animals.

In light of the observed potential of Alpha DART to induce antigen-specific immune memory and to demonstrate synergy with immunomodulation, we have investigated the use of the Alpha DART in combination with an inhibitor of programmed cell death protein 1, or PD1. As there are many patients who do not demonstrate a response to such therapies, we wish to understand whether the Alpha DaRT may demonstrate immunostimulatory traits that can potentially enhance response rates or efficacy of response to anti-PD1 therapies, thereby offering a potential mechanism for reducing recurrence rates or enhancing systemic effects in addition to the local therapeutic effect.

Recent preliminary data supports this hypothesis, shown in the figure below, in mice bearing SCC tumors which were treated with the Alpha DaRT, and then a PD1 inhibitor was injected 4 times from day 2 to day 12 after Alpha DaRT treatment. Alpha DaRT demonstrated the potential to increase the response of tumors otherwise unresponsive to a PD-1 inhibitor, where the tumor growth of SCC tumors in mice was meaningfully inhibited in mice that received both the Alpha DaRT as well as a PD-1 inhibitor, as compared to mice that received either the Alpha DaRT or the PD-1 inhibitor alone. Whereas anti-PD-1 therapy did not affect tumor progression on its own, adding anti-PD-1 therapy to Alpha DART further increased the growth retardation induced by Alpha DaRT, suggesting that Alpha DART may induce responsiveness to anti-PD-1 therapy.

Furthermore, as shown below both graphically and in representative immunohistochemistry cryo-sections, it was observed that the density of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (CD3+TILs) in the tumor, which is often used to define a “hot tumor” and as a predictor for treatment response, is higher in the combination treatment relative to anti-PD-1 alone, further suggesting that Alpha DART may activate T-cell function when used with anti-PD-1 therapy.

83

Table of Contents

​

84

Table of Contents

Similar effects were seen with respect to the density of the lymphocyte effector sub population (CD8+TILs) and Granzyme B, a serine protease most commonly found in the granules of natural killer cells and cytotoxic T cells, as seen in the figures below.

​

85

Table of Contents

In the pancreatic tumor model, as seen below in the figure of average tumor volume measured at day 14 after treatment, a similar trend was observed in response to the combination of Alpha DaRT with anti-PD1, which led to better tumor control than either therapy alone or the standard of care chemotherapy gemcitabine.

Components of the Alpha DaRT Technology

Alpha DaRT technology is delivered in a kit comprising radioactive 316LVM stainless steel hollow wires or tubes of 5-10 mm length and <1mm diameter, known as “sources,” and applicators to administer the sources. Each source is impregnated with Radium-224, which generates the decay chain of alpha emitters that are designed to recoil into the tumor. These proprietary applicators have been specially designed and developed by us for dispensing the sources based upon the tumor’s location in the body in order to facilitate clinicians’ access to hard-to-reach tumors or tumors which are extremely close to major organs or blood vessels. We believe the applicators are a key component to maximizing the potential advantages of localized alpha radiotherapy.

Our Alpha DaRT kit comprises three main components: the radioactive source, specialized applicators, and accessories. We have developed the applicators and accessories with input from clinicians across a variety of specialties in an effort to optimize the Alpha DaRT technology for clinical use.

Our Alpha DaRT Sources

Our Alpha DaRT sources utilize a 316LVM stainless steel hollow tube or rod to which Radium-224 is affixed. Our Alpha DaRT sources are designed to be customized to multiple sizes (depending on their intended use) and designed as temporary implants (for use in and removal from superficial tumors) or permanent implants (for use in internal organs). Our R&D department is constantly examining enhancements to future versions of the Alpha DaRT sources, including the use of additional materials that we believe could offer advantages in flexibility, biocompatibility or biodegradability, more advanced anchoring and fixation, or enhanced properties of desorption of the alpha-emitting decay chain.

Our Applicators and Accessories

Our Applicators

The Alpha DaRT applicator is composed of a needle or tube (with an attached hub) with the Alpha DaRT sources placed inside for deployment into a tumor, and a stylet (with an attached hub) which functions like a plunger in the needle or tube to eject the source(s) towards the appropriate location within the tumor. A protective cap is attached to the needle to prevent inadvertent damage or loss of a source, and a safety screw is used to fasten the needle and the stylet firmly together. Additionally, the sources are encapsulated with glycerin, a biocompatible material which is designed to act as a sealant to trap the decay product Radon-220 gas

86

Table of Contents

from release until it is ejected into the tumor by the applicator. Each applicator can hold up to six sources for deployment in a single injection.

We have developed seven applicators designed to cover a range of potential applications, including the treatment delivery method, the duration of the sources’ implantation, and on the location of the tumor.

For the temporary implantation of sources into superficial tumors, we have developed the following three categories of applicators:

All of the foregoing applicators are designed to be supplied preloaded, sealed and ready for immediate use in the procedure room.

We have also developed a number of applicators for implantation of sources into tumors inside the body:

Finally, we are developing an applicator to address glioblastoma multiforme, or GBM, which we are designing to be adapted to specific constraints in the brain, including minimizing movement in the brain when deploying Alpha DaRT sources. Our goal is to ensure that such adaptor is appropriately sterilized and does not release any undesired radioactivity into the brain.

87

Table of Contents

Below are images of several applicators within our range:

The Alpha DaRT Needle Applicator and components (18 gauge needle, 140 mm in length)

The Alpha DaRT Flex Applicator

88

Table of Contents

The Alpha DaRT Template Applicator

Loading Device

​

89

Table of Contents

Our Accessories

In addition to our sources and applicators, we have also developed a number of ancillary accessories specially designed for use with our Alpha DaRT sources, including grids for guiding deployment, surgical buttons and clips. We have also developed and printed personalized bolus templates for use in specific clinical cases, designed to allow the clinician to execute the treatment plan accurately and seamlessly in conjunction with the Alpha DaRT Template Applicator.

Our Manufacturing and Supply Infrastructure

The Alpha DaRT technology utilizes sources enriched with Radium-224, a radioactive material with a half- life of only 3.7 days. As each treatment requires a different number of sources and applicators tailored for the specific patient, a reliable and timely delivery of the personalized Alpha DaRT kit to the hospital is required. We therefore plan to develop production sites in key regions around the world. We have already built two sites in the United States and Israel, have started the planning process for a site in Japan, and anticipate that we may build another facility in Europe. Our global manufacturing plan is designed to ensure a sufficient supply of radioactive sources with fast and cost-efficient delivery to our core markets.

Our key input for production of the Alpha DaRT is Thorium-228, a readily available radioisotope that can be purchased from licensed vendors around the world. The Thorium-228 naturally decays into the Radium-224 that is collected onto the sources. We have entered into a multi-year supply contract with Eckert & Ziegler AG in Germany, and also acquire Thorium-228 from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory of the United States Department of Energy. We are also aware of or have spoken with other potential suppliers of Thorium-228, such that we anticipate a steady, unrestricted supply of thorium for the production of the Alpha DaRT.

We currently operate two manufacturing plants. One, located in Jerusalem, Israel, is currently running at a small scale while capacity is being added, and we estimate it will contain sufficient capacity for approximately 400,000 sources when at full capacity. Our second facility, in Lawrence, Massachusetts, was completed in 2020 and began producing Thorium-228 generators at the start of 2021, and we estimate that the facility will have sufficient capacity for production of approximately 125,000 sources per year when operating near full capacity. We have also entered into a lease for a building in Togane, Japan where we hope to construct a facility of a similar size as our Jerusalem facility at scale. The modular nature of our manufacturing capacity allows us to initiate manufacturing more swiftly and then scale up to full capacity over time. We believe these facilities will enable us to maintain sufficient quantities of Thorium-228 securely, to safely produce and capture radium from thorium’s alpha decay, to affix the radium onto the sources, and to ship the sources with their suitable applicator(s) to various destinations efficiently.

In our manufacturing facilities, we employ different methods to produce extractable radium for scalable use. One such method, in a dry setup, utilizes an electrostatic field to attract and isolate radium atoms. Specifically, we use the thorium as a flux-generating surface source to create a collecting unit in which we place the Alpha DaRT sources for charging. The thorium decays into ionized radium atoms, which recoil from the thorium generator and can be attracted or repelled using their inherent charge. The source is placed at a precise distance from the thorium generator and an electrostatic field is placed across it to attract the radium to adhere to the source.

After the radium is collected, each source is thermally treated or coated with a polymer to embed the radium securely on the outermost layers of the metallic matrix of the source, while allowing the Radon-220 and subsequent daughter atoms to desorb, or detach from the source and enter the tumor. Each Alpha DaRT source is individually measured to determine the overall Radium-224 activity on it and the desorption probability of Radon-220, to calculate how much Radon-220 will diffuse into the tumor. It is then placed in an applicator to fit upon the prescribed treatment profile.

We have also recently devised a new method of radium production, which entails the collection of Radium-224 via a liquid solution of Thorium-228, allowing for more efficient production with a higher output by significantly increasing the percentage yield of Radium-224 which is collected, as well as shortening the time to collect Radium-224 onto each source. This method has the potential of increasing our existing capacity by a factor of 2 to 3.

Alpha DaRT sources are prepared upon receiving an order from the clinician and are designed specifically for the treatment of an individual patient; specifically, the number of active sources in each applicator is made to order to match the prescribed treatment plan. Supply of the Alpha DaRT sources is carefully coordinated to account for a usable window up to 24 hours after receipt of the Alpha DaRT sources by the hospital, for the natural decay of the Radium-224 during shipment and intake. Pursuant to the United Nations guidance regarding the transport of radioactive materials, the Alpha DaRT sources do not require special handling or

90

Table of Contents

protective gear in transit and can be shipped in Excepted Packages, which are used to transport material with extremely low levels of radioactivity, by standard courier. Prior to shipment, our clinical operations team ensures that all relevant clinicians undergo sufficient training as to proper handling, storage, and disposal of the Alpha DaRT sources.

Our Commercialization Strategies

We have yet to commercialize in any geographical market, even though we presently have received marketing approval in Israel for the treatment of squamous cell carcinoma of the skin or oral cavity using the Alpha DaRT, and expect that our existing clinical trials, if completed successfully, may be sufficient to satisfy the regulatory requirements for marketing authorization in Europe and Japan. As we believe that the Alpha DaRT technology has the potential address the majority of solid tumors, including in potential combination with immunotherapies, we are focused on evaluating that potential in these various tumors by conducting clinical trials across multiple indications, to be incorporated into a future plan of commercial launch, sequencing and pricing if we obtain marketing authorization(s) in the future. We aim to generate clinical and healthcare economic data to support marketing authorization and third-party payor coverage and reimbursement in the United States, which we see as our primary market, and we anticipate seeking to commercialize initially in the United States before other markets, including Israel, notwithstanding our existing marketing approval in Israel.

We also believe that our clinical trials being conducted in leading sites around the world will ultimately serve our commercial purposes as well, as we believe those clinical sites may ultimately become lead commercial end-users or centers of excellence in the commercial setting.

While we ultimately envision leading much of the commercialization of the Alpha DaRT in core markets such as the United States, we may choose to enter into distribution agreements in other geographies with parties who have exemplary local sales and marketing capabilities. To that end, we have entered into binding term sheets with Medison Pharma Ltd., one of the largest commercial partners of leading global biotech companies in international markets, and its affiliates, to lead the potential commercialization of the Alpha DaRT in Canada and Israel. We intend to enter into definitive commercial agreements covering the commercialization, distribution and sales of the Company’s future products in Canada and Israel. Under these term sheets, effective for a 15-year term following the approval to sell our products, Medison will be responsible for performing regulatory submissions, marketing and distribution directly to clinicians. We remain focused on performing investigational studies to evaluate the potential efficacy of the Alpha DaRT as a monotherapy and an immuno-stimulating combination therapy, and on supplementing our robust patent portfolio across a broad range of tumor applications, as we continue to navigate the regulatory pathways towards commercialization. We believe that these studies will also allow us to better explore the question of which clinicians are ultimately our end customer for commercial purposes, given the involvement of multiple practitioners including the radiation oncologist, medical physicist, and the clinician delivering the Alpha DaRT such as the oncology surgeon or interventional radiologist.

Competition

The biotechnology, medical device and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by the rapid evolution of technologies and understanding of disease etiology, intense competition and a strong emphasis on intellectual property. We face potential competition from many different sources, including major pharmaceutical, medical device, specialty pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, academic research institutions, governmental agencies and public and private research institutions.

In the field of local therapy for solid tumors, we face competition from new or continually improving surgical techniques, as well as a number of radiation therapies – EBRT, stereotactic body radiation therapy, intensity-modulated radiation therapy, brachytherapy, and others, as well as particle therapies such as proton therapy, neutron therapy and carbon ion therapy. There are several companies developing improved or new forms of local radiation therapy, including Varian Medical Systems, Inc. (a subsidiary of Siemens Healthineers), Elekta AB, BTG plc (a subsidiary of Boston Scientific Corporation), ViewRay, Inc., Accuray, Inc., RefleXion Medical, Inc.

In addition, in the field of systemic therapy for cancer, commercial and academic clinical trials are being pursued by a number of parties in the field of radiopharmaceuticals, some of which involve the use of alpha radiation as well. Early results from these trials have fueled continued interest in radiopharmaceuticals, which is being pursued by several biotechnology companies as well as by large pharmaceutical companies.

91

Table of Contents

There are several companies developing targeted alpha-based radiopharmaceuticals for the treatment of cancer, including Bayer AG, or Bayer, Novartis AG, Fusion Pharmaceuticals Inc., RayzeBio, Inc., Actinium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., RadioMedix, Inc, Orano and Telix Pharmaceuticals Limited. These companies are targeting a wide range of solid and hematologic malignancies using various alpha emitting isotopes, including Radium-223, Actinium-225 and Thorium-227. The first and only approved alpha particle-based therapy is Bayer’s Xofigo, a salt of Radium-223 that cannot easily and robustly be attached to a targeting molecule, but naturally localizes to regions where cancer cells are infiltrating bone. Xofigo was approved in 2013 for the treatment of bone metastases associated with prostate cancer.

Many of our current or potential competitors, either alone or with their collaboration partners, have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, pre-clinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals and marketing approved products than we do. Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical, medical device and biotechnology industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel and establishing clinical trial sites and patient enrollment in clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs.

We could see a reduction or elimination in our commercial opportunity if our competitors develop and commercialize treatments that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient to administer, are less expensive or have a more favorable label than our Alpha DaRT technology. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their treatments more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market. The key competitive factors affecting the success of all of our product candidates, if approved, are likely to be their efficacy, safety, convenience and ease of use, price, the effectiveness of imaging diagnostics, the level of generic competition and the availability of reimbursement from government and other third-party payors.

Our Intellectual Property

As of December 31, 2021, our patent portfolio included 83 issued patents, and 76 pending patent applications including two allowed patent applications.

Pursuant to an Intellectual Property Purchase Agreement dated February 2, 2016, we acquired from Althera Medical Ltd. a patent portfolio which now totals 80 patents, including some patent applications whose prosecution was completed following our acquisition. These patents were all assigned to us and are recorded in our name. The patents relate primarily to a device, method of treatment, or method of production of the Alpha DaRT product itself, specifically, to intratumoral diffusing alpha-emitter radiation therapy wherein a probe is loaded with radioisotopes which undergo a process of alpha-emitting radioactive decay solely in proximity to and/or within a tumor. These patents include three U.S. patents, one Canadian patent, three Japanese patents, one Chinese patent, one Hong Kong patent, two European patents each validated in 30 European countries, two Korean patents, three U.K. patents, three French patents, and three German patents. The three issued patents in the United States are expected to expire between 2025 and 2029, without accounting for any potential patent term adjustments or extensions or other forms of exclusivity.

We have two issued patents and 12 pending patent applications, including one allowed patent application, relating to the use of a polymer allowing daughter atoms to escape the source and penetrate the tumor where they emit alpha particles by diffusion. This increases the percentage of daughter radionuclides that reach the tumor. Of the two issued patents, one is an Australian patent, and the other is a South African patent. The foregoing patent applications are pending in the U.S., Europe, Japan, Canada, China, Korea, Russia, African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO), Mexico, India, Hong Kong, and Singapore. These patents or patents issuing from the pending applications will begin to expire in 2038, exclusive of possible patent term adjustments or extensions or other forms of exclusivity.

We have 14 pending patent applications, including one allowed patent application, relating to the potential controlled release of a certain amount of Radium-224 from the Alpha DaRT source into the tumor. One of these patent application has been allowed in Australia and 13 of these patent applications are pending in the U.S., Europe, Japan, Canada, China, Korea, Russia, ARIPO, Mexico, India, Hong Kong, Singapore, and South Africa. Patents issuing from these pending applications will begin to expire in 2039, exclusive of possible patent term adjustments or extensions or other forms of exclusivity.

92

Table of Contents

We have one issued patent and 16 pending patent applications, relating to a number of our applicators and other accessories that are used in the Alpha DaRT source itself or in its delivery. The issued patent is an Australian patent, and the 16 patent applications are pending in the U.S., Europe, Japan, Canada, China, Korea, Russia, ARIPO, Mexico, India, Hong Kong, Singapore, South Africa and three pending patent applications in Australia. Patents issuing from these pending applications will begin to expire in 2039, exclusive of possible patent term adjustments or extensions or other forms of exclusivity.

We have 11 pending patent applications relating to a therapeutic substance administered to a tumor as a medicant, which triggers cytoplasmatic sensors to the presence of an intracellular pathogen, followed by intratumoral Alpha DaRT thereafter. The foregoing patent applications are pending in the U.S., Europe, Japan, China, Canada, Australia, India, Korea, Singapore, Russia, and Hong Kong. Patents issuing from these patent applications begin to expire in 2038, exclusive of possible patent term adjustments or extensions or other forms of exclusivity.

We have a total of five PCT applications, 15 U.S. applications, including four provisional applications, and 3 Taiwan applications, which relate to other potential approaches for our products, including other potential approaches for our product candidates. Patents issuing from these applications will begin to expire in 2040, exclusive of possible patent term adjustments or extensions or other forms of exclusivity.

Grants Under the Innovation Law

Under the Encouragement of Research, Development and Technological Innovation in the Industry Law 5744-1984, and the provisions of the applicable regulations, rules, IIA directives and benefit tracks, (collectively, the “Innovation Law”), research and development programs that meet specified criteria and are approved by a committee of the IIA are eligible for grants. The grants awarded are typically up to 50% of the project’s expenditures, as determined by the research committee and subject to the benefit track under which the grant was awarded. A company that receives a grant from the IIA, or a grant recipient, is typically required to pay royalties to the IIA on income generated from products incorporating know-how developed using such grants (including income derived from services associated with such products), until 100% of the U.S. dollars-linked grant plus annual LIBOR interest is repaid. The rate of royalties under the regular benefits tracks varies between 3% to 5% of the income generated from the IIA-supported products. The obligation to pay royalties is contingent on actual income generated from such products and services. In the absence of such income, no payment of such royalties is required.

The terms of the grants under the Innovation Law also generally require that the products developed as part of the programs under which the grants were given be manufactured in Israel and that the know-how developed thereunder may not be transferred outside of Israel, unless a prior written approval is received from the IIA (such approval is not required for the transfer of a portion of the manufacturing capacity which does not exceed, in the aggregate, 10% of the portion declared to be manufactured outside of Israel in the applications for funding, in which case only notification is required) and additional payments are required to be made to the IIA. It should be noted, that this does not restrict the export of products that incorporate the funded know-how. With respect to transfer of know how out of Israel, when an approval is received from the IIA, a redemption fee must be paid to the IIA. The Innovation Law provides a formula for the calculation of such redemption fee, based on the value of the transferred know-how, multiplied by the amount of grants received from the IIA (including the accrued interest), and divided by the total amounts expended by the grant recipient on R&D. To the extent any royalties were paid to the IIA on account of the grants, such royalties will be deducted from the calculation. The redemption fee is subject to a cap of six times the total amount of the IIA grants, plus interest accrued thereon, and a floor of equal to the total amounts of the IIA grants, plus the interest accrued. Upon payment of the redemption fee, the know-how and manufacturing rights developed under the IIA funding cease to be subject to the Innovation Law. See “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Israeli Law and Our Operations in Israel” for additional information.

Since our incorporation, we have received grants from the IIA relating to various projects. No royalties have been paid to the IIA in respect of any grant. Our total outstanding obligation to the IIA at December 31, 2021, including grants received by the Company, grants assumed from Althera Medical Ltd. and the associated interest accrued on all such grants, including the interest accrued through, amounts to approximately $5.06 million, of royalty-bearing grants. In addition, through December 31, 2021, we received IIA participation payments in the aggregate amount of $975 thousand under non-royalty-bearing programs from the IIA. This includes an advance payment of $242 thousand received in December 2021 toward such a non-royalty-bearing grant program, which is effective from December 1, 2021. This amount is presented as an accrued expense at December 31, 2021.

93

Table of Contents

Government Regulation

Our products and operations are subject to extensive regulation by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, and other federal and state authorities in the United States, as well as comparable authorities in foreign jurisdictions. Our product candidates are subject to regulation as medical devices in the United States under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or FDCA, as implemented and enforced by the FDA.

United States Regulation of Medical Devices

The FDA regulates the development, design, non-clinical and clinical research, manufacturing, safety, efficacy, labeling, packaging, storage, installation, servicing, recordkeeping, premarket clearance or approval, adverse event reporting, advertising, promotion, marketing and distribution, and import and export of medical devices to ensure that medical devices distributed domestically are safe and effective for their intended uses and otherwise meet the requirements of the FDCA.

FDA Premarket Clearance and Approval Requirements

Unless an exemption applies, each medical device commercially distributed in the United States requires either FDA clearance of a 510(k) premarket notification, or approval of a premarket approval, or PMA, application. 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 ensure its safety and effectiveness. Class I includes devices with the lowest risk to the patient and are those for which safety and effectiveness can be assured by adherence to the FDA’s General Controls for medical devices, which include compliance with the applicable portions of the Quality System Regulation, or QSR, facility registration and product listing, reporting of adverse medical events, and truthful and non-misleading labeling, advertising, and promotional materials. Class II devices are subject to the FDA’s General Controls, and special controls as deemed necessary by the FDA to ensure the safety and effectiveness of the device. These special controls can include performance standards, post-market surveillance, patient registries and FDA guidance documents.

While most Class I devices are exempt from the 510(k) premarket notification requirement, manufacturers of most Class II devices are required to submit to the FDA a premarket notification under Section 510(k) of the FDCA requesting permission to commercially distribute the device. The FDA’s permission to commercially distribute a device subject to a 510(k) premarket notification is generally known as 510(k) clearance. Devices deemed by the FDA to pose the greatest risks, such as life-sustaining, life-supporting or some implantable devices, or devices that have a new intended use, or use advanced technology that is not substantially equivalent to that of a legally marketed device, are placed in Class III, requiring approval of a PMA. Some pre-amendment devices are unclassified, but are subject to FDA’s premarket notification and clearance process in order to be commercially distributed.

510(k) Clearance Marketing Pathway

To obtain 510(k) clearance, a manufacturer must submit to the FDA a premarket notification demonstrating that the proposed device is “substantially equivalent” to a predicate device already on the market. A predicate device is a legally marketed device that is not subject to premarket approval, i.e., a device that was legally marketed prior to May 28, 1976 (pre-amendments device) and for which a PMA is not required, a device that has been reclassified from Class III to Class II or I, or a device that was found substantially equivalent through the 510(k) process. The FDA’s 510(k) clearance process usually takes from three to twelve months, but may take longer. The FDA may require additional information, including clinical data, to make a determination regarding substantial equivalence. In addition, FDA collects user fees for certain medical device submissions and annual fees and for medical device establishments. For fiscal year 2022, the standard user fee for a 510(k) premarket notification application is $12,745.

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, 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.

94

Table of Contents

After a device receives 510(k) 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) clearance or, depending on the modification, PMA approval or de novo reclassification. The FDA requires each manufacturer to determine whether the proposed change requires submission of a 510(k), de novo request or a PMA in the first instance, but the FDA can review any such decision and disagree with a manufacturer’s determination. If the FDA disagrees with a manufacturer’s determination, the FDA can require the manufacturer to cease marketing and/or request the recall of the modified device until 510(k) marketing clearance or PMA approval is obtained or a de novo request is granted. Also, in these circumstances, the manufacturer may be subject to significant regulatory fines or penalties.

Over the last several years, the FDA has proposed reforms to its 510(k) clearance process, and such proposals could include increased requirements for clinical data and a longer review period, or could make it more difficult for manufacturers to utilize the 510(k) clearance process for their products. For example, in November 2018, FDA officials announced steps that the FDA intended to take to modernize the premarket notification pathway under Section 510(k) of the FDCA. Among other things, the FDA announced that it planned to develop proposals to drive manufacturers utilizing the 510(k) pathway toward the use of newer predicates. These proposals included plans to potentially sunset certain older devices that were used as predicates under the 510(k) clearance pathway, and to potentially publish a list of devices that have been cleared on the basis of demonstrated substantial equivalence to predicate devices that are more than 10 years old. These proposals have not yet been finalized or adopted, although the FDA may work with Congress to implement such proposals through legislation.

More recently, in September 2019, the FDA issued revised final guidance describing an optional “safety and performance based” premarket review pathway for manufacturers of “certain, well-understood device types” to demonstrate substantial equivalence under the 510(k) clearance pathway by showing that such device meets objective safety and performance criteria established by the FDA, thereby obviating the need for manufacturers to compare the safety and performance of their medical devices to specific predicate devices in the clearance process. The FDA has developed and maintains a list device types appropriate for the “safety and performance based” pathway and continues to develop product-specific guidance documents that identify the performance criteria for each such device type, as well as recommended testing methods, where feasible.

PMA Approval Pathway

Class III devices require PMA approval before they can be marketed, although some pre-amendment Class III devices for which FDA has not yet required a PMA are cleared through the 510(k) process. The PMA process is more demanding than the 510(k) premarket notification process. In a PMA, the manufacturer must demonstrate that the device is safe and effective, and the PMA must be supported by extensive data, including data from pre-clinical studies and human 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 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 often takes significantly longer, and can take 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 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 QSR. PMA applications are also subject to the payment of user fees, which for fiscal year 2022 includes a standard application fee of $374,858.

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 study that supported PMA approval or requirements to conduct additional clinical studies post-approval. The FDA may 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, methods, or quality control procedures, or changes in the design performance specifications, which affect the safety or effectiveness of the device, require submission of a PMA

95

Table of Contents

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.

De novo classification process

Medical device types that the FDA has not previously classified as Class I, II, or III are automatically classified into Class III regardless of the level of risk they pose. The Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 established a route to market for low-to-moderate risk medical devices that are automatically placed into Class III due to the absence of a predicate device, called the “Request for Evaluation of Automatic Class III Designation,” or the de novo classification procedure. This procedure allows a manufacturer whose novel device is automatically classified into Class III to request down-classification of its medical device into Class I or Class II on the basis that the device presents low or moderate risk, rather than requiring the submission and approval of a PMA application. Prior to the enactment of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act, or FDASIA, in July 2012, a medical device could only be eligible for de novo classification if the manufacturer first submitted a 510(k) pre-market notification and received a determination from the FDA that the device was not substantially equivalent. FDASIA streamlined the de novo classification pathway by permitting manufacturers to request de novo classification directly without first submitting a 510(k) pre-market notification to the FDA and receiving a not-substantially-equivalent determination. De novo classification requests are subject to the payment of user fees, which for fiscal year 2021, includes a standard fee of $109,697.

Under FDASIA, FDA is required to classify the device within 120 days following receipt of the de novo request, although the process may take significantly longer. 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. If FDA grants the de novo request, the device may be legally marketed in the United States. However, the FDA may reject the request if the FDA identifies a legally marketed predicate device that would be appropriate for a 510(k) notification, determines that the device is not low-to-moderate risk, or determines that general controls would be inadequate to control the risks and/or special controls cannot be developed. After a device receives de novo classification, any modification that could significantly affect its safety or efficacy, or that would constitute a major change or modification in its intended use, will require a new 510(k) clearance or, depending on the modification, another de novo request or even PMA approval.

Clinical Trials

Clinical trials are almost always required to support a PMA or a de novo request, and are sometimes required to support 510(k) submissions. All clinical investigations of devices to determine safety and effectiveness must be conducted in accordance with the FDA’s investigational device exemption, or 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 investigators. If the device presents a “significant risk” to human health, as defined by the FDA, the FDA requires the device sponsor to submit an IDE application to the FDA, which must become effective prior to commencing human clinical trials. If the device under evaluation does not present a significant risk to human health, then the device sponsor is not required to submit an IDE application to the FDA before initiating human clinical trials, but must still comply with abbreviated IDE requirements when conducting such 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, used in supporting or sustaining human life, substantially important in diagnosing, curing, mitigating or treating disease 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. The IDE will automatically become effective 30 days after receipt 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.

Regardless of the degree of risk presented by the medical device, clinical studies 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, human clinical trials may begin at a specific number of investigational sites with a specific number of patients, as

96

Table of Contents

approved by the FDA. If the device presents a non-significant risk to the patient, a sponsor may begin the clinical trial after obtaining approval for the trial by one or more IRBs without separate approval from the FDA, but must still follow abbreviated IDE requirements, such as monitoring the investigation, ensuring that the investigators obtain informed consent, and labeling and record-keeping requirements. Acceptance of an IDE application for review does not guarantee that the FDA will allow the IDE to become effective and, if it does become effective, 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.

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 study 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 reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Additionally, after a trial begins, we, 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.

Expedited Development and Review Programs

Following passage of the 21st Century Cures Act, the FDA implemented the Breakthrough Devices Program, which is a voluntary program offered to manufacturers of certain medical devices and device-led combination products that may provide for more effective treatment or diagnosis of life-threatening or irreversibly debilitating diseases or conditions. The goal of the program is to provide patients and health care providers with more timely access to qualifying devices by expediting their development, assessment and review, while preserving the statutory standards for PMA approval, 510(k) clearance and de novo classification. The program is available to medical devices that meet certain eligibility criteria, including that the device provides more effective treatment or diagnosis of life-threatening or irreversibly debilitating diseases or conditions, and that the device meets one of the following criteria: (i) the device represents a breakthrough technology, (ii) no approved or cleared alternatives exist, (iii) the device offers significant advantages over existing approved or cleared alternatives, or (iv) the availability of the device is in the best interest of patients. Breakthrough Device Designation provides certain benefits to device developers, including more interactive and timely communications with FDA staff, use of post-market data collection, when scientifically appropriate, to facilitate expedited and efficient development and review of the device, opportunities for efficient and flexible clinical study design, and prioritized review of premarket submissions.

Post-market Regulation

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

97

Table of Contents

Manufacturing processes for medical devices are required to comply with the applicable portions of the QSR, 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 QSR also requires, among other things, maintenance of a device master file, device history file, and complaint files. As a manufacturer, we are subject to periodic scheduled or unscheduled inspections by the FDA. Failure to maintain compliance with the QSR requirements could result in the shutdown of, or restrictions on, manufacturing operations and the recall or seizure of marketed products. The discovery of previously unknown problems with marketed medical devices, 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 physician 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.

The FDA has broad regulatory compliance and enforcement powers. If the FDA determines that a manufacturer has 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:

Regulation of Medical Devices in the European Union

The European Union, or EU, has adopted specific directives regulating the design, manufacture, clinical investigations, conformity assessment, labeling and adverse event reporting for medical devices. Until May 25, 2021, medical devices were regulated by Council Directive 93/42/EEC, or the EU Medical Devices Directive, or Council Directive 90/385/EEC, or the Active Implantable Medical Devices Directive, which have been repealed and replaced by Regulation (EU) No 2017/745, or thek EU Medical Devices Regulation. Unlike the directives, the EU Medical Devices Regulation is directly applicable in EU member states without the need for member states to implement into national law.

In the EU, there is currently no premarket government review of medical devices. However, the EU requires that all medical devices placed on the market in the EU must meet the general safety and performance requirements laid down in Annex I to the EU Medical Devices Regulation including the requirement that a medical device must be designed and manufactured in such a way that, during normal conditions of use, it is suitable for its intended purpose. Medical devices must be safe and effective and must not compromise the clinical condition or safety of patients, or the safety and health of users and – where applicable – other persons, provided that any risks which may be associated with their use constitute acceptable risks when weighed against the benefits to the

98

Table of Contents

patient and are compatible with a high level of protection of health and safety, taking into account the generally acknowledged state of the art. The European Commission has adopted various standards applicable to medical devices. These include standards governing common requirements, such as sterilization and safety of medical electrical equipment and product standards for certain types of medical devices. There are also harmonized standards relating to design and manufacture. While not mandatory, compliance with these standards is viewed as the easiest way to satisfy the general safety and performance requirements as a practical matter as it creates a rebuttable presumption that the device satisfies that general safety and performance requirements.

Compliance with the general safety and performance requirements of the EU Medical Devices Regulation is a prerequisite for European Conformity Marking, or CE mark, without which medical devices cannot be marketed or sold in the EU. To demonstrate compliance with the general safety and performance requirements, medical device manufacturers must undergo a conformity assessment procedure, which varies according to the type of medical device and its (risk) classification. As a general rule, demonstration of conformity of medical devices and their manufacturers with the general safety and performance requirements must be based, among other things, on the evaluation of clinical data supporting the safety and performance of the products during normal conditions of use. Specifically, a manufacturer must demonstrate that the device achieves its intended performance during normal conditions of use, that the known and foreseeable risks, and any adverse events, are minimized and acceptable when weighed against the benefits of its intended performance, and that any claims made about the performance and safety of the device are supported by suitable evidence. Except for low-risk medical devices (Class I non-sterile, non-measuring devices), where the manufacturer can self-assess the conformity of its products with the general safety and performance requirements (except for any parts which relate to sterility or metrology), a conformity assessment procedure requires the intervention of a notified body. Notified bodies are independent organizations designated by EU member states to assess the conformity of devices before being placed on the market. A notified body would typically audit and examine a product’s technical dossiers and the manufacturers’ quality system (notified body must presume that quality systems which implement the relevant harmonized standards – which is ISO 13485:2016 for Medical Devices Quality Management Systems – conform to these requirements). If satisfied that the relevant product conforms to the relevant general safety and performance requirements, the notified body issues a certificate of conformity, which the manufacturer uses as a basis for its own declaration of conformity. The manufacturer may then apply the CE mark to the device, which allows the device to be placed on the market throughout the EU.

Notified body certificates of conformity are valid for a fixed duration (which shall not exceed five years). Throughout the term of the certificate, the manufacturer will be subject to periodic surveillance audits to verify continued compliance with the applicable requirements. In particular, there will be a new audit by the notified body before it will renew the relevant certificate(s).All manufacturers placing medical devices into the market in the EU must comply with the EU medical device vigilance system which has been reinforced by the EU Medical Devices Regulation. Under this system, incidents and Field Safety Corrective Actions, or FSCAs, must be reported to the relevant authorities of the EU member states. These reports will have to be submitted through Eudamed – once functional – and aim to ensure that, in addition to reporting to the relevant authorities of the EU member states, other actors such as the economic operators in the supply chain will also be informed. Until Eudamed is fully functional, the corresponding provisions of the EU Medical Devices Directive continue to apply. A serious incident is defined as any malfunction or deterioration in the characteristics or performance of a device made available on the market, including use-error due to ergonomic features, as well as any inadequacy in the information supplied by the manufacturer and any undesirable side-effect, which, directly or indirectly, might have led or might lead to the death of a patient or user or of other persons or to a temporary or permanent serious deterioration of a patient’s, user’s or other person’s state of health or a serious public health threat. Manufacturers are required to take FSCAs defined as any corrective action for technical or medical reasons to prevent or reduce a risk of a serious incident associated with the use of a medical device that is made available on the market. An FSCA may include the recall, modification, exchange, destruction or retrofitting of the device. FSCAs must be communicated by the manufacturer or its legal representative to its customers and/or to the end users of the device through Field Safety Notices. For similar serious incidents that occur with the same device or device type and for which the root cause has been identified or a FSCA implemented or where the incidents are common and well documented, manufacturers may provide periodic summary reports instead of individual serious incident reports.

Manufacturers (and authorized representatives) must also have available within their organization at least one person responsible for regulatory compliance, or PRRC, who possesses the requisite expertise in the field of medical devices. The PRRC is responsible for all aspects of compliance with the requirements of the EU Medical Devices Regulation and in particular compliance with post-market surveillance and vigilance requirements.

The advertising and promotion of medical devices is subject to some general principles set forth by EU legislation. According to the Medical Devices Regulation, only devices that are CE marked may be marketed and advertised in the EU in accordance with their intended purpose. Directive 2006/114/EC concerning misleading and comparative advertising and Directive 2005/29/EC on unfair

99

Table of Contents

commercial practices, while not specific to the advertising of medical devices, also apply to the advertising thereof and contain general rules, for example requiring that advertisements are evidenced, balanced and not misleading. Specific requirements are defined at national level. EU member states’ laws related to the advertising and promotion of medical devices, which vary between jurisdictions, may limit or restrict the advertising and promotion of products to the general public and may impose limitations on promotional activities with healthcare professionals.

Many EU member states have adopted specific anti-gift statutes that further limit commercial practices for medical devices, in particular vis-à-vis healthcare professionals and organizations. Additionally, there has been a recent trend of increased regulation of payments and transfers of value provided to healthcare professionals or entities and many EU member states have adopted national “Sunshine Acts” which impose reporting and transparency requirements (often on an annual basis), similar to the requirements in the United States, on medical device manufacturers. Certain countries also mandate implementation of commercial compliance programs.

In the EU, regulatory authorities have the power to carry out announced and, if necessary, unannounced inspections of companies, as well as suppliers and/or sub-contractors and, where necessary, the facilities of professional users. Failure to comply with regulatory requirements (as applicable) could require time and resources to respond to the regulatory authorities’ observations and to implement corrective and preventive actions, as appropriate. Regulatory authorities have broad compliance and enforcement powers and if such issues cannot be resolved to their satisfaction can take a variety of actions, including untitled or warning letters, fines, consent decrees, injunctions, or civil or criminal penalties.

The aforementioned EU rules are generally applicable in the European Economic Area, or EEA, which consists of the 27 EU member states plus Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland.

Brexit and Regulation of Medical Devices in the United Kingdom

Since January 1, 2021, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, or MHRA, has become the sovereign regulatory authority responsible for Great Britain (i.e. England, Wales and Scotland) medical device market according to the requirements provided in the Medical Devices Regulations 2002 (SI 2002 No 618, as amended) that sought to give effect to the three pre-existing EU directives governing active implantable medical devices, general medical devices and in vitro diagnostic medical devices whereas Northern Ireland continues to be governed by EU rules according to the Northern Ireland Protocol. Following the end of the Brexit transitional period on January 1, 2021, new regulations require medical devices to be registered with the MHRA (but manufacturers were given a grace period of four to 12 months to comply with the new registration process) before being placed on Great Britain market. The MHRA only registers devices where the manufacturer or their United Kingdom, or UK, Responsible Person has a registered place of business in the UK. Manufacturers based outside the UK need to appoint a UK Responsible Person that has a registered place of business in the UK to register devices with the MHRA in line with the grace periods. Additionally, UK-based notified bodies, which were designated to independently assess the conformity of certain products requiring CE marking before being placed on the EU market, are now no longer established in the EU, and accordingly, the conformity assessments carried out by such UK bodies, including those assessments carried out prior to January 1, 2021, are no longer valid for the EU compliance regime. Manufacturers whose products currently rely on third-party conformity assessments carried out by UK notified bodies now require new conformity assessments to be carried out by EU-based notified bodies in order to ensure continuing compliance with the EU regime and to continue to place those products on the EU market. By July 1, 2023, in Great Britain, all medical devices will require a UKCA, or UK Conformity Assessed, mark but CE marks issued by EU notified bodies will remain valid until this time. Manufacturers may choose to use the UKCA mark on a voluntary basis until June 30, 2023. However, UKCA marking will not be recognized in the EU. The rules for placing medical devices on the market in Northern Ireland, which is part of the UK, differ from those in the rest of the UK. Compliance with this legislation is a prerequisite to be able to affix the UKCA mark to our products, without which they cannot be sold or marketed in Great Britain.

An MHRA public consultation was opened until the end of November 2021 on the post-Brexit regulatory framework for medical devices and diagnostics. MHRA seeks to amend the UK Medical Devices Regulations 2002 (which are based on EU legislation, primarily the EU Medical Devices Directive, the EU Active Implantable Medical Devices Directive and the EU In Vitro Diagnostic Medical Devices Directive), in particular to create a new access pathways to support innovation, create an innovative framework for regulating software and artificial intelligence as medical devices, reform in vitro diagnostic medical devices regulation, and foster sustainability through the reuse and remanufacture of medical devices. The regime is expected to come into force in July 2023, coinciding with the end of the acceptance period for EU CE marks in Great Britain, subject to appropriate transitional arrangements. The consultation indicated that the MHRA will publish guidance in relation to the changes to the regulatory framework and may rely more heavily on guidance to add flexibility to the regime.

100

Table of Contents

In addition, the trade deal between the UK and the EU generally provides for cooperation and exchange of information between the parties in the areas of product safety and compliance, including market surveillance, enforcement activities and measures, standardization-related activities, exchanges of officials, and coordinated product recalls. As such, processes for compliance and reporting should reflect requirements from regulatory authorities.

Under the terms of the Northern Ireland Protocol, Northern Ireland follows EU rules on medical devices and devices marketed in Northern Ireland require assessment according to the EU regulatory regime. Such assessment may be conducted by an EU notified body, in which case a CE mark is required before placing the device on the market in the EU or Northern Ireland. Alternatively, if a UK notified body conducts such assessment, a ‘UKNI’ mark applied and the device may only be placed on the market in Northern Ireland and not the EU.

Other EU requirements.

In the EU, Council Directive 2013/59 lays down basic safety standards for protection against the dangers arising from any planned, existing or emergency exposure situation which involves a risk from exposure to ionizing radiation which cannot be disregarded from a radiation protection point of view or with regard to the environment in view of long-term human health protection. Directive has been implemented at national levels and requirements may vary from one member state to another. These EU rules are generally applicable in the EEA

Israel’s Regulations of our Products

Our product candidates require approval by the Israeli Ministry of Health for sale and distribution in Israel. Our manufacturing activities in Israel are also subject to regulation by the Israeli Ministry of Health, in addition to the radioactive aspect of our manufacturing which is subject to regulation by the Israeli Ministry of Environmental Protection. In addition to approvals related to marketing and selling our products, once approved, we or our clinical trial partner sites also must obtain pertinent approvals or permits to perform our clinical trials in the countries in which we perform such trials, such as in compliance with an international guideline for the ethical conduct of clinical research known as the Declaration of Helsinki. In Israel, our clinical trials require a permit for a research plan (protocol) by the Helsinki Committee, operating under the Israeli Public Health Regulations (Clinical Trials in Human Subject Research), 1980.

Japan’s Regulations of Medical Devices

Medical devices are defined as “appliances or instruments, etc. which are intended for use in the diagnosis, treatment or prevention of disease…,” which are classified into 85 broad product categories under the implementing Cabinet Order, such as “physical diagnostic and treatment devices” or “radioactive material treatment devices”, based on product features and functionalities. If a product falls under any of these categories, it will be regulated as a medical device For the regulatory purposes, the medical devices are given classification of Class I through IV, in light of their potential safety concerns and health risks. For example, a simple device such as blood pressure meter is Class I, whereas products with potential health risks but for which technology is well established in the form of ISO specifications are Class II (e.g., a pulse oximeter). More advanced products with significant safety concerns are Class III (e.g., a heart pacemaker). Finally, the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare (“MHLW”) designates part of Class III devices as Class IV which covers those invasive items with significant safety concerns which may impair human lives (e.g., a balloon cardiovascular catheter). These classifications are compiled in a classification table describing thousands of product subcategories, which is updated from time to time by the MHLW, reflecting introduction of new medical device.

For introduction to the Japanese market, new Class I medical devices do not require any pre market regulatory action. In contrast, it is mandatory, for both Class III and Class IV devices, to obtain pre marketing product approval which the MHLW grants on the basis of safety testing information, as well as clinical trial information, when required. Class II devices (and part of Class III devices) are subject to the certification requirement for compliance with the applicable product specifications, which are often developed under the ISO, before introduction into Japan. Certification of these Class II devices is granted by private sector laboratories accredited in Japan.

At present, no mutual recognition agreement is in force with either the United States or the European Union for medical device registration. Foreign registration of a medical device, therefore, does not exempt products registered in these regions from the Japanese registration requirement. However, the MHLW will accept foreign electric or other safety data as well as foreign clinical trial data for the purpose of Japanese registration.

101

Table of Contents

Approval and Clinical Trial

For approval of a new Class III/IV medical device product, the applicant (which can be either a foreign manufacturer or its distributor in Japan) is required to submit a package of information required by the Japanese regulations which are largely consistent with the Global Harmonization Task Force (“GHTF”)’s regulatory recommendations. For example, the manufacturer is required to prepare documentation and test results demonstrating compliance with the Essential Principles of Safety and Performance, which are largely identical to the general safety and performance requirements of the European Union, such as a risk management program and safety and efficacy documentation.

Unlike the case of pharmaceuticals, not all new medical devices are required to submit clinical trial data to prove safety and efficacy. In particular, new products without “evident” improvement from existing products may be approved with clinical information of a limited size, if they do not pose a new, material clinical risk. On the other hand, truly innovative medical devices have to be tested through a clinical trial, but the domestic clinical trial can be limited or waived if the foreign/international pivotal clinical trial data is available. Importantly, the authorities’ guidance document provides that “clinical significance”, or operability by Japanese healthcare providers (“HCPs”) in the Japanese clinical environment is a most important point of reference for a new medical device. For this reason, even when domestic clinical trial data is required, the scope of the trial is limited to applicability of the new technology to the Japanese clinical environment, the number of subjects is limited, and comparative data is not essential. reason, even when domestic clinical trial data is required, the scope of the trial is limited to applicability of the new technology to the Japanese clinical environment, the number of subjects is limited, and comparative data is not essential.

Separately, in order to expedite introduction of new medical devices from overseas, the authorities accept, in lieu of clinical trial results, a “clinical evaluation report” which proves the risks and benefits of the new medical device based on published professional information on the mechanism and operation of the device.

Quality Management Systems

In addition to the approval requirements, manufacturers of Class III/IV medical devices, either domestic or foreign, are required to observe the Japanese quality management systems (QMS) requirements and obtain certification of compliance from the authorities. The QMS requirements are largely identical to those under ISO 13485, and cover matters including adequate documentation of manufacturing processes in the form of SOPs, adequate staffing and the PDCA cycle procedure.

Post Marketing Surveillance and “Data Exclusivity”

In contrast to new pharmaceuticals, which are typically given a post marketing surveillance period for certain years to assess the safety and efficacy of the new product upon approval, not all newly approved medical devices are subject to the post marketing surveillance requirement. Since 2014, the MHLW requires post marketing surveillance only for “evidently” new medical devices in terms of its mechanical structure, usage, operative procedures, or efficacy, and which have not been used either in Japan or abroad. The post marketing surveillance period is, in principle, 3 years, and generally 5 years for embedded products or orphan products which require a long term observation or a larger number of clinical cases to fully assess the product profile. These determinations are made by the MHLW on a case by case basis, and the Ministry may set the period up to 7 years if it finds necessary.

Notably, when a new product is assigned a post marketing surveillance period, it is the policy of the MHLW to require similar follow on products to submit the equivalent set of date (in particular clinical trial data) to obtain approval, as the right of reference is not automatically granted to competitors. This operation of the post marketing surveillance to block follow on applications is known as the “data exclusivity.” However, the data exclusivity is less important for medical devices than in the case of the pharmaceuticals which are given a much longer post marketing surveillance period (8 years for a new API). Indeed, unlike chemical compounds or biological preparations, medical device manufacturers frequently improve and update device models and software to compete in the market, rather than relying on the patents or data exclusivity.

Safety Reports

After approval, incidents impacting on safety and efficacy of the medical device products marketed in Japan must be reported within 15 days or 30 days of the date when the Japanese distributor becomes aware of the incident. These periods begin counting on the date the relevant information is received by the Japanese distributor, and not the date when the foreign manufacturer has found the

102

Table of Contents

incident. In the past, quite a few Japanese distributors sometimes failed to collect overseas information and file a timely report, resulting in regulatory penalties.

In addition, the distributor is also required to file a periodic safety report to the authorities collecting information on serious incidents as well as unexpected incidents.

Reimbursement

Reimbursement for medical devices in Japan is centralized, as it is covered by the Japanese National Health Insurance (NHI). Institutions who purchased the reimbursable medical devices receive monetary compensation either in the form of price reimbursement (for consumable medical devices), or through their professional/ technical fees (for non-consumables such as CT scanners, automated surgical robotics).

When a new Class III/IV non consumable device product is granted approval, the manufacturer who wishes to obtain the reimbursement status under the NHI must submit a reimbursement proposal to the MHLW. Upon receipt of the proposal, the Ministry will task the advisory body to evaluate if the new medical device would require a new technical fee for reimbursement, or would be reimbursable under the existing technical fee. If the product is entirely new, a new technical fee will be created, under which the fee will be payable to the institution when the device is used for treatment. On the other hand, the authorities may determine that the existing (generic) technical fee covers the new technology, and simply add the new medical device as being eligible for NHI reimbursement under the technical fee. In the latter case, the new product will have to compete with the existing products for compensation from the same technical fee payable to the institution.

Compliance, Promotion and Advertisement

The law was amended in 2020 to strengthen the compliance mechanism inside the corporate structure of the holder of the product approval. Specifically, the approval holder is required to nominate an officer in charge of the medical device matters who shall bear overall responsibilities for compliance, as well as a qualified individual who supervises the operational issues of safety and efficacy of the medical device it distributes. The law also requires the approval holder to organize the compliance structure and allocate and document necessary responsibilities among its staff.

Another major change from the previous law is the introduction of a regulatory surcharge designed to strip the companies of the profits they gain from “false or excessive” advertisement or promotion. The amount of the surcharge will be 4.5 percent of the sales volume of the particular product it unlawfully promoted.

Promotional incentives to the HCPs are governed by the industry association in the form of a fair competition code. For example, the prices of meals offered to the HCPs may not exceed the ceiling under the code.

Advertisement is subject to detailed regulatory guidance of the MHLW. Notably, it is not permitted to distribute academic publication articles to the HCPs when the product is yet to be approved in Japan.

Other U.S. Regulatory Requirements

Medical device and pharmaceutical companies are subject to additional healthcare regulation and enforcement by the federal government and by authorities in the states in which they conduct their business and may constrain the financial arrangements and relationships through which we research, as well as sell, market and distribute any products for which we obtain marketing authorization. Such laws include, without limitation, state and federal anti-kickback, fraud and abuse, false claims, data privacy and security, and transparency laws and regulations related to drug pricing and payments and other transfers of value made to physicians and other healthcare providers. If their operations are found to be in violation of any of such laws or any other governmental regulations that apply, they may be subject to penalties, including, without limitation, administrative, civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, the curtailment or restructuring of operations, integrity oversight and reporting obligations, exclusion from participation in federal and state healthcare programs and imprisonment.

103

Table of Contents

Coverage and Reimbursement

In the United States, our commercial success will depend in part on the extent to which governmental authorities, private health insurers and other third-party payors provide coverage for and establish adequate reimbursement levels for our product candidates, if cleared or approved by the FDA. Failure by physicians, hospitals, ambulatory surgery centers and other users of our products to obtain coverage and adequate reimbursement from third-party payors for our product candidates, or adverse changes in government and private third-party payors’ coverage and reimbursement policies, may adversely impact demand for our product candidates if cleared or approved.

A substantial portion of our revenue will depend on the extent to which the costs of our products purchased by our customers (or services provided with our products) will be reimbursed by third-party payors, including Medicare, Medicaid, other U.S. government sponsored programs and private payors. These third-party payors exercise significant control over patient access and increasingly use their enhanced bargaining power to secure discounted rates and impose other requirements that may reduce demand for our product candidates, if cleared or approved. Our potential customers’ ability to obtain adequate reimbursement for products and services from these third-party payors affects the selection of products they purchase and the prices they are willing to pay. In addition, demand for new products may be limited unless we obtain favorable reimbursement (including coverage, coding and payment) from governmental and private third-party payors at the time of the product’s introduction, which will depend, in part, on our ability to demonstrate that our products have a positive impact on clinical outcomes. Third-party payors continually review their coverage policies for existing and new products and procedures and can deny coverage for our products or revise payment policies such that payments do not adequately cover the cost of our products. Even if third-party payors make coverage and reimbursement available, that reimbursement may not be adequate, which may have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

No uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement among payors in the United States exists and coverage and reimbursement for procedures can differ significantly from payor to payor. Some third-party payors must approve coverage for new or innovative devices or procedures before they will reimburse healthcare providers who use the products or therapies. Even though a new product may have been cleared for commercial distribution by the FDA, we may find limited demand for the product unless and until reimbursement approval has been obtained from governmental and private third-party payors. We can provide no assurances that we will be successful in obtaining coverage from Medicare or any other governmental or commercial third-party payor. Moreover, we may be required to seek new billing codes for the components of the Alpha DaRT, and regulatory authorities may not approve the creation of separate codes. Additionally, even if we are successful, these billing codes or the payment amounts associated with such codes may change in the future.

In addition to uncertainties surrounding coverage policies, there are periodic changes to reimbursement levels. Third-party payors regularly update reimbursement amounts and also from time to time revise the methodologies used to determine reimbursement amounts. This includes routine updates to payments to physicians, hospitals and ambulatory surgery centers for procedures during which our products are used. These updates could directly impact the demand for our products. See “Risk Factors — Risks Related to Government Regulation — Healthcare policy changes, including recently enacted legislation reforming the U.S. healthcare system, could harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.”

We believe the overall escalating cost of medical products and services being paid for by the government and private health insurance has led to, and will continue to lead to, increased pressures on the healthcare and medical device industry to reduce the costs of products and services. Third-party payors are developing increasingly sophisticated methods of controlling healthcare costs through prospective reimbursement and capitation programs, group purchasing, redesign of benefits, and exploration of more cost-effective methods of delivering healthcare. In the United States, some insured individuals enroll in managed care programs, which monitor and often require pre-approval of the services that a member will receive. Some managed-care programs pay their providers on a per capita (patient) basis, which puts the providers at financial risk for the services provided to their patients by paying these providers a predetermined payment per member per month and, consequently, may limit the willingness of these providers to use our products. It is possible that third-party payor coding, coverage and reimbursement policies will affect the need or prices for our products in the future, which could significantly affect our financial performance and our ability to conduct our business.

In international markets, reimbursement and healthcare payment systems vary significantly by country, and many countries have instituted price ceilings on specific product lines and procedures. EU member states and UK impose controls on whether products are reimbursable by national or regional health service providers and on the prices at which devices are reimbursed under state-run healthcare schemes. More and more, local, product specific reimbursement law is applied as an overlay to medical device regulation, which has provided an additional layer of clearance requirement.

104

Table of Contents

Healthcare Reform

The United States government has enacted a number of legislative and regulatory proposals to change the healthcare system in ways that could affect our ability to sell our 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 our product candidates, if cleared or approved, and the procedures associated with the use of such 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 products.

The implementation of the Affordable Care Act, or ACA, 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. The ACA, among other things, provided incentives to programs that increase the federal government’s comparative effectiveness research and implemented payment system reforms including national pilot program on payment bundling to encourage hospitals, physicians and other providers to improve the coordination, quality and efficiency of certain healthcare services through bundled payment models. Additionally, the ACA expanded eligibility criteria for Medicaid programs and created a new Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to oversee, identify priorities in, and conduct comparative clinical effectiveness research, along with funding for such research.

Since its enactment, there have been judicial, executive and political challenges to certain aspects of the ACA. On June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the most recent judicial challenge to the ACA without specifically ruling on the constitutionality of the ACA. Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision, President Biden issued an executive order to initiate a special enrollment period from February 15, 2021 through August 15, 2021 for purposes of obtaining health insurance coverage through the ACA marketplace. The executive order also instructed certain governmental agencies to review and reconsider their existing policies and rules that limit access to healthcare, including among others, reexamining Medicaid demonstration projects and waiver programs that include work requirements, and policies that create unnecessary barriers to obtaining access to health insurance coverage through Medicaid or the ACA. It is unclear how other healthcare reform measures of the Biden administration will impact our business.

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted. For example, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to providers by 2% per fiscal year, effective on April 1, 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, will remain in effect through 2030, with the exception of a temporary suspension from May 1, 2020 through March 31, 2022 and a 1% reduction from April 1, 2022 through June 30, 2022, unless additional Congressional action is taken. Additionally, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, among other things, further reduced Medicare payments to several providers, including hospitals, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years.

We expect additional state, federal and foreign healthcare reform measures to be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for our products or additional pricing pressure.

For instance, in December 2021, the EU Regulation No 2021/2282 on Health Technology Assessment, or HTA, amending Directive 2011/24/EU, was adopted. This regulation which entered into force in January 2022 intends to boost cooperation among EU member states in assessing health technologies, including some medical devices, and providing the basis for cooperation at the EU level for joint clinical assessments in these areas. The regulation foresees a three-year transitional period and will permit EU member states to use common HTA tools, methodologies, and procedures across the EU, working together in four main areas, including joint clinical assessment of the innovative health technologies with the most potential impact for patients, joint scientific consultations whereby developers can seek advice from HTA authorities, identification of emerging health technologies to identify promising technologies early, and continuing voluntary cooperation in other areas. Individual EU member states will continue to be responsible for assessing non-clinical (e.g., economic, social, ethical) aspects of health technologies, and making decisions on pricing and reimbursement.

Data Privacy and Security Laws

Numerous state, federal and foreign laws, including consumer protection laws and regulations, govern the collection, dissemination, use, access to, confidentiality, and security of personal information, including health- related information. In the United

105

Table of Contents

States, numerous federal and state laws and regulations, including data breach notification laws, health information privacy and security laws and federal and state consumer protection laws and regulations (e.g., Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act) that govern the collection, use, disclosure, and protection of health-related and other personal information could apply to our operations or the operations of our partners. In addition, certain state and non-U.S. laws govern the privacy and security of personal information, including health-related information in certain circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and may not have the same effect, thus complicating compliance efforts. Failure to comply with these laws, where applicable, can result in the imposition of significant civil and/or criminal penalties and private litigation. Privacy and security laws, regulations, and other obligations are constantly evolving, may conflict with each other to make compliance efforts more challenging, and can result in investigations, proceedings, or actions that lead to significant penalties and restrictions on data processing.

Alpha Tau Medical Ltd. was incorporated in 2015 under the Israel Companies Law of the State of Israel and commenced operations on that date.

We have four wholly-owned subsidiaries: Alpha Tau Medical, Inc. and HCCC, each of which is incorporated in the United States, Alpha Tau Medical Canada, which is incorporated under the laws of Canada, and Alpha Tau Medical KK, which is incorporated under the laws of Japan.

Our principal facilities are located in Jerusalem, Israel and consist of approximately 2,000 square meters (approximately 22,000 square feet) of leased office space and a manufacturing facility. These facilities currently accommodate our principal executive offices, research and development, account management, marketing, design, business development, finance, and other administrative activities. Of our total 88 employees as of December 31, 2021, 82 are located in Israel. The lease for these facilities expires in May 2035.

As of December 31, 2021, we also lease offices in Lawrence, MA, USA and Togane, Japan. We believe that our facilities are adequate to meet our needs for the immediate future, and that, should it be needed, suitable additional space will be available to accommodate any such expansion of our operations. We are currently constructing our own radioactive pre-clinical laboratory at our headquarters in Jerusalem, Israel to further enhance our capabilities of exploring potential combination therapies with Alpha DaRT.

106

Table of Contents

benefit, the traditional shortcomings of alpha radiation’s limited range. We believe that our Alpha DaRT technology has the potential to be broadly applicable across multiple targets and tumor types.

We evaluated the feasibility, safety and efficacy of the Alpha DaRT technology in a first-in-human study of locally advanced and recurrent squamous cell carcinoma, or SCC, cancers of the skin and head and neck. Efficacy was evaluated in 28 tumors, and results showed that Alpha DaRT achieved 100% overall response rate and over 78% complete response rate. The Alpha DaRT was generally well-tolerated, with limited local toxicity and no systemic toxicity. On the basis of this clinical trial as well as some of our further clinical trials, we received marketing approval in Israel for the treatment of SCC of the skin or oral cavity using the Alpha DaRT in August 2020. In June 2021, the FDA granted the Alpha DaRT Breakthrough Device Designation for the treatment of patients with SCC of the skin or oral cavity without curative standard of care. In October 2021, the FDA granted the Alpha DaRT a second Breakthrough Device Designation, in treating recurrent Glioblastoma Multiforme, or GBM, as an adjunct to standard medical therapies or as a standalone therapy after standard medical therapies have been exhausted. If approved, we expect to commercialize our Alpha DaRT technology first in the United States before other markets, including Israel, notwithstanding our existing marketing authorization in Israel (under which we have not yet commercialized the product). To support our U.S. strategy, we are conducting a multi-center pilot feasibility trial to explore the feasibility of delivering radiotherapy for malignant skin and superficial soft tissue tumors using Alpha DaRT at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and up to five other clinical sites around the United States. All ten patients in this trial were treated in the second half of 2021. The study met its primary feasibility endpoint, as all patients had successful delivery of radiation by Alpha DaRT. At approximately 12 weeks, all ten lesions treated demonstrated a complete response to the treatment, with no product-related serious adverse events observed. We hold exclusive rights to our proprietary Alpha DaRT technology in our core markets, including the United States and Europe.

While local radiation therapy has been a mainstay of cancer therapy for years, it has been mostly limited to modalities utilizing beta or gamma emissions, which primarily destroy cells through an indirect mechanism relying on oxygen and the generation of free radicals to cause single-strand DNA breaks. By contrast, alpha radiation has hundreds of times the linear energy transfer rate of beta-emitters. Additionally, alpha particles’ heavier mass and far shorter particle paths (less than 100 µm) relative to beta’s lighter mass and lengthier (up to 12 mm) path, have been shown to destroy radioresistant cells in clinical studies – causing multiple, irreparable, double-strand DNA breaks and other cellular damage upon direct impact – within a very short distance.

Accordingly, we believe that alpha radiation has several significant potential advantages for use in cancer radiotherapy, including a high relative biological efficiency (potentially enabling it to destroy tumor cells with administration of lower levels of radiation), imperviousness to factors such as hypoxia, and a very well-defined range of travel with limited collateral damage. Nonetheless, its use has also been limited precisely due to alpha’s extremely short particle range in living tissue, as the range of less than 100 µm is insufficient to provide meaningful clinical utility. The Alpha DaRT technology employs a series of radioactive sources that are embedded with Radium-224 to enable a controlled, intratumoral, release of alpha-emitting atoms which diffuse and decay throughout the tumor, seeking to kill cancerous cells with localized precision, while penetrating deeper into the tumor than can otherwise be reached by the limited ranges of the alpha particles themselves. Due to the inherent limited range of the alpha particles, we believe that the Alpha DaRT technology has the potential to deliver powerful and localized precise killing impact to the tumor without damage to surrounding healthy tissue. By combining the size and potency of alpha particles in a single-use disposable form, we believe that the Alpha DaRT may offer potent local radiation to tumors that have otherwise demonstrated poor response to radiation therapy or other standards of care, with the potential to apply to a wide range of tumors and clinical settings.

We were incorporated in Israel in 2015 and our headquarters is located in Jerusalem, Israel. Our operations to date have been limited to organizing and staffing our company, business planning, raising capital, developing our technology, acquiring and building our intellectual property portfolio and conducting research and development activities, including pre-clinical studies and clinical trials, for our Alpha DaRT technology. We do not have any products approved for sale in the United States and have not generated any revenue from product sales. To date, we have funded our operations primarily through private placements of ordinary and convertible preferred shares and funding from government contracts. From inception through December 31, 2021, we have raised an aggregate of $77,020 to fund our operations, of which $57,911 were gross proceeds from sales of our convertible preferred shares, $14,069 were gross proceeds from the issuance of ordinary shares and $5,040 were gross proceeds from government grants. In addition, upon consummation of the Business Combination on March 7, 2022 as discussed further below, we raised $90,872 of further gross proceeds from the associated transactions.

We have incurred significant net operating losses in every year since our inception and expect to continue to incur significant expenses and increasing operating losses for the foreseeable future. Our net losses may fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter and year to year and could be substantial. Our net losses were $8,367, $8,882 and $27,271 for the year ended December 31, 2019,

107

Table of Contents

December 31, 2020 and December 31, 2021, respectively. As of December 31, 2021, we had an accumulated deficit of $52,840. We anticipate that our expenses will increase significantly as we:

We do not expect to generate revenue from product sales unless and until we successfully complete clinical development and obtain further regulatory approvals for our Alpha DaRT technology. If we obtain regulatory approval for our Alpha DaRT technology or any other product candidates, we expect to incur significant commercialization expenses related to product sales, marketing, manufacturing and distribution. Furthermore, commencing upon the closing of the Business Combination, we expect to incur additional costs associated with operating as a public company. As a result, we will need substantial additional funding to support our continuing operations and pursue our growth strategy. Until such time as we can generate significant revenue from product sales, if ever, we expect to fund our operations through public or private equity or debt financings or other sources, including strategic collaborations. We may, however, be unable to raise additional funds or enter into such other arrangements when needed on favorable terms or at all. Our failure to raise capital or enter into such other arrangements as and when needed would have a negative impact on our financial condition and our ability to develop our current product candidates, or any additional product candidates, if developed.

Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with therapeutics product development, we are unable to accurately predict the timing or amount of increased expenses or when or if we will be able to achieve or maintain profitability. Even if we are able to generate revenue from product sales, we may not become profitable. If we fail to become profitable or are unable to sustain profitability on a continuing basis, then we may be unable to continue our operations at planned levels and be forced to reduce or terminate our operations.

As of December 31, 2021, we had cash and cash equivalents, restricted cash and short-term deposits totaling $31,934. We believe that the proceeds we received from the Business Combination and PIPE Investment, together with our existing cash and cash equivalents, will enable us to fund our operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements for at least two years. We have based these estimates on assumptions that may prove to be imprecise, and we may use our available capital resources sooner than we currently expect. See “Liquidity and Capital Resources.” Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with the development of our Alpha DaRT technology and any future product candidates, and because the extent to which we may enter into collaborations with third parties for product development is unknown, we are unable to estimate the amounts of increased capital outlays and operating expenses associated with completing the research and development of our Alpha DaRT technology or any future potential product candidates.

108

Table of Contents

If we raise additional funds through collaborations, strategic alliances, or licensing arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our technologies, future revenue streams, research programs or product candidates or grant licenses on terms that may not be favorable to us. If we are unable to raise additional funds through equity or debt financings when needed, we may be required to delay, limit, reduce, or terminate our product development programs or any future commercialization efforts or grant rights to develop and market product candidates that we would otherwise prefer to develop and market ourselves.

Business Combination

On July 7, 2021, the Company entered into the Merger Agreement with HCC and Merger Sub. Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub merged with and into HCC, with HCC surviving the merger. Upon consummation of the Business Combination and the other transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement on March 7, 2022, HCC became a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company.

Business effects of COVID-19

The current COVID-19 pandemic has presented a substantial public health and economic challenge around the world and is affecting our employees, patients, communities and business operations, as well as the U.S. economy and financial markets. To date, our financial conditions and own operations have not been significantly impacted by the COVID-19 outbreak; however, the full extent to which the COVID-19 pandemic will directly or indirectly impact our business, results of operations, liquidity and financial condition will depend on future developments, which are highly uncertain and cannot be accurately predicted, including new information that may emerge concerning COVID-19, the actions taken to contain it or treat its impact and the economic impact on local, regional, national and international markets. COVID-19 has resulted in a slowdown in recruitment of patients into certain of our clinical trials, particularly in North America, in part due to local restrictions or changes in practices at clinical sites during the pandemic. In other sites, the restrictions imposed by local COVID-19 regulations have required us to incur additional costs in treating patients due to the use of additional safety measures or scarcity of available hospital resources.

To date, our vendors have been able to continue to provide services and supply materials, and products and currently do not anticipate any disruption in services or interruptions in supply. However, we are continuing to assess the potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on our business and operations, including our expenses, and our ability to hire and retain employees.

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused us to modify our business practices (including but not limited to curtailing or modifying employee travel, moving to partial remote work, and cancelling physical participation in meetings, events and conferences), and we may take further actions as may be required by government authorities or that we determine are in the best interests of our employees, patients and business partners. The majority of our office-based employees have continued to work from the office without interruption during the pandemic, with certain adjustments as needed, such as division into capsules or installation of office dividers.

For additional information on the various risks posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, please read the section entitled “Risk Factors” in this Annual Report.

Basis of presentation

The Company’s financial statements are prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States, or U.S. GAAP. Unless otherwise indicated, all dollar amounts are presented in thousands.

Financial Operations Overview

Revenue

To date, we have not generated any revenue from product sales and do not expect to generate any revenue from the sale of products in the foreseeable future. If our development efforts for our Alpha DaRT technology or other product candidates are successful and result in further regulatory approvals and successful commercialization efforts, we may generate revenue in the future from product sales. We cannot predict if, when, or to what extent we will generate revenue from the commercialization and sale of our Alpha DaRT technology or any other product candidates. We may never succeed in obtaining further regulatory approvals for our Alpha DaRT technology or any of our other product candidates that we may develop in the future.

109

Table of Contents

Operating Expenses

Our operating expenses since inception have consisted solely of research and development costs, marketing expenses and general and administrative costs.

Research and development, net

Research and development, net consist primarily of costs incurred for our research activities, including the development of and pursuit of further regulatory approvals of our Alpha DaRT technology, which include:

We expense research and development costs as incurred.

Our external research and development expenses consist primarily of costs such as fees paid to consultants, contractors and CROs in connection with our preclinical and clinical development activities.

Because the bulk of our research and development expenses are for internal personnel or for manufacture of our Alpha DaRT for use across our clinical trials and pre-clinical studies, and the majority of our clinical trials and pre-clinical studies are led internally rather than using external CROs, we are unable to allocate our research and development expenses on a program-by-program basis.

Grants from the Israeli Innovation Authority (IIA) are offset against research and development costs at the later of when grant receipt is assured or the expenses are incurred.

Research and development activities are central to our business model. Product candidates in later stages of clinical development generally have higher development costs than those in earlier stages of clinical development, primarily due to the increased size and duration of later-stage clinical trials. We expect that our research and development expenses will continue to increase for the foreseeable future as we initiate additional clinical trials of our Alpha DaRT technology, scale our manufacturing processes, continue to discover and develop additional components to the Alpha DaRT platform or other product candidates, and hire additional clinical and scientific personnel.

The successful development of our Alpha DaRT technology and other potential future product candidates is highly uncertain. Accordingly, at this time, we cannot reasonably estimate or know the nature, timing and costs of the efforts that will be necessary to complete the development of these product candidates. We are also unable to predict when, if ever, we will generate revenue and material net cash inflows from the commercialization and sale of any of our product candidates for which we have obtained or may obtain marketing approval. We may never succeed in achieving further regulatory approvals for any of our product candidates. The

110

Table of Contents

duration, costs and timing of preclinical studies, clinical trials and development of our product candidates will depend on a variety of factors, including:

A change in the outcome of any of these variables with respect to the development, manufacture or commercialization enabling activities of any of our product candidates would significantly change the costs, timing and viability associated with the development of that product candidate. For example, if the FDA or another regulatory authority were to require us to conduct clinical trials beyond those that we anticipate will be required for the completion of clinical development of our Alpha DaRT technology and any potential future product candidate, or if we experience significant delays in our clinical trials due to patient enrollment or other reasons, we would be required to expend significant additional financial resources and time on the completion of clinical development.

Marketing expenses

Marketing expenses consist primarily of salaries and other related costs, including share-based compensation, for personnel in marketing functions. Marketing expenses also include direct and allocated facility-related costs as well as costs of participation in conferences and exhibitions, licenses for marketing software, production of videos and marketing materials, and external consulting on product marketing or reimbursement.

We expect that our marketing expenses will increase in the future to support continued marketing activities and potential commercialization of our Alpha DaRT technology and any potential future product candidate. These increases will likely include increased costs related to the hiring of additional personnel and fees to outside consultants, particularly if and when we initiate the hiring of a commercial team or increase our pre-launch commercial activities.

General and administrative expenses

General and administrative expenses consist primarily of salaries and other related costs, including share- based compensation, for personnel in executive, finance and administrative functions. General and administrative expenses also include direct and allocated

111

Table of Contents

facility-related costs as well as professional fees for legal, consulting, investor and public relations, accounting, auditing, tax services and insurance costs.

We expect that our general and administrative expenses will increase in the future to support continued research and development activities and potential commercialization of our Alpha DaRT technology and any potential future product candidate. These increases will likely include increased costs related to the hiring of additional personnel and fees to outside consultants, attorneys and accountants, among other expenses.

Additionally, we expect to incur increased expenses associated with being a public company, including costs of additional personnel, accounting, audit, legal, regulatory and tax-related services associated with maintaining compliance with exchange listing and Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC, requirements, director and officer insurance costs, and investor and public relations costs.

Financial (income) expenses, net

Financial (income) expenses, net, primarily consists of non-cash interest expense incurred on remeasurement of warrants, foreign currency transaction, bank charges and interest, and interest income earned on our cash and cash equivalents.

112

Table of Contents

Research and development, net

Research and development, net increased by $3,903 from $7,544 for the year ended December 31, 2020 to $11,447 for the year ended December 31, 2021. The increase in research and development expense was primarily attributable to increased employee compensation and benefits increased primarily as result of an increase in headcount, and additional payments to clinical sites owing to the use of the Alpha DaRT in a larger number of patients and clinical trials, but was also offset by an increase in government grants from the Israel Innovation Authority.

Marketing expenses

Marketing expense increased by $194 from $288 for the year ended December 31, 2020 to $482 for the year ended December 31, 2021. The increase in marketing expenses was primarily attributable to increased engagement with third-party advisors and a return of marketing and conference activity that had previously decreased in 2020 due to COVID-19.

General and administrative

General and administrative increased by $449 from $1,412 for the year ended December 31, 2020 to $1,861 for the year ended December 31, 2021.

The increase in general and administrative expenses was primarily attributable to increased employee compensation and benefits, primarily due to an increase in headcount and related expenses, increased office-related expenses resulting primarily from relocation of the Company’s offices to Jerusalem, and increased audit fees in connection with preparations for public listing.

Financial (income) expense, net

Financial expense, net increased $13,994 from $(520) for the year ended December 31, 2020 to $13,474 for the year ended December 31, 2021. The increase was primarily attributable to a remeasurement of warrants in the amount of $13,257, as well as changes in foreign exchange rates and a decrease in interest received from bank deposits.

Research and development, net

Research and development, net increased by $908 from $6,636 for the year ended December 31, 2019 to $7,544 for the year ended December 31, 2020. The increase in research and development expense was primarily attributable to increased employee compensation and benefits increased primarily as result of an increase in headcount, owing to the use of the Alpha DaRT in a larger

113

Table of Contents

number of patients and clinical trials, but was also offset by a decrease in travel expenses and an increase in government grants from the Israel Innovation Authority.

Marketing expenses

Marketing expense decreased by $109 from $397 for the year ended December 31, 2019 to $288 for the year ended December 31, 2020. The decrease in marketing expenses was primarily attributable to decreased participation in conferences and exhibitions and related expenses, due to the effects of COVID-19.

General and administrative

General and administrative increased by $435 from $977 for the year ended December 31, 2019 to $1,412 for the year ended December 31, 2020.

The increase in general and administrative expenses was primarily attributable to increased employee compensation and benefits, including share-based compensation, primarily due to an increase in headcount and related expenses, increased consulting and professional services primarily resulting from the growth in our general business operations.

Financial (income) expense, net

Financial (income) expense, net decreased by $828 from $308 for the year ended December 31, 2019 to $(520) for the year ended December 31, 2020. The decrease was primarily attributable to remeasurement of warrants, as well as a reduction in interest rate on our bank deposits and changes in foreign exchange rates.

114

Table of Contents

Net cash used in operating activities

The cash used in operating activities resulted primarily from our net losses adjusted for non-cash charges and changes in components of working capital. Net cash used in operating activities was $7,251 for the year ended December 31, 2020, compared to $11,812 for the year ended December 31, 2021. The increase of $4,561 was primarily attributable to an increase in net loss of $18,389, offset by an increase of $13,054 in the add-back of the change in fair value of warrants to convertible preferred shares.

Net cash used in operating activities was $6,910 for the year ended December 31, 2019, compared to $7,251 for the year ended December 31, 2020. The $341 increase in cash used in operating activities was primarily attributable to an increase in net loss of $418, offset by a decrease of $791 in the financial expenses related to remeasurement of warrants, and an increase of $963 in changes in the components of working capital, including a decrease in prepaid expenses and other receivables as compared to an increase in the year ended December 31, 2019, and larger increase in other payables and accrued expenses.

Net cash provided from/ used in investing activities

Net cash used in investing activities was $7,817 for the year ended December 31, 2020 compared to net cash provided by investing activities of $19,273 for the year ended December 31, 2021. The increase in cash provided from investing activities of $27,090 was primarily attributable to a $26,250 decrease in bank deposits.

Net cash used in investing activities was $10,163 for the year ended December 31, 2019 compared to $7,817 for the year ended December 31, 2020. The decrease in cash used for investing activities of $2,346 was primarily attributable to a $2,474 increase in purchases of property and equipment and a $4,820 decrease in deposits.

Net cash provided by financing activities

Net cash provided by financing activities was $29,317 for the year ended December 31, 2020 compared to $111 for the year ended December 31, 2021. The decrease of $29,206 was primarily attributable to the $28,726 of proceeds from the issuance of Series B Preferred Shares in the year ended December 31, 2020.

Net cash provided by financing activities was $5,323 for the year ended December 31, 2019 compared to $29,317 for the year ended December 31, 2020. The increase of $23,994 was primarily attributable to the $28,726 proceeds from the issuance of series B Preferred shares in the year ended December 31, 2020, as compared to the $5,250 of proceeds from the issuance ordinary shares in the year ended December 31, 2019.

Effect of exchange rate changes on cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash

The effect of exchange rate changes on cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash was an increase of $84 for the year ended December 31, 2020 compared to an increase of $108 for the year ended December 31, 2021. The increase of $24 was primarily attributable to changes in the exchange rate between the U.S. Dollar vs. the Israeli NIS.

The effect of exchange rate changes on cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash was a decrease of $18 for the year ended December 31, 2019 compared to an increase of $84 for the year ended December 31, 2020. The increase of $102 was primarily attributable to changes in the exchange rate between the U.S. Dollar vs. the Israeli NIS and the Euro.

Funding Requirements

We expect our expenses to increase in connection with our ongoing activities, particularly as we continue the research and development for, initiate later stage clinical trials for, and seek further marketing approvals for, our Alpha DaRT technology and other potential future product candidates. In addition, if we obtain further marketing approvals for our Alpha DaRT technology and other potential future product candidates, we expect to incur significant commercialization expenses related to product sales, marketing, manufacturing and distribution. Furthermore, upon the closing of the Business Combination, we expect to incur additional costs associated with operating as a public company. Accordingly, we will need to obtain substantial additional funding in connection with our continuing operations. If we are unable to raise capital when needed or on attractive terms, we would be forced to delay, reduce or eliminate our research and development programs or future commercialization efforts.

115

Table of Contents

We expect that the proceeds we received from the Business Combination and the PIPE Investment, together with our existing cash and cash equivalents will enable us to fund our operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements for at least two years. We have based this estimate on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we may use our available capital resources sooner than we currently expect. Our future capital requirements will depend on many factors, including:

Identifying potential product candidates and conducting preclinical testing and clinical trials is a time- consuming, expensive and uncertain process that takes years to complete, and we may never generate the necessary data or results required to obtain further marketing approvals and achieve product sales. In addition, our Alpha DaRT technology and other potential future product candidates, if further approved, may not achieve commercial success. Our commercial revenues, if any, will be derived from sales of products that we do not expect to be commercially available for many years, if at all. Accordingly, we will need to continue to rely on additional financing to achieve our business objectives. Adequate additional financing may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all.

Until such time, if ever, as we can generate substantial product revenues, we expect to finance our cash needs through a combination of equity offerings, debt financings, collaborations, strategic alliances and licensing arrangements. We do not have any committed external source of funds. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, your ownership interests may be diluted, and the terms of these securities may include liquidation or other preferences that could adversely affect your rights as a shareholder. Any debt financing, if available, may involve agreements that include restrictive covenants that limit our ability to take specific actions, such as incurring additional debt, making capital expenditures or declaring dividends, that could adversely impact our ability to conduct our business.

116

Table of Contents

If we raise funds through collaborations, strategic alliances or licensing arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our technologies, future revenue streams, research programs or product candidates or to grant licenses on terms that may not be favorable to us. If we are unable to raise additional funds through equity or debt financings when needed, we may be required to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our product development or future commercialization efforts or grant rights to develop and market product candidates that we would otherwise prefer to develop and market ourselves.

We occasionally enter into ordinary course agreements with CROs for clinical trials, third party manufacturers of certain components, professional consultants for expert advice and other vendors for other services for operating purposes. We have not included these payments in the table of contractual obligations above since the contracts do not contain any minimum purchase commitments and are cancelable at any time by us, generally upon 30 days prior written notice and therefore we believe that our non-cancelable obligations under these agreements are not material.

We are also obligated to make royalty payments in certain circumstances. We have received royalty-bearing grants from the IIA to finance our research and development programs in Israel, through which we received IIA participation payments in the aggregate amount of $4,065 through December 31, 2021. In return, we committed to pay IIA royalties at a rate of 3-3.5% of future sales of the developed products, up to 100% of the amount of grants received plus interest at LIBOR rate. Through December 31, 2021, no royalties have been paid or accrued. In addition, in connection with acquiring certain intellectual property from Althera Medical (“Althera”), our predecessor, we assumed all of Althera’s liabilities towards the IIA totaling $474 of royalty-bearing grants received by Althera (plus accrued interest at LIBOR rate). The Company’s liability to the IIA at December 31, 2021, including royalty-bearing grants received by the Company, grants assumed from Althera and the associated LIBOR interest accrued on all such grants, totaled $5,061. In addition, through December 31, 2021, we received IIA participation payments in the aggregate amount of $975 under non-royalty-bearing programs from the IIA. This includes an advance payment of $242 received in December 2021 toward such a non-royalty-bearing grant program, which is effective from December 1, 2021. This amount is presented as an accrued expense at December 31, 2021. Additionally, we also agreed to pay Althera 2% (subject to certain adjustments), from sales derived from the purchased intellectual property, up to a maximum amount of $1,500 (plus VAT), in the aggregate.

In connection with ongoing research and development activities and acquiring certain intellectual property from Ramot at Tel Aviv University Ltd., the technology transfer company of Tel Aviv University, we agreed to pay a 2.5% royalty on net sales of our alpha radiation products and a 7% royalty on any royalties or revenues from licensing such products. We also agreed to grant to HekaBio K.K. options to acquire 271,588 of Alpha Tau ordinary shares at a price of $4.42 each and to pay HekaBio K.K. a royalty of 3.5% of the reimbursement price and 10% of distribution receipts in Japan if HekaBio K.K. successfully assists us in obtaining regulatory marketing approval of the Alpha DaRT in Japan.

As part of our ongoing research and development activities with BGN Technologies, the technology transfer company of Ben Gurion University (“BGN”), we agreed to pay BGN a 0.75% royalty on all sales of our alpha radiation products and a 1.5% royalty on sales of any products that contain intellectual property owned by Ben Gurion University, net of certain deductions. We also agreed to pay BGN 4% of certain license revenues that relate to jointly developed intellectual property, and 8% of license revenues that relate to intellectual property developed solely by Ben Gurion University. We will wholly own any intellectual property that is developed jointly with Ben Gurion University.

As part of our clinical trial agreement with Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, we agreed to pay Cambridge 5% of any marginal increase in our net sales generated on account of any patent or patent claim granted from the research performed in such trial and 2% of our net sales received for the treatment of Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the vulva.

117

Table of Contents

Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements

We did not have during the periods presented, and we do not currently have, any off-balance sheet arrangements, as defined under applicable SEC rules.

118

Table of Contents

E.Critical Accounting Estimates

Recently Issued and Adopted Accounting Pronouncements

A description of recently issued accounting pronouncements that may potentially impact our financial position, results of operations or cash flows is disclosed in Note 2 to our audited consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this Annual Report.

Critical Accounting Policies and Use of Estimates

Our management’s discussion and analysis of financial condition and results of operations is based on our consolidated financial statements, which have been prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP. The preparation of these financial statements requires us to make estimates and judgments that affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities and expenses and the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities in our consolidated financial statements during the reporting periods. These items are monitored and analyzed by us for changes in facts and circumstances, and material changes in these estimates could occur in the future. We base our estimates on historical experience, known trends and events, and on various other factors that we believe are reasonable under the circumstances, the results of which form the basis for making judgments about the carrying value of assets and liabilities that are not readily apparent from other sources. Changes in estimates are reflected in reported results for the period in which they become known. Actual results may differ materially from these estimates under different assumptions or conditions.

While our significant accounting policies are described in more detail in the notes to our consolidated financial statements appearing elsewhere in this Annual Report, we believe the following accounting policies used in the preparation of our consolidated financial statements require the most significant judgments and estimates.

Share-Based Compensation

We apply the fair value recognition provisions of ASC 718, Compensation—Stock Compensation, or ASC 718, for share-based awards granted to employees and directors for their services on the board of directors. Determining the amount of share-based compensation to be recorded requires us to develop estimates of the fair value of share options as of their grant date. We estimate the fair value of each share option grant using the Black-Scholes option-pricing model. Calculating the fair value of share-based awards requires that we make subjective assumptions.

Pursuant to ASC 718, we measure share-based awards granted to employees and members of the board of directors at fair value on the date of grant and recognize the corresponding share-based compensation expense of those awards on a straight-line basis over the requisite service period, which is generally the vesting period of the respective award. We have historically granted share options with exercise prices equivalent to or higher than the fair value of Alpha Tau ordinary shares as of the date of grant.

For awards with no performance conditions, the Company recognizes the related share-based compensation expense on a straight-line basis over the requisite service period of the awards, including awards with graded vesting. For awards with performance conditions the share-based compensation expense is recognized if and when the Company concludes that it is probable that the performance condition will be achieved and where the performance condition awards include graded vesting, the share-based compensation expense is recognized based on the accelerated method. The Company reassesses the probability of vesting at each reporting period for awards with performance conditions and adjusts compensation cost based on its probability assessment.

We account for share-based awards to non-employees in accordance with ASU No. 2018-07, Compensation-Stock Compensation (Topic 718): Improvements to Nonemployee Share-Based Payment Accounting, or ASU No. 2018-07, which simplifies the accounting for share-based payments granted to nonemployees for goods and services and aligns most of the guidance on such payments to the nonemployees with the requirements for share-based payments granted to employees.

The Black-Scholes option-pricing model uses the following inputs: the fair value of Alpha Tau ordinary shares, the expected volatility of Alpha Tau ordinary shares, the expected term of our share options, the risk-free interest rate for a period that approximates the expected term of our share options and our expected dividend yield. Due to the lack of a public market for Alpha Tau ordinary shares and a lack of company-specific historical and implied volatility data, we have based our computation of expected volatility on the historical volatility of a representative group of public companies with similar characteristics to us, including stage of product development, life science industry focus, length of trading history and similar vesting provisions. The historical volatility data

119

Table of Contents

is calculated based on a period of time commensurate with the expected term assumption. We will continue to apply this process until a sufficient amount of historical information regarding the volatility of our own share price becomes available or until circumstances change, such that the identified entities are no longer representative companies. In the latter case, more suitable, similar entities whose share prices are publicly available would be utilized in the calculation. We use the simplified method as prescribed by the SEC Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 107, Share-Based Payment, to calculate the expected term for options granted to employees as we do not have sufficient historical exercise data to provide a reasonable basis upon which to estimate the expected term. Under this approach, the weighted-average expected option term is presumed to be the average of the contractual term (ten years) and the vesting term (generally four years) of our share options. We utilize this method due to lack of historical exercise data and the “plain-vanilla” nature of our share-based awards. The expected term is applied to the share option grant group as a whole, as we do not expect substantially different exercise or post-vesting termination behavior among our employee population. The risk- free interest rate is based on a treasury instrument whose term is consistent with the expected term of the share options. The expected dividend yield is assumed to be zero as we have never paid cash dividends and have no current plans to pay any cash dividends on Alpha Tau ordinary shares.

Valuation of Our Ordinary Shares

The fair value of the ordinary shares underlying our option awards was determined by our board of directors, with input from management. We believe that our board of directors has the relevant experience and expertise to determine the fair value of our ordinary share as of each respective grant date. The valuations of Alpha Tau ordinary shares were determined in accordance with the guidelines outlined in the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants Practice Aid, Valuation of Privately-Held-Company Equity Securities Issued as Compensation, or the AICPA Practice Aid. The assumptions used in the valuation model are based on future expectations combined with management judgment. Our board of directors, with input from management, exercised significant judgment and considered numerous objective and subjective factors to determine the fair value of Alpha Tau ordinary shares as of the date of each option grant, including the following factors:

In the event of a qualified initial public offering, our preferred shares would convert into ordinary shares (on a one-for-one basis for our Preferred B shares, and a 1.07-to-one basis for our Preferred A shares), and accordingly would receive a pro rata amount of proceeds per share vs. ordinary shares. In the case of a sale or liquidation of the Company, the preferred shares would receive their liquidation preferences and thereafter a fraction in the remaining proceeds with the ordinary shares on a pro-rata basis. Accordingly, we determined the fair value of Alpha Tau ordinary shares in a hybrid model method utilizing two scenarios of OPM and public market offering (i.e., initial public offering or SPAC merger), and applying a weighted average of these values based on their relative probabilities in order to calculate the final per share value.

120

Table of Contents

We then allocated the value between all elements of our securities (preferred shares, ordinary shares, warrants for preferred shares and options for ordinary shares) using the option pricing model (“OPM”), on the assumption that our preferred shares will benefit from their liquidation preference, as follows:

In making the final determination, we also applied a discount for lack of marketability right, as applicable, to Alpha Tau ordinary shares.

We believe we applied a reasonable valuation method to determine the share option exercise prices on the respective share option grant dates. A combination of factors led to changes in the fair value of Alpha Tau ordinary shares.

Accounting Treatment of the Convertible Preferred Shares

Our preferred shares are considered a “freestanding financial instrument” pursuant to ASC 480 “Distinguishing Liabilities from Equity” and are redeemable in a deemed liquidation event, which is not under our control; thus, we classified the shares outside permanent equity pursuant to ASC 480-10-S99. As of December 31, 2019, 2020 and 2021, we did not adjust the carrying values of the shares to the deemed liquidation values of such shares since a deemed liquidation event was not probable.

Warrants to Purchase Convertible Preferred Shares

Warrants to purchase our convertible preferred shares are considered a “freestanding financial instrument” pursuant to ASC 480. Our warrants were classified as a liability on the balance sheet initially, and subsequently measured at fair value through earnings, as the underlying shares are contingently redeemable (upon a deemed liquidation event, which is not under our control) and, therefore, embody an obligation that is indexed to an obligation to repurchase our shares by transferring assets. The change in fair value of our warrants is recognized as a component of financial expenses (income), net, in the statements of operation.

Our board of directors calculates the fair value of the warrants on the issuance date and on subsequent reporting dates, considering among other things, a third-party valuation. We first calculated the underlying preferred share value by using the income approach and the market approach. Then the equity value was allocated by using the hybrid model method utilizing two scenarios of OPM and initial public offering. Once the preferred shares value was derived from the two scenarios, the Black-Scholes model was utilized to

121

Table of Contents

calculate the warrants value in each one of the scenarios. Then, probability for each one of the scenarios was applied by the Company to derive the weighted average fair value of the warrants.

​